"Those who sacrifice liberty for
security deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin 
| "All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
1. Institutional Corruption
and Pharmaceutical Policy
As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama
Private Gain to a Few Trumps Public Good for
Today there are just three or four pieces that I link to (that are not
by me) and one of these is about pharmacology and institutional
In fact, I have a special interest in this topic, since I am ill now
since 35 years, and am almost totally without help (but I do have a
good GP), but this as well is part of the crisis, as was well explained
by me here:
I set it apart, because this
is an important file. Also, you will not find it elsewhere.
The other two linked files will be interesting to more people, simply
because few people are ill, and indeed because Jeff Jarvis' disgust
with Obama may find a rather wide appeal, and I also hope it does. And
the final linked file is by Robert Reich, who agrees with my diagnosis
of yesterday (very probably without having read it or knowing of my
existence): the many poor in the U.S. get poorer so that the few rich
get richer - and this has been going on a long time.
1. Institutional Corruption and Pharmaceutical
As I said in my introduction, the first file today is
about corruption and pharmacology:
You should not take this
lightly, for this is from a Harvard symposium, and indeed I
will copy the first two paragraphs of the introduction, in the hope
this will help them to find more readers:
As it happens, there is
an enormous amount of corruption in modern medicine, and most of it
arrived from 1980 onwards, indeed as regulations disappeared. I know
most about psychiatry, which I now think is a deeply corrupt and quite
dangerous pseudoscience (and I am a philosopher of science and a
psychologist, so I should have some relevant knowledge), where there
are few legitimate practitioners, but it is also true for medicine at
large, especially because pharmaceutical companies have changed the
rules for publishing, and control what gets published, and indeed often
The goals of
pharmaceutical policy and medical practice are often undermined due to
institutional corruption — that is, widespread or systemic practices,
usually legal, that undermine an institution’s objectives or integrity.
The pharmaceutical industry’s own purposes are often undermined. In
addition, pharmaceutical industry funding of election campaigns and
lobbying skews the legislative process that sets pharmaceutical policy.
Moreover, certain practices have corrupted medical research, the
production of medical knowledge, the practice of medicine, drug safety,
and the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of pharmaceutical
As a result,
practitioners may think they are using reliable information to engage
in sound medical practice while actually relying on misleading
information and therefore prescribe drugs that are unnecessary or
harmful to patients, or more costly than equivalent medications. At the
same time, patients and the public may believe that patient advocacy
organizations effectively represent their interests while these
organizations actually neglect their interests.
But yes... it's true this will be of interest mostly for people who are
qualified with a medical or psychological degree. Even so, it is
important (medical/ pharmaceutical corruption make many billions each
year) - and in fact the papers are freely available, as they should be,
but often are not.
Also, these are papers by academics, and the symposium is endorsed by
part of the staff of Harvard.
As a Democrat, I am disgusted with President Obama
Then there is an excellent
article by Jeff Jarvis, who is a Democrat, who voted for Obama (unlike
George Carlin, who never voted, like me, but I am also not an American):
Here are the first four
There's also this:
What are you thinking, Mr
Is this really the legacy
you want for yourself: the chief executive who trampled rights,
destroyed privacy, heightened
secrecy, ruined trust, and worst of all, did not defend but instead
detoured around so many of the fundamental principles on which this
country is founded?
And I voted for you. I'll
confess you were a second choice. I supported Hillary Clinton first. I
the time that your rhetoric about change was empty and that I
feared you would be another Jimmy Carter: aggressively ineffectual.
Never did I imagine that
you would instead become another Richard Nixon: imperial, secretive,
vindictive, untrustworthy, inexplicable.
No, I think it is
this: secrecy corrupts. Absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely.
And Jeff Jarvis ends
with eight passionate paragraphs about what Obama could do, all quite
justified, and all quit reasonable.
I am afraid Obama will do none of these things, because I am afraid
that I have concluded he is a fraud: He is great as a liar and as a
deceiver, and hardly exists as a public servant.
But it must be bitter to find you have elected this man in office -
though I agree that voting for McCain or Romney hardly was a more
That indeed is one of the major problems of the present: there are
almost only politicians who deceive you,
with lies from the left or with lies from the right, that they did not
write themselves either, but that were written by their public relation
propagandists, and that were written not with the end of ever being
practiced, but with the end of deceiving the electorate.
3. Private Gain
a Few Trumps Public Good for the Many
Finally today, here is a link to another column by Robert Reich:
Here are its paragraphs three
to five, that are quite important - in any case, for anyone
thinking about society, and not just for this column I quote it from -
and are not seen or are totally denied by very many who fell for or who
intentionally made the propaganda of the rich few:
Quite so! There is -
especially for a Reichian column, that tends to be brief - considerably
more, but it ends thus:
A society — any society
—- is defined as a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most
visibly in public institutions: public schools, public libraries,
public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums,
public recreation, public universities, and so on.
Public institutions are
supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all. If the tax system
is progressive, those who are better off (and who, presumably, have
benefitted from many of these same public institutions) help pay for
"Privatize" means "Pay
for it yourself." The practical consequence of this in an economy whose
wealth and income are now more concentrated than at any time in the
past 90 years is to make high-quality public goods available to fewer
public goods available to all, supported by the tax payments of all and
especially the better-off. In its place we have private goods available
to the very rich, supported by the rest of us.
I cannot but agree.
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, that the governors do not
rule, or at least, should not rule: The laws rule, and the
if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my
More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn
It is more proper
that law should govern than any one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file I
from is quite pertinent.)
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: