The real scam & the scammers - Rev. J.T. Smith

Recently, I've come across two opinion pieces included in the daily AlterNet Top Stories  newsletter in my email that I'm subscribed to. The author of the pieces, John Stoehr, is of the opinion that third party Presidential candidates are all scammers because all third parties are a scam.

He didn't drink the Kool-aid.  Clearly, he guzzled and gargled with it.  He also assumes the only people who are attracted to third party candidates are those who solely vote during Presidential elections and take no other particular part in politics.  He claims those third parties are full of false promises, are in a sense demagogic, and are anti-democratic as a result.

Strange.  Every year, I see a smattering of third party candidates for positions up and down the ballot.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Bernie Sanders is not only currently a United States Senator representing Vermont, but he is also an Independent.  Strange.  (Obviously Sanders switched to the Democratic party from 2015 - 2016 and 2019 - 2020 in his run to be President, but the fact remains that he is now, once again, an Independent.  See my previous entries about his running as a Democrat.)

As a matter of fact, there are currently four Independent Senators: Bernie Sanders (VT) (2007 - present); Angus S. King Jr (ME) (2013 - present); Kyrsten Sienna (AZ) (2013 - present); and Joe Manchin  III (WV) (2013 - present).  And they are not the only Senators in American history that belonged to "Third or Minor Parties."  While there are no members of the House Of Representatives belonging to third or minor parties as of the writing of entry, there have still been many examples throughout American history.  To be fair, not all of those third and minority party members were originally elected as a third or minor party member.  Some changed parties and were still reelected, and some like Bernie Sanders were elected as a member of a third or minor party member.  And those examples are strictly referring to the federal government.  There are still more throughout state and local governments as well.

So while third party candidates are rare enough masse in American politics, they can and do still win.  And in winning they adjust the course of politics.

As I have noted previously, the corporate duopoly of American politics is the problem.  Alright,  technically it is a problem.  The two bigger problems which combine with the corporate duopoly are the real overall problem.  What are the two bigger problems?

First is the Electoral College.  I've already spoken about that travesty in previous entries.  The other relates to Duverger's law in political science.  America is a political system with single member districts, which means each district is represented by a single officeholder.  In contrast, systems with proportional representation usually have more representatives of minor parties in government.

Considering that America started with zero political parties, which George Washington would refer to factions and in fact Washington was strongly against because he felt that unity rather than division was necessary for a democratic republic to survive.

Ultimately the only reason third parties have yet to break through that wall is because enough people buy the lie that the only viable parties are the corporate duopoly, and fools like John Stoehr who think that we must do everything to make changes while maintaining that duopoly.

My father was a member of the Libertarian party.  His father wanted to name him Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but didn't know how to spell Delano.  My father, for reasons I neither understood nor really discussed with him, hated Roosevelt.  That was my personal introduction to politics aside from what was loosely taught in school.  Frankly I had no interest as it all stank of bovine defacation and held less than no interest in it for me.  Especially considering the President is not elected by the majority of Americans due to the Electoral College.

In November 2000, I wasn't registered to vote.  My personal take was that my vote doesn't count, and I pointed to the Presidential election as the prime reason for concluding that.  For clarification, in 2000 I was residing in Pennsylvania, a state that Al Gore, whom I would have voted for had I been registered to vote, won handily even without my vote.  Not only did Gore win Pennsylvania, he also won the Popular Vote.  We all know how that played out.

My first actual real involvement of any political kind was to add my voice to the chorus who stood against AT&T's intended buyout of T-Mobile as I was and am a T-Mobile customer and I don't want to be ripped off any more than I have to be.  And AT&T wants to charge me more for the same services I currently pay less for with T-Mobile.  I made calls and wrote letters to my local/federal government and signed every petition I could find to end that "merger".  When I learned the part those calls, letters, and petitions ultimately played , I started signing petitions and writing letters to elected officials involving the environment, ending the death penalty, government issues, and far more.  Feel free to check out my Pinterest page for a better understanding of where I stand.

I didn't get properly involved in "local politics" (which is how I see all human politics regardless of nationality) until 2012 when I registered to vote for the first time and I voted for Barack Obama because I saw the Mitt Romney's vision regarding women as a direct threat to all of my female friends, and who make up the majority of my friends.

While I have no interest nor intention of running for political office myself, my political activities haven't slowed.  Frankly, I loathe politics in general.  Unfortunately, I have to get involved to try to make change. 

As of January this year, the number of registered independent voters surpassed the number of registered Democrats and Republican voters.  Frankly, take that as a good sign. 

On a personal note, while I am registered as an independent, and with the exception of the times I briefly changed to Democrat simply to vote for Bernie Sanders in both the 2016 and 2020 primaries, and while I lean Democrat, I more closely align with the Green Party and the Working Families Party.  And for over a year now the Green Party is an official party that you can register to vote as in the state that I currently live in.

The movement to eliminate the Electoral College is growing.  Fighting the corporate stranglehold on American politics is ongoing.  If history teaches us anything, it is it can be done. Hopefully without a relative replay of the French Revolution.  Eliminating those will definitely help to allow third parties to be able to end the duopoly.  As will getting people to wake up to the fact that people should vote their conscience even when it's a third party candidate that most aligns with your conscience.

Voting for third parties is not a scam.  The scam is believing the only viable options are sticking with the corporate duopoly.

 

- Rev. J.T. Smith

 

 

Self Checkout Is An Utter Ripoff - Rev. J.T. Smith

 

 

It does not matter whether it's at Walmart, Target, your local grocer, or your local convenience store.  In every instance, self-checkout is a function of a corporation to literally slave your labour.

Every price on every product in every store covers more than merely replacing that product on the shelf for the next customer.  Obviously a portion of that price does pay for the store restocking that product and another portion is the profit for the store/corporation, but there's still paying the utilities (electric, telephones, heat, etc.) and the payroll for all the employees.  Including cashiers.

Earlier I referred to "slav[ing] your labour."  When you choose self-checkout, you are literally doing the job of one of the employees, specifically the cashier, and you are not being paid for it.  Not even a small discount for doing the job.  The corporation that own the store is making even more money off you as they get the profit(s) from the product(s) you are purchasing and they are not having to pay the expense of the payroll for the employee whose job you are doing for free.

Let's put this in perspective.

Regardless of where you work, what field you work in, or who you work for, the "company" [small company or multinational corporation], you are dealing with customers.  Even if only indirectly.  Now imagine if a customer came to your workplace and started doing your job without pay.  Sounds great being able to go to work and someone else is doing your job for you, doesn't it?

Or would your automatic response be realization that if someone else is doing your job, then you no longer have a job.

That is what is happening in every store that has self-checkout.  Trafficking is a new word for the slave trade.  To my mind, self-checkout is little more than innocuous voluntary slave labour.  Why should any company bother with hiring employees when they can get their customers to pay the company to do the jobs of the employees?

 I will NEVER go through self-checkout with my order in any store!  Any store that completely switches completely to self-checkout rather than actually hire people will be automatically boycotted by me.  I do not care how much "faster" it is to just do it yourself using self-checkout, I am not going to participate in something that causes people to lose their livelihood.

The pandemic demonstrated just who the essential workers are.  Thanks to self-checkout, companies are working to eliminate their positions so that unpaid, let alone underpaid, people can do the work.  More money for the uber-rich and more unpaid labour for everyone else.

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Gun Rights And The Second Amendment, The Reality Behind The Arguments Ignore - Rev. J.T. Smith

Am I the only one who finds it outrageous that any member of the American military and police forces must be fully trained in how to use and store any weapon before they're ever issued that weapon, yet a civilian can just buy any weapon they want without ever being trained or demonstrating that they've been trained first?  Am I the only one who thinks that everyone in America who even wants to purchase or even use a gun must be fully trained in how to properly use and store that weapon first? 

