RE: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

October 16, 2009

That is a gross misrepresentation of Holdren's views being peddled by

Fixed News and other partisan propaganda-mongers. He cowrote

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which looked at a

range of possible measures to control population, BUT ONLY RECOMMENDED

" the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences "

such as access to birth control and abortion.

See : ^ Ehrlich, R.; Anne H. Ehrlich and P. Holdren

(1977). Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. San Francisco:

Freeman. ISBN 0716705672. and also:

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/ : In

1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with

and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population,

Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages

in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population

Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been

undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including

the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility

control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations.

However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them.

And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that

noncoercive measures were what they suppported: “A far better choice,

in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing

family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to

abortions. In fairness, their text does read as dated today, ripe for

quote mining. They were writing in very different times thirty years

ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they

weren’t), that hardly means that they do today. * * *

It is worth noting that in societies where women have some political

parity with men (not just education or wealth, as some have claimed),

family sizes drop dramatically, because women are free to choose not

to have children. In societies where women don't have freedom of

choice about their lives, even access to education and wealth, such as

in some of the Gulf states such as Dubai, families often have 10 or

more children.

Jeanmarie

On Oct 15, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> >

> > Subject: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched

> " GMOs-Feed-The-

> > World " to an Audience of Experts

>

> Not quite as bad as Obama's science " czar " P. Holdren, who,

> along with

> a Bush senior science advisor in their government policy book " Eco

> Science " ,

> pitched forced sterilizations, baby licenses, government seizing

> children

> from single mothers, forced abortions, and putting sterilants into

> the water

> and food supply in order to reduce population growth.

>

> Suze

>

October 16, 2009

> That is a gross misrepresentation of Holdren's views being peddled by

> Fixed News and other partisan propaganda-mongers.

Well, that's a strawman because I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I don't

watch television at all. No, this is based on my own reading of the relevant

pages in Eco Science. And no, I'm not a right-winger - I'm not a republican

either. I was a life-long very left leaning democrat until recently and now

I completely reject the false left/right paradigm.

I will concede one thing though, I should've put quotation marks around the

word " pitched " - that would've more accurately demonstrated my assessment of

the eugenicist portions of Eco Science. I kept the word " pitched " simply

because it's the word the original poster used for Vilsack's talk on GMOs.

IMO, it would be more accurate to say that Holdren and co-authors *proposed

these totalitarian measures as possible ways to reduce population growth

when over population became a dire problem by the estimate of the Planetary

Regime (which they also propose - see quote below).

He cowrote

> Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which looked at a

> range of possible measures to control population, BUT ONLY RECOMMENDED

> " the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences "

> such as access to birth control and abortion.

Right. He wrote a government policy textbook in which he and his co-authors

propose several extreme solutions to overpopulation. But of course, he

doesn't actually *believe* in them or recommend them. He just *wrote* them

as suggestions in the future tense because he didn't support them under any

circumstances. Mmmhmm...

> See : ^ Ehrlich, R.; Anne H. Ehrlich and P. Holdren

> (1977). Ecoscience: population, resources, environment. San Francisco:

> Freeman. ISBN 0716705672. and also:

> http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/

Um...and this guy, who wrote a book called " Republican War on Science, " is

an unbiased source of info?

Turns out he also thinks most alternative medicine is quackery. See

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/skeptics_message_lab

: In

> 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with

> and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population,

> Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages

> in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to " Population

> Policies, " the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been

> undertaken or considered to control human population growth-including

> the most extreme. Those included coercive or " involuntary fertility

> control " measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations.

> However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them.

> And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that

> noncoercive measures were what they suppported: " A far better choice,

> in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing

> family size preferences " -such as birth control and access to

> abortions

I don't see how Mooney could've possibly read the relevant pages and come

away with this impression. I suggest that people read the relevant pages

*themselves* (pasted below) and make their own decisions as to whether

Holdren and his co-authors simply " surveyed a gamut of measures that had

been undertaken or considered to control human population growth-including

the most extreme " as Mooney writes, OR whether they were proposing the

extreme measures themselves as possible actions to take in a worst case

scenario.

Here are direct quotes from Eco Science and a link to the source below. Note

this is not the original source where I read the relevant pages.

Page 837:

" Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws,

even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under

the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently

severe to endanger the society. "

Page 786:

" One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all

illegitimate babies be put up for adoption-especially those born to minors,

who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a

single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go

through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care

for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for

single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative

difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require

pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative

to placement for adoption, depending on the society. "

Page 787-8:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that

seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility

control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and

social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such

sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be

acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff

requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses

received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and

sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant

side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex,

children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Page 786-7:

Involuntary fertility control

....

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite

the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be

easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

....

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted

under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional

possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted

at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited

number of births.

Page 838:

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by

overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required

by law to exercise reproductive responsibility-just as they can be required

to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns-providing

they are not denied equal protection.

Page 838:

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of

profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters.

For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why

should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two

children?

[suze] And let's not hoard all these great totalitarian measures here in the

US - let's create a PLANETARY REGIME in order to make sure the entire

population of earth is forced to live under a totalitarian regime that will

be the ultimate authority overseeing totalitarian population reduction.

Page 942-3:

Toward a Planetary Regime

....

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population

agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime-sort of an

international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a

comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development,

administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources,

renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications

exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in

the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and

lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.

The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all

international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and

including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the

optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating

various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of

population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the

Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Page 917:

[suggesting partial surrender of sovereignty]

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed

international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people

have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a

world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first

step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an

international organization.

Page 944:

Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century;

the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last

opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to

choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must

never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

As anyone can clearly see these are *proposals* NOT a survey of measures

that HAD BEEN undertaken or considered, as Mooney wants us to believe.

Suze

October 16, 2009

The fact that he has never once renounced these views in the book, just

backpedaled a bit during his " job interview " speaks volumes to me.

He also used this book in his curriculum vitae.

There are many who are concerned about the HPV vaccines having agents that

cause infertility, the fluoridized water we have also causes fertility

issues (just like he talked about in the book?) and government needs to stay

the hell out of the abortion trade. That should be strictly between a

woman, her doctor and God or her conscience whichever applies for her.

Of course government " health care " will put the government into all our

medical procedures.

If the main " news " sources in this country were real press anymore and not

corporate shills we'd see more real coverage of these outrageous czars. We

have a Eugenics/Environmentalist nut, an animal rights whack that wants to

give animals the right to sue people and equal rights as our children, and

of course there was Van also. The agriculture " Czar " is just the

icing on the cake!

Here's a great article on population control and it briefly talks about

Holdren:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w102.html

And apparently he has another book called " The Population Bomb " .

http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-john-holdren-obamas-dr-strangelove.html

And for those wanting to read some scanned pages from the Ecoscience book

you can find it here:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Dawn

Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched

> " GMOs-Feed-The-

> > World " to an Audience of Experts

>

> Not quite as bad as Obama's science " czar " P. Holdren, who,

> along with

> a Bush senior science advisor in their government policy book " Eco

> Science " ,

> pitched forced sterilizations, baby licenses, government seizing

> children

> from single mothers, forced abortions, and putting sterilants into

> the water

> and food supply in order to reduce population growth.

>

> Suze

>

October 16, 2009

Analysis and reporting is not the same as advocating. By your

standards below you could be accused of promoting eugenics yourself

just by writing an e-mail post about it. You seem to be set on

demonizing this man and no amount of evidence will persuade you

otherwise, it appears, so I'll waste no more time on it.

I didn't say you watch Fox News, I said they'd been peddling this

story. The same content makes it onto lots of websites. They

specialize in fabricating controversy while ignoring the serious

problems that do exist. The U.S. is not on the brink of mass forced

abortions. At least one insurance company, however, is trying to force

a patient to undergo sterilization. Now that's something to get

outraged about. Here's that story:

After having a c-section, Peggy on received a letter. It was

from her insurance company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, and it

basically said this: get sterilized, or you won't receive coverage.