First things first, the Second Amendment of the American Constitution:

It would help to no end if Americans, especially those members of the NRA and their sycophantic followers, would actually learn the most important and opening words of the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia".  Having enough money to pay for the gun and requisite ammunition as well as the patience to wait out any waiting period does NOT make a person a part of "a well regulated militia".

A bit of history which used to be taught in high school and probably still is but gets ignored or glossed over:

The United States began as the loose coalition of states, originally the 13 British colonies, that were brought together under the Constitution thus forming a central government that gave both unity and some cohesion to those states.  While there was a standing army (in this context, this term is simpler to use than "armed forces"), the Continental Army, that was controlled by the federal government, it was still necessary in time of war to augment it with militias that were formed, controlled, and maintained at the state level.  Militias were then what the National Guard is now.

This was the most expedient solution as those militias already existed and were the armed forces used to defeat the British army during the Revolutionary War.  What's more, it was believed that every able-bodied man (in this, yes, they were sexist) in a given age range as determined by the individual states would eventually serve in their local militia, and that they would maintain their own small arms equipment as needed.  Equipment that they would actually be trained thoroughly in how to properly use and maintain prior to being allowed to ever have such weapons.  Larger weapons, such as cannons and requisite ammunition, were stowed in the armoury when not in use.

It was specifically those very militias that are referenced in the Second Amendment.

[Related:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/06/its-time-democrats-stop-agreeing-second-amendment-protects-individuals-right-bear]

Next, guns themselves:
The sole purpose of a gun is to maim and/or kill at a distance quickly and efficiently.  Any argument of what physically does the killing demonstrates a distinct mental disconnect (not to mention a severe case of cranial-rectal inversion).

What's more, all a drawn gun demonstrates is two things:

First, whether it's drawn or holstered, empty or loaded, a gun simply demonstrates fear.  The fear felt by the person who's carrying and holding the gun.  This includes the American police and military.  Other nations (e.g. Great Britain) have police forces that are not constantly armed with a firearm and are further trained to do something Americans find unthinkable: they actually talk down the criminal with the gun and disarm them without firing a single shot or brandishing their own weapon.  They're not completely defenseless as they do have collapsible batons and tasers, but those are not their first used option.  Instead, they use a far more dangerous weapon: their BRAIN.

The second thing a drawn gun demonstrates is that you are immediately the prime target of anyone else with a loaded gun.  This obviously includes the police, who actually are properly trained in the proper use and storage of their weapons before they are ever issued their weapons.

I have an idea: Everyone in the NRA hierarchy and everyone who panders to them (including every politician who accepts any money from the NRA) should be shot, preferably embarrassingly and unexpectedly.  Note I said shot and not killed.  This way, they might learn from the experience.  Especially if it's done in such a way that even if they're armed themselves it wouldn't actually help them in the slightest.  Though I think the exercise would need to be repeated several times for each gun worshiper before they wake up to the outrageous danger their lust for guns puts everyone in.

Another suggestion would be to start heavily taxing ammunition.  People will definitely stop and think before firing a bullet that costs $1000 and can never be reused.

It is long past time that the carnage made so readily enacted by guns comes to an end.

by Rev. J.T. Smith 

"Earning" A Rebate? - Rev. J.T. Smith

 These days you'll see adverts like this from Rakuten 

 with taglines like: "Stores pay us. We pay you." (FYI, this is actually a rebate) or articles like this one titled "How I earned more than $2,500 using credit cards in 2020.  These cards helped me earn a 4.1% rate of return on spending last year" found on creditcards.com.  It has always bothered me when I see articles and adverts claiming people are getting paid and/or that they're "earning money" when in reality they're only getting a rebate.  

Please understand that I am not opposed to getting a rebate from a company or cash back from a credit card company per se, but claiming that I am being paid or have somehow earned that discount (especially in terms of a rebate) is very misleading.  Rebates are best recognized as large companies acknowledging that they are vastly over charging for their goods and/or services, and that cash back or points from credit card companies are simply another form of rebate that is simply processed from another source.