No insurance company should ever be allowed to demand a woman be

sterilized.

Today, Peggy shared her story before a Senate committee. Her

experience mortified everyone, including Sen. Mikulski, who called it

" bone-chiling " and the insurance policy " morally repugnant. " Today,

she stood up for herself, her family and millions of American women.

We need to make sure she's not standing alone.

But Peggy's story didn't end there. A year later, insurance companies

refused to cover her healthy two-year-old son - first, because he was

prone to fainting and, later, because he was " too small. "

Peggy's son Luke is currently covered by a special program in Colorado

that extends insurance to the terminally ill, but there is nothing

wrong with him! He's yet another victim of insurance industry

practices, just like his mom. Tell Congress about Peggy's story, and

why it's time to deliver on health insurance reform.

Watch Peggy's story, then send a message to Congress

As the health care debate moves to the Senate floor, we need to make

sure members of Congress know the human price of their delay. We can't

let children like Luke continue to go without coverage because they're

" too small. " And we can't let the insurance industry deny another

woman like Peggy coverage because of " pre-existing conditions " like c-

sections. Join us in reminding Congress that it's time to deliver on

health insurance reform.

Thanks for speaking out,

Kutch

Online Campaign Manager

SEIU Healthcare

On Oct 16, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> > That is a gross misrepresentation of Holdren's views being peddled

> by

>

> > Fixed News and other partisan propaganda-mongers.

>

> Well, that's a strawman because I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I

> don't

> watch television at all. No, this is based on my own reading of the

> relevant

> pages in Eco Science. And no, I'm not a right-winger - I'm not a

> republican

> either. I was a life-long very left leaning democrat until recently

> and now

> I completely reject the false left/right paradigm.

>

> <_,_<snip>._,___

>

October 17, 2009

This has to be a joke right? If insurance companies could do business

across state lines people could shop around, demand better pricing and

coverage for what they could afford. Because of the increased competition

insurance would have to provide better benefits if they want to compete.

Get government involved and ALL choice goes out the window.

When I was on Medicaid for my pregnancy as soon as I was reovered from the

c-section wound rupture I was told we were putting in a norplant. I had not

indicated I wanted any birth control, must less this kind. He was going to

do it THAT day. It was routine. No care was given to the fact that it is

not supposed to be used in women who are prone to ovarian cysts and I have

PCOS which my doctors knew about.

He had to follow Medicaid's rules.

I've got just as many horror stories from the UK and Canada about people not

getting taken care of when they needed it. How you have to prove you are

going blind in BOTH eyes before you can get an expensive drug or surgery

that will save your eye site. That it can take a year to get critical

treatment for prostate cancer compared to a very short wait time here in the

USA.

The government can't run the FDA, FTC, FCC or USDA without corruption,

impossible to follow regulations and favoritism for big corporations making

it a hostile environment for small businesses and alternative modalities.

Yeah right I want them in charge of my health.

And I already hear buzz about people wanting bacon banned!! How easy it

would be to say if you want government health care you can't eat bacon, or

milk, or red meat, or take herbs.

But we were talking about the " Czars " .

I also think it's insane to say that writing a book isn't necessarily

expressing your opinions. It sure wasn't written as if it was presenting

various options that protected people's rights. It is a manual for how to

take away our reproductive rights by force.

Since when does writing a book not make it your point of view? Did he

preface the book with a disclaimer?? Did he say this is just ideas that I

don't agree with?? I mean, if I wrote a book on how best to torture a baby

and cause the most pain and suffering by skinning them alive that's

exercising my free speech but you believe I wouldn't be ostracized for

writing it? why on earth would I write something like that as a book unless

I meant for it to be used to TEACH!

What about the other stuff he's written? What about the fact that he has

never, ever said " hey, I don't really believe that " he just dances around

the subject. He's never renounced it. In fact it was in his curriculum!!

Since when do professors put book son the curriculum that aren't there to be

LEARNED from and used?

The wool over our eyes is getting so thick I think we're suffocating. it's

the only explanation I have for why the entire country is so gullible.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Jeanmarie Todd

Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:25 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

Analysis and reporting is not the same as advocating. By your

standards below you could be accused of promoting eugenics yourself

just by writing an e-mail post about it. You seem to be set on

demonizing this man and no amount of evidence will persuade you

otherwise, it appears, so I'll waste no more time on it.

I didn't say you watch Fox News, I said they'd been peddling this

story. The same content makes it onto lots of websites. They

specialize in fabricating controversy while ignoring the serious

problems that do exist. The U.S. is not on the brink of mass forced

abortions. At least one insurance company, however, is trying to force

a patient to undergo sterilization. Now that's something to get

outraged about. Here's that story:

After having a c-section, Peggy on received a letter. It was

from her insurance company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, and it

basically said this: get sterilized, or you won't receive coverage.

No insurance company should ever be allowed to demand a woman be

sterilized.

Today, Peggy shared her story before a Senate committee. Her

experience mortified everyone, including Sen. Mikulski, who called it

" bone-chiling " and the insurance policy " morally repugnant. " Today,

she stood up for herself, her family and millions of American women.

We need to make sure she's not standing alone.

But Peggy's story didn't end there. A year later, insurance companies

refused to cover her healthy two-year-old son - first, because he was

prone to fainting and, later, because he was " too small. "

Peggy's son Luke is currently covered by a special program in Colorado

that extends insurance to the terminally ill, but there is nothing

wrong with him! He's yet another victim of insurance industry

practices, just like his mom. Tell Congress about Peggy's story, and

why it's time to deliver on health insurance reform.

Watch Peggy's story, then send a message to Congress

As the health care debate moves to the Senate floor, we need to make

sure members of Congress know the human price of their delay. We can't

let children like Luke continue to go without coverage because they're

" too small. " And we can't let the insurance industry deny another

woman like Peggy coverage because of " pre-existing conditions " like c-

sections. Join us in reminding Congress that it's time to deliver on

health insurance reform.

Thanks for speaking out,

Kutch

Online Campaign Manager

SEIU Healthcare

On Oct 16, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Suze Fisher wrote:

> > That is a gross misrepresentation of Holdren's views being peddled

> by

>

> > Fixed News and other partisan propaganda-mongers.

>

> Well, that's a strawman because I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I

> don't

> watch television at all. No, this is based on my own reading of the

> relevant

> pages in Eco Science. And no, I'm not a right-winger - I'm not a

> republican

> either. I was a life-long very left leaning democrat until recently

> and now

> I completely reject the false left/right paradigm.

>

> <_,_<snip>._,___

>

October 17, 2009

Dawn,

I don't disagree with what you said.

Have you read " Manufacture of Consent " by Herman and Chomsky?

It's a very good book that explains in great detail much of what's wrong with

our media and political system. It explains why the lipid hypothesis is popular,

why GMOs aren't feared and much much more. Although it doesn't mention these

things by name. They are simply products of our system of organizing people's

perception via media, politics and science.

Another fascinating source is " How to Think About Science " from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html

It provides a good overview of the field of Science Studies and illustrates some

of the strengths and weaknesses of science as a process in and of itself.

Cheers,

>

> > > That is a gross misrepresentation of Holdren's views being peddled

> > by

> >

> > > Fixed News and other partisan propaganda-mongers.

> >

> > Well, that's a strawman because I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I

> > don't

> > watch television at all. No, this is based on my own reading of the

> > relevant

> > pages in Eco Science. And no, I'm not a right-winger - I'm not a

> > republican

> > either. I was a life-long very left leaning democrat until recently

> > and now

> > I completely reject the false left/right paradigm.