What's even worse is when companies tell you that the cost for something is $X without informing you that you get that price after a mail-in rebate.  Pep Boys pulled that one on me once when I was in need of an an oil change.  I was quoted $19.99 for the oil change when I called ahead to find out the price so that I could be certain I had enough money available to pay for it (I did not have any credit cards at all at the time and being a non-pizza food delivery driver my personal available cash on hand was typically tight).  It wasn't until my car was on the rack and the oil change was in progress that I spotted a sign informing me that the up front price for the oil change was $49.99, the $19.99 was after a $20 mail-in rebate.  I was lucky that I had just enough money to pay the bill but no ability to make change for my next delivery.  To add insult to injury, I never did receive the rebate.  Pep Boys will never again be allowed to work on any vehicle I own.

No one actually earns a rebate or the cash back that credit card customers can receive.  It is that belief that people are "being paid for shopping" that has allowed pyramid schemes like Amway to stay in business and that leads so many people to get into financial trouble with their credit cards!

Yes, you can get good discounts from credit cards and rebates, and you're better off if you can simultaneously stack those discounts for the same purchase.  I am not denying that fact.  But, let's call it what it really is: Cash back from credit cards are rebates, and any rebate is nothing more than a delayed discount that's saving you some money, but not a paycheque.

 - Rev. J.T. Smith

Major Problem With The Coronavirus Reporting - Rev. J.T. Smith

While there is no question that the COVID-19 coronavirus is a serious issue, the media have been exaggerating the problem.  Suspicion is not knowledge, and a presumptive case is not a confirmed case.

In Pennsylvania as of March 14, 2020, there are reported to be 41 cases of COVID-19, 35 presumptive positive cases and six confirmed. That is bad reporting as suspicion, regardless of the probability of accuracy, is still not knowledge.  Presumption is based on probability, and while something has a high probability of being the case it would be far better to stick with reporting only the confirmed cases.

Not only that, but pushing hand sanitizer, which while being antibacterial isn't effective against viral infections, is nothing more than a placebo that in the long run helps to create the superbugs that resist antibiotics due to overuse.

Obviously freedom of the press is important, and I am not suggesting otherwise; but, the government's reporting presumptive cases as actual cases is only serving to foment fear and panic.

What's more is the fact that the massive quarantine was never put in place to combat a frankly bigger threat to human health, even with the vaccine that's relatively readily available,  that has been well known for a long time now: Influenza.  Then again, humans panic so easily when confronted with a new unknown.

And while I am not prone to conspiracy theories in general, I have noticed that the quarantine measures now in place handily circumvent the First Amendment's protections ["Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"] and quash the myriad protests (e.g. protests against any/all of Trump's scandals, protests against the police, et al) that have been taking in America for the last three years and more.

The COVID-19 coronavirus issue has been blown vastly out of proportion in this country, allowing fear to take over from rational thought from the public and harming more people than merely those even potentially at risk from this virus.

Either way, it does help to show how much better Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All would be than what's currently available; but while Sanders' Medicare For All would help the medical system issues under the circumstances, it still leaves hourly workers, the unemployed, and small business owners high and dry if this situation lasts for too much longer.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

Daylight Saving Time - Rev. J.T. Smith

Once again we've gone through the twice-a-year time warp from the clocks throughout most of America being moved ahead an hour.  And once again there are numerous people complaining about the inconvenience.

Naturally, there's an accompanying push-back due to that inconvenience where people want only one time-set.  Truth be told,  I also wish the ritual was finally done away with; however, I disagree with anyone and everyone who wants to eliminate Daylight Savings Time [DST].  Their reasoning is that they don't want to lose that hour of sleep when the clocks jump forward, nor do they want to lose the extra hour of sleep when the clocks fall back.

Admittedly, I can empathize with that line of reasoning, but it's frankly shortsighted.

My preference, along with the preference of Benjamin Franklin, who initiated the concept of daylight savings time, would be to simply remain switched to daylight savings time.  Even with it being darker in the morning during DST.