> >

>

> > <_,_<snip>._,___

> >

>

October 17, 2009

The book is a textbook and is specifically laying out all the positions that are

out there and considering those that might be considered in response to a

population crisis, and recommends milder solutions to head off the extreme

positions that otherwise might be considered. That is pretty clear from the

pages that have been reproduced on the web. No one advocates all the positions

they discuss in a textbook.

I would worry that he might be (or have been) so worried about the population

crisis that he would consider these more authoritarian solutions when push came

to shove, if only because he doesn't really confront or reject the ethics of

these positions. The rhetorical move seems to be " support family planning and

voluntary abortion now or face draconian, coercive measures (that unnamed others

would undoubtedly propose) later. "

Bill

>

> He cowrote

> > Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which looked at a

> > range of possible measures to control population, BUT ONLY RECOMMENDED

> > " the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences "

> > such as access to birth control and abortion.

>

> Right. He wrote a government policy textbook in which he and his co-authors

> propose several extreme solutions to overpopulation. But of course, he

> doesn't actually *believe* in them or recommend them. He just *wrote* them

> as suggestions in the future tense because he didn't support them under any

> circumstances. Mmmhmm...

>

October 17, 2009

I suspect this kind of creepy eugenics by insurance companies and health care

providers is far too common. My wife gave birth in a inner city hospital, which

had the best specialists. Right before they wheeled my wife off, they asked her

" so, we're getting your tubes tied after the birth?, " as if to get us to say

" yes " without really realizing what they were saying. We had gone through

fertility treatments for years to have a child! As it turned out, they asked all

the women giving birth this, and it definitely seemed targeted to subtly

coercing poor and minority women who frequent that hospital.

I also know that doctors commit pre-emptive lawsuit protection murders (don't

know what else to call it). Previously, my wife had been at the expensive

hospital in the suburbs with a twin pregnancy. The twins had twin-to-twin

transfusion syndrome, which requires monitoring the cervix as pressure builds up

as fluid grows, and possibly putting in a stitch or using a surgery to correct

the problem. When we had symptoms all week, they refused to use a trans-vaginal

ultrasound to check it, and blew us off when we kept coming in. The twins were

born a few weeks pre-term, and I know they knew what was happening and let it

happen. You see, thanks to " tort reform " by our old, bloated Republican

governor, you can't sue for pre-term birth, but you still can for children born

with cerebral palsey, as sometimes happens with one of the twins in cases like

this (especially if you don't treat it!), so they let them die.

I truly believe they are murderers and so I'm not real keen of these people who

seem to know who should die and who shouldn't. So while I would want to keep a

close eye on people like Vilsack, I want to keep an even closer eye on the

eugenics already being carried out in our pitiful excuse for a health care

system.

Bill

> abortions. At least one insurance company, however, is trying to force

> a patient to undergo sterilization. Now that's something to get

> outraged about. Here's that story:

> After having a c-section, Peggy on received a letter. It was

> from her insurance company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, and it

> basically said this: get sterilized, or you won't receive coverage.

>

> No insurance company should ever be allowed to demand a woman be

> sterilized.

>

October 17, 2009

When you write a textbook, you MUST discuss all the positions out there (and the

scary part is, yes, these positions do exist in a part of the environmental

movement). As I indicated previously, I think he was discussing this

sociologically--as in, you can expect these proposals to be taken seriously if

the population crisis escalates. I also wouldn't be surprised if he was a lot

more sympathetic to these whack job proposals than you or I, particularly since

in the pages I've seen reproduced he makes no mention of the ethics of these

situations, which I do think is the author's responsibility. By that I don't

mean just opining, but discussing them in light of ethical philosophy.

For instance, utilitarians would probably be a lot more sympathetic to eugenics

" for the greater good, " just as they tend to be towards torture, or bombing

Hiroshima, or the like than deontological/Kantian thinkers, who don't like to

see people treated as means to an end. In other words, a complete textbook

treatment must give the reader the tools to critically evaluate these proposals.

Perhaps he does that elsewhere, but he doesn't when he raises them for

discussion and that is a clear fault. But it is not an endorsement of the

positions discussed.