Granted, if we followed the example of pre-Columbian Native Americans, then we might be happier in general as they never centered their lives around a mechanical device meant to measure the position of the Earth in relation to its relative position on its axis in relation to the sun.

But since we're so programmed to measure every second at a minimum, then I've always concluded that DST is preferable by far.  Ultimately, the length of time the sun shines in comparison to daylight and night time never actually changes, only our perception of it does.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

Vegans Really Need To Learn - Rev. J.T. Smith

The reality is that actual meat is NOT the problem.  Modern factory methods are the problem in terms of how farm animals are treated.  

It's important to remember than humans are biologically designed to consume and utilize animal protein, and thinking "protein is protein" is a mistake as there are significant differences between animal and plant proteins.  Humans need to stop trying to separate themselves from the rest of the natural flora and fauna of this planet!  Like bears, humans, are OMNIVOROUS!  For crying out loud, if we realize that the other fauna of Earth are also sentient, then we must accept and fully acknowledge that the bear knows the salmon is also sentient, yet the bear seems to have no issues eating the salmon when the opportunity arises.

And considering most of the alternatives to leather, etc, are in fact made of petroleum based products, you're trading one problem that you don't like to a bigger problem that you'd rather turn a blind eye to.

A much bigger and far more real problem is the massive overpopulation of humans on this tiny planet.

An aspect that so many people miss is that this planet is becoming ever more dangerously overpopulated with humans.  The REAL problem is the fact that this planet is not evolutionarily designed for the MASSIVE overpopulation of humans.  It took just 123 years for the human population to double from the first 1 billion in 1804 to 2 billion in 1927.  Then only 33 years to reach 3 billion.  In 47 years, the total population has more than doubled from 3+ Billion humans to 7+ Billion today.  The problem is NOT the people who eat meat but that humans breed nearly faster than unchecked rabbits.  Human breeding (not black, not Jewish, not Muslim, not [fill in the blank with ethnic group(s) of choice], but HUMAN breeding desperately needs to be slowed.  It is this overpopulation that ultimately causes all of the major fights over resources (e.g. fuel, potable water, etc), and is the root cause of climate change (that statement is in no way a defense of Big Oil or King Coal).  When the original texts of the Bible were written, particularly the bit about "be fruitful and multiply," human population worldwide on Earth only counted in the millions.  It was just over two centuries ago that humans crossed the 1 billion mark.  And the population has more than doubled in the last 50 YEARS.  Guess what: you've been very fruitful and multiplied like rabbits.  Now knock it off already!

And there's something else the high and mighty vegans constantly overlook in their deluded superiority - Veganism is in fact Not healthy for everyone. 

What about all of the plants every one of us murder every day?  What?  Just because they can't run, fly, or swim away and you can't hear their screams, it's alright to kill and mutilate them?  (Mowing the lawn and cutting shrubs into fanciful shapes is mutilation, even though they don't bleed!)  Thinking otherwise further proves you're faunacentric.


It wasn't long ago that it was generally accepted that non-human animals don't feel pain the way that humans do.  Now, it is becoming far more accepted that the inverse is true.  What's more, scientists are discovering that plants also form friendships and remember their experiences, that they really are asking asking for our help, and the evidence is growing that plants are also conscious.

Let's face it, Human "ethics" in terms of diet are an artificial construct born from humanity constantly trying to separate themselves from the rest of the flora and fauna of this planet.  If plants were able to fight back, humans would undoubtedly be at the top of their target list due to not only the ingestion of plants but also that humans are continuously cutting down living plants for everything from buildings and clothing all the way to topiary.

Just as there is a whole sexuality spectrum that we see and know clearly within the biological gender binary, there is also obviously a dietary spectrum to be found within the omnivorous binary that runs from herbivorous to carnivorous and everything in between; and trying to force people, even if only by social pressure, to become completely herbivorous is just as wrong as it is to put peer pressure on members of the LGBT community to be heterosexual.
 

- Rev. J.T. Smith

Dreaded Taxes [UPDATED] - by Rev. J.T. Smith

It's that season again: Tax season.  No one likes having to pay them.  And whenever we hear politicians promise to somehow cut or lower them, we instinctively love the idea.

Then again, we don't like having to pay for things like phone bills, car repairs, rent/mortgage, or any of the other bills that keep our needs met either.  Unfortunately, if you don't pay the phone bill, then no phone service for you.  Don't spend the money on the car repairs and maintenance?  Then you're out a working car.  (This becomes an even bigger issue if you live in a rural area with no available public transportation.)  Don't pay rent/mortgage?  Then you're either rich, living with very understanding friends/relatives, or you're homeless.

The problem is that the same concept also applies to taxes as they are in fact what pays for all of the services that are all too often taken for granted: Police/fire/emergency services, roads and their accouterments and maintenance, public schools, et al.  And the taxes are meant to ensure that all of us chip in, thus lowering the cost per individual.  As usual, we have politicians who are looking to privatize all those services in order to “lower taxes.”  The fact is that the wealthy want to lower their own taxes, at the expense of everyone else.  It's similar to the concept of “trickle-down economics.”  While it might sound good on the surface, the reality is quite different as history has demonstrated that those latter ideas simply don't work.  By privatizing what would otherwise be public services, we’re effectively paying more money for what amounts to less services as that is what allows the corporations to make more money, and the bottom line of profits will always matter far more to corporate America than people’s lives.  And the politicians who push for privatization are really in the pockets of those corporations and the exceptionally wealthy through the lobbyists who are metaphorically whispering in their ear.

This can be changed, it can be fixed.  Sadly, it won’t happen overnight; but, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.  We need people in every level of government who want and are willing to push for tax reforms that forces those who can afford it (e.g. earn/receive $300,000 per year or more) to pay more in taxes in that they have more available to pay, as opposed to always sticking the working poor with the bill as is done now.  Not only those wealthy people, but  corporations also need to pay their share.  “Each and every year, we lose $100 billion in revenue because large corporations and the wealthy are stashing their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens.  That has got to stop.” [Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)]  What's more, as Senator Sanders has also noted: “At a time when we now spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense, we can make judicious cuts in our armed forces without compromising our military capability.” 

Really, cutting America's military spending in half, which would still result in greater spending than the next top three countries combined, along with forcing corporations and the super-rich to pay their fair share of taxes including on all of the money they have tucked away in other countries, would easily cover the social safety net, the desperately needed infrastructure repairs, the salaries for emergency services, fully fund top notch public education as well as college tuition, and still have money available to lift everyone in this country out of poverty.

A very strong message that we must send to every level of government, especially to those politicians who constantly cry about government spending, is that the Government is not a for profit business but is rather a non-profit organization that is meant to serve ALL citizens regardless of age, biological gender, gender expression, transgender, skin colour, ethnic background, physical ability or disability, sexual orientation, or any other grouping of citizens we might think of that I've missed.

We can begin to bring about the changes needed by first making certain our voter registrations are up to date.  When election time comes around again (Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, etc., et. al.), we vote in those who would push for and through the above mentioned changes in taxation practices.  In the interim between voting cycles, we can still band together and push for change.  Join local activist groups or start your own.  Write letters to the editor, write and sign petitions.  And follow the advice of Hillary Clinton when she said at National Partnership's 2012 Annual Luncheon on June 26, 2012, “Get organized, get involved, and don't let anyone tell you it can't be done.”