As for not trusting government to run health care, why do you trust for-profit

corporations? It is not possible for you or I to influence them to slow down

their cost-saving eugenic practices. The market won't work, since they act like

a cartel--they are too large and require too much capital to expect new players

to come in and motivate better care. The banks and stock markets would not loan

money to an insurance company that didn't match the dismal denial of service

practices already standard for the field.

In principle the government is supposed to respond to democratic control, so

that would be a way for the people to influence medical policy. In practice, so

long as corporate interests pay for our government, any meaningful reform is a

long shot. Implementing a national health care plan in the midst of an economic

crisis is not the best situation to ensure full coverage, either. We should have

implemented one when all the other developed countries did.

When we lived in Germany, everything was covered (for temporary visitors!) and

no one complained about the system at all. It was considered a right and any

party that eroded the system would be committing political suicide. Here we are

so blinded by the U.S. propaganda system, even if we think we're oh so

independent and critical, that we demand that the authorities not give us health

care. Pravda has nothing on us.

Bill

>

> Since when does writing a book not make it your point of view? Did he

> preface the book with a disclaimer?? Did he say this is just ideas that I

> don't agree with?? I mean, if I wrote a book on how best to torture a baby

> and cause the most pain and suffering by skinning them alive that's

> exercising my free speech but you believe I wouldn't be ostracized for

> writing it? why on earth would I write something like that as a book unless

> I meant for it to be used to TEACH!

>

October 17, 2009

When i lived in Germany and the nationals married soldiers they cheered how they

could finally get good health care from military doctors. Military doctors are

nothing to write home about. Most are very inept and are not even able to pass

many state medical board exams. The military takes almost anyone in regardless

and the German spouses i knew found our military doctors far superior while

people like myself cringed and avoided them, and those less discerning felt they

could get better care if they were not seeing a military doctor.

I felt the care i received from German doctors was really bad and not any

better, the military doctors i was avoiding for yrs in country, i gladly went to

once we were in Germany and had the grand experience of socialized medicine.

Which i was for Soc. med. like most Americans before living there and seeing it

in practice and hearing the stories from German nationals.

The points Dawn brings up are what scares me. I met people who were forced to

have procedures they did not want because it was the only way to keep their

medical. Once you tell the gvmnt no about a job, or medical care, they can deny

you the right to any of it. Ex: a woman who was referred to the local

prostitution house for a job was told if she did not take it they would cut her

and her young child off of any stat help - medical etc. She would lose it for

refusing to work somewhere she felt was degrading. The gvmnt said she did not

have a right to refuse work that they have legalized. What they made legal is

not immoral. She either worked there or she and her young child got kicked off

of medical and anything else she was receiving. From what i was told by a

German friend when i read about the case in the paper i was told that you can't

just go seeking work like here. The gvmnt refers you to a job and if you refuse

they can take you out of the system and never offer you work again other than

under the table - housekeeping etc. If one is not legally employed they don't

get coverage of any sort. In between jobs they get it as long as they are

enrolled with the gvmnt offices - like employment office to get a job.

I think it is fairly safe to say that the grass is not greener at all and that

all of these health care systems are screwy. What bugs me is to constantly hear

it touted on the TV and the many forums that Social like Europe or Germany is

the only way to go when it clearly is not. Is it better than nothing. Maybe

for short term things, not life threatening. But in light of our basic rights

and not being able to refuse Norplants, working as a prostitute etc... no it is

not. I have not had health coverage for a few yrs and i don't see a doctor.

Most people go for stupid things anyways that no one needs to be seen for. I

think the more you give to people the more lazy they become. I think that when

i opened my eyes about health and food i took it far more serious and eat

responsibly now and have rid myself of many of the health problems i once had.

I also think that it is funny to hear people slam for profit medical/insurance

system and yet have no objections to someone paying dbl for a natural health

doc. The natural health doctors are equally bad in the for profit industry. I

think the whole system is broke whether you pay out of pocket or have insurance

or get gvmnt coverage.