 

by Rev. J.T. Smith

Hey Star Wars Fans, "Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy!" - A message from Rev. J.T. Smith

Everyone who's a fan of Star Wars knows the [in]famous quote from Han Solo about the Kessel Run:

And ever since everyone and their cousin harps about how a parsec is a measure of distance, not time,

And yet the die hard Star Wars fans completely miss the importance of a seemingly unrelated Han Solo quote:

This matters to the topic of the Kessel Run.  What apparently every astrophysicist fan of Star Wars has either failed to remember or failed to shout loud enough, is that is EVERY celestial body in the universe is in constant motion in relation to each other, and they're all in motion at different speeds thanks to their interconnected gravitational forces.  All of this combined makes for an ever changing maze of hazards.  A fact that was reflected in the entire quote:

Han Solo: "Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"

Traveling through hyperspace only LOOKS like they're traveling in a straight line.  In reality, it's more like the astrographic/gravitational equivalent of driving at high speeds along an American Interstate highway (ignoring the exit ramps, obviously) or the autobahn (same deal with the exit ramps).  The best navicomputer will calculate the shortest route because the shortest workable route will be the fastest route.

The above is especially true if every ship in Star Wars travels through hyperspace at the same speed.  If you notice, not once in the Star Wars movies is there a speed reference through hyperspace analogous to Star Trek's warp factor 1 - 9.99.

So yes, a parsec is a measure of distance and not time; but, if you realize that "as the bird flies" doesn't apply in interstellar travel then you'll realize that the shortest distance required to get from point A to point B means you'll make the trip in a shorter amount of time.

- Rev. J.T. Smith

America Does Have A Drug Problem, Just Not What Politicians Would Have You Believe - Rev. J.T. Smith

[Full disclosure: On January 23, 2013, I survived a hemorrhagic stroke that initially left me completely paralyzed from the neck down on my dominant side, and reduced my hearing and peripheral vision on the same side.  While I am ambulatory once more and I've regained some use of my dominant hand and arm, I'm still trying to overcome that my stamina is still vastly diminished compared to my former normal, that my thermal-tactile sense is glitchy at best on my dominant side, and that the only time I'm not in constant pain is when I'm asleep.  More recently, I've learned that I have osteoarthritis in both hips, though initially only "presenting" on my non-stroke affected side which adds to the overall pain I experience on any given day.  And that 1-10 pain scale is relative to each person where a 9 for one person is a 4 for another.  (e.g. My accidentally nicking an exposed a nerve in one of my back teeth by biting an onion slice on my hoagie and driving it into my tooth hurt far more than when I broke my left elbow or when I broke my right wrist such that it now has a metal plate and screws installed.)  All of which should be kept in mind when reading my following article.]

- - -

America has a drug problem.  I’m not referring to the “war on drugs” which has resulted in the persecution and disproportionate incarceration of people of colour, I'm referring to a prevalent attitude in America.  And while what I'm talking about may seem like I'm merely conflating separate issues, it needs to be realized that what I'm describing is a multi-faceted series of different drug problems that in reality all together add up to a very large overall drug problem.

 

One facet of the overall problem is the recreational use of drugs.  Not only does this include the use of illicit drugs (in 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older—9.4 percent of the population—had used an illicit drug in the past month. This number is up from 8.3 percent in 2002) and drugs like marijuana (which is gaining in acceptance and transitioning from illicit to legal), it also includes the use of legal drugs like alcohol.  You had a bad day?  You don’t like your situation in life.  Then use your (preferably legal) drug of choice.  It’s almost like Americans are trying to prove Darwin was wrong.

 

But it doesn’t end there.  Another facet I’m referring to the pharmaceutical complex in America often referred to as “Big Pharma” and the ever expanding impact that they have.  While Big Pharma does serve a useful purpose in creating lifesaving vaccines and medications for genuine medical conditions, the reality is that they have absolutely no intention of creating any more actual cures.  Let's face it, they're still kicking themselves for curing polio.  The simple reality is that there’s no profit in curing anything when they can help you to “just live with it”.  If you're taking a medication for the rest of you're life then that's not a cure at all, it's merely living with it!  If you took you're car to the mechanic to fix a transmission, but you still had to constantly add transmission fluid to it, you wouldn't consider your transmission actually fixed now would you?

 To exacerbate this is still another facet: There’s the constant adverts for the latest drug aimed at the general public with the goal of the consumer asking for a certain drug rather than the far more logical approach where your doctor tells you what drugs you should use, if any.  While many countries allow over-the-counter drugs to be advertised, only the United States and New Zealand allows prescription drugs to be advertised on television.  Frankly, Big Pharma has abused this tolerance by pushing drugs that may not be effective or applicable to their conditions on viewers.  In the United States, TV adverts for pharmaceuticals must list the major side effects that were detected during the drug's safety trials; this disclosure can give the false impression that older drugs (i.e. the ones that came out before TV advertising was an option) are safer than all these “newfangled” drugs, when in fact the older drugs tend to have just as many side effects as the new ones do. (e.g. The litany of side effects for aspirin would fill several pages.)  Not only that, but in 2015 there were more than 1 million reports of drug side effects were file, an increase of five-fold since 2004.  These are drugs used to treat diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and diabetes are among those with the greatest number of reports.  What’s more, as demonstrated by the myriad lawsuits resulting from consequent injuries from the use of so many of these “latest and greatest” drugs, pharmaceutical companies rush their latest chemical “miracle” before they’ve properly and extensively tested them.  Between modern knowledge of chemistry and the capability of creating complex computer models capable of creating predictive interaction models, the vast majority of side effects should already be either eliminated before they ever go to market or should keep the new drug in question from getting to market in the first place.

 

Still, that’s just a part of the overall problem.  Another facet is that it seems that for every minor problem there’s a drug.  Since direct-to-consumer drug advertising debuted, Big Pharma’s credo has been: “When the medication is ready, the disease (and patients) will appear.”  Who knew so many people suffered from restless legs?  And they’re effectively creating new “diseases” all the time or blowing conditions like ADHD way out of proportion.  There wouldn't be such an issue if we stopped trying to schedule every nanosecond of a child's life and let them learn naturally through this crazy thing called playing.  I don't mean sports or any other structuralized format but just let them have fun, make it up as they go, and free-form explore the world around them without panicking because of scrapes and bruises. 

 

Furthermore, yet another aspect is that far too many psychiatrists and other doctors are more readily inclined to prescribe drugs for nearly every malady, whether it be physical or mental illness, rather than turning to other means and methods like actually getting people to accept that the universe is an inherently unfair place and to find ways of changing the aspects of your life that you can change and dealing with those aspects you cannot change.  While it’s not easy, doing that without the use of drugs can be done successfully.

 

This particular issue of the push for drugs to solve all of the woes was brought into clear focus for me while I was going through a psychological evaluation at the Penn Foundation regarding the Depression I've been dealing with for decades and was exacerbated by the stroke I survived.  The psychiatrist started not just recommending but effectively pushing "antidepressant" drugs as an answer to the point where I was seriously wondering just how deep into the pockets of their pharmaceutical rep he was.  It took me several times of stating "No drugs!" before he finally got the hint that "No" means "No" even when I say it.  

 

Do people suffer from chemical imbalances in their brain leading to problems like Depression, et al?  Yes.  But throwing drugs at it forever rather than finding and actually fixing the problem isn't the right answer (see aforementioned transmission analogy) unless you think that profits regardless of how those profits are achieved are always the right answer, that is.

 

In this case, I certainly believe that if anyone there has a drug problem it's due to the psychiatrist for so stubbornly refusing to consider other options.  One of the many issues I have with my ever starting any kind of antidepressant regimen is the fact that there's still so much trial-and-error (with far too many errors) and hit-or-miss (again, too much miss) in prescribing the drugs in the first place.  I know this from the various friends who are currently on various antidepressants and who have been for years, a couple of whom I've personally known for a decade and more.  I will not be a guinea pig for something that they should be able to accurately prescribe if medicine once again mattered more than profits.

 

Drugs are nothing more than chemical crutches and like physical crutches should be used only when absolutely necessary.  Crutches are meant to be temporary, not permanent “solutions”.  The big problem I'm describing is a multifaceted reliance on drugs to solve every problem rather than trying to actually repair or cure the medical ailments, and getting active in the political ones. 

 

by Rev. J.T. Smith