There is no such thing as perfection and i for one will never sit back and agree

to be a slave because of the others like myself who are uninsured feel they

should have it free. It makes no sense to me to preach about rights, but yet

force this on everyone in the US who feels it will lead to more control and

worse care, maybe even one day being a prostitute or else. Hey i am sure the

Germans never suspected that could happen to them. Point is it is all screwed

up because it is ran by greedy men no matter what country. Once we opened the

door to gvmnt tyranny it never stopped it just comes creeping closer all the

time. What happened to the good old days of swapping what you can't grow, make,

or do now we have to have licenses/certifications, degrees, insurance, etc.

people used to pay country docs in what they had (money, animals, work) before

it became industrialized. The whole system is broke and giving it to the gvmnt

who has proven it can't run anything besides into the ground is really not

bright at all. Comparing to countries who have had it so long they do not know

any different and saying hey are you happy with this, of course they are. So

are a lot of abused women and children, when they have nothing else to compare

it with, it is normal, it is love.

When we visited Prague and talked with some people we had comments like 'yeah we

will become like Germany soon. Not have to work hard like now because the gvmnt

will take care of everything for us. Then we will be rich too'. This was

middle aged people who felt they needed socialism so they could get everything

for nothing, no more working hard, long nights struggling to eat etc. They

couldn't wait to be like the Germans. It only reinforced my feelings now, that

if you just give to everyone they no longer act responsibly. Obviously not

everyone but the majority will. I am not willing to give up what is left of

freedom for the majority.

>

> As for not trusting government to run health care, why do you trust for-profit

corporations? It is not possible for you or I to influence them to slow down

their cost-saving eugenic practices. The market won't work, since they act like

a cartel--they are too large and require too much capital to expect new players

to come in and motivate better care. The banks and stock markets would not loan

money to an insurance company that didn't match the dismal denial of service

practices already standard for the field.

>

> In principle the government is supposed to respond to democratic control, so

that would be a way for the people to influence medical policy. In practice, so

long as corporate interests pay for our government, any meaningful reform is a

long shot. Implementing a national health care plan in the midst of an economic

crisis is not the best situation to ensure full coverage, either. We should have

implemented one when all the other developed countries did.

>

> When we lived in Germany, everything was covered (for temporary visitors!) and

no one complained about the system at all. It was considered a right and any

party that eroded the system would be committing political suicide. Here we are

so blinded by the U.S. propaganda system, even if we think we're oh so

independent and critical, that we demand that the authorities not give us health

care. Pravda has nothing on us.

>

> Bill

October 18, 2009

That is really sad Bill. I assume your twins were okay right? I agree with

your assessment on fixing moms especially those on state care. I have heard it

is common to come in asking moms while in pain or shortly after delivering to

have procedures done. My cousin is one of them. She and her husband had agreed

if anyone was doing it he would. But when they came in asking her repeatedly

during her last birth she finally said yes (started out with no, i don't want it

done. Had it in her hospital birth plan and everything) as she was so annoyed.

She has really horrible PG's and deliveries. I think diet related of course for

most of it - very bad SAD eater. Anyhow she has had a lot of problems during it

and so she was in a lot of pain, scared that something may go wrong as her last

they almost lost, etc... So she said yes. She regrets doing it this day.

I also watched a documentary type of thing that said this is typical tactics.

Hit up the moms while they are most vulnerable.

>

> > abortions. At least one insurance company, however, is trying to force

> > a patient to undergo sterilization. Now that's something to get

> > outraged about. Here's that story:

> > After having a c-section, Peggy on received a letter. It was

> > from her insurance company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, and it

> > basically said this: get sterilized, or you won't receive coverage.

> >

> > No insurance company should ever be allowed to demand a woman be

> > sterilized.

> >

>

October 18, 2009

I totally agree with you Dawn. I usually never post on the NN board cause i do

not have the mental capacity everyone else seems to have LOL. They are

either far too smart for me with great debating skills. I am thinking after my

replies today i will go back into hiding. Once and a while i come out and

embarrass myself.

And to your other post all the media is biased i get tired of hearing people

make fun of Fox only as if it is the only media outlet that is full of it. The

wool is no longer over my eyes with regard to the 2 party system or the media

they are all the same.

>

> This has to be a joke right? If insurance companies could do business

> across state lines people could shop around, demand better pricing and

> coverage for what they could afford. Because of the increased competition

> insurance would have to provide better benefits if they want to compete.

>

October 18, 2009

Thanks ! I will definitely check these out. I really appreciate it =)

I have not read that book but I do understand psychological warfare is

practiced on us every day and the War of the World's fiasco was not an

" accident " but a trial run to see what we did. We believed aliens were

attacking, because the radio said so.

Sometimes I watch all this going on and think, man. was the book 1984 a

prophecy or are they using it as a manual on how to ruin our lives? And

Soylent Green. hmmm, everyone ate it because it was what you were told to

eat and no one was told what it was. does that sound familiar? " Just trust

the government and get your damn shot! "

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of paulsonntagericson

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 12:14 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

Dawn,

I don't disagree with what you said.

Have you read " Manufacture of Consent " by Herman and Chomsky?

It's a very good book that explains in great detail much of what's wrong

with our media and political system. It explains why the lipid hypothesis is

popular, why GMOs aren't feared and much much more. Although it doesn't

mention these things by name. They are simply products of our system of

organizing people's perception via media, politics and science.

Another fascinating source is " How to Think About Science " from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html

It provides a good overview of the field of Science Studies and illustrates

some of the strengths and weaknesses of science as a process in and of

itself.

Cheers,

>

> > > That is a gross misrepresentation of Holdren's views being peddled

> > by

> >

> > > Fixed News and other partisan propaganda-mongers.

> >

> > Well, that's a strawman because I don't watch Faux News. In fact, I

> > don't

> > watch television at all. No, this is based on my own reading of the

> > relevant

> > pages in Eco Science. And no, I'm not a right-winger - I'm not a

> > republican

> > either. I was a life-long very left leaning democrat until recently

> > and now

> > I completely reject the false left/right paradigm.

> >

>

> > <_,_<snip>._,___

> >

>

October 18, 2009

You make some great points, Bill. But I just don't see how we an institute

any health care right now until we find a way to get the corruption out of

our government and trim it down to where it should be. I see no problem

with states running health care programs if the people want it and they can

afford it.

But we're set up for failure. We are told to eat things that make us sick,

then given drugs that make symptoms better but make us sick in other ways or

kill us out right, and then when there are natural means of fixing things it

is banned ore regulated out of existence to protect the profits of the big

corporation who has the money to lobby and can send in their goons to run

the FDA etc.

The American public then accepts that the FDA is looking out for us because

the government is supposed to protect us when in fact the FDA is exploiting

us worse than ever putting their seal approval on killer drugs and vaccines

and banning stevia being labeled as a sweetner.

This country has rotted to the core.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Bill

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:21 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

When you write a textbook, you MUST discuss all the positions out there (and

the scary part is, yes, these positions do exist in a part of the

environmental movement). As I indicated previously, I think he was

discussing this sociologically--as in, you can expect these proposals to be

taken seriously if the population crisis escalates. I also wouldn't be

surprised if he was a lot more sympathetic to these whack job proposals than

you or I, particularly since in the pages I've seen reproduced he makes no

mention of the ethics of these situations, which I do think is the author's

responsibility. By that I don't mean just opining, but discussing them in

light of ethical philosophy.

For instance, utilitarians would probably be a lot more sympathetic to

eugenics " for the greater good, " just as they tend to be towards torture, or

bombing Hiroshima, or the like than deontological/Kantian thinkers, who

don't like to see people treated as means to an end. In other words, a

complete textbook treatment must give the reader the tools to critically

evaluate these proposals. Perhaps he does that elsewhere, but he doesn't

when he raises them for discussion and that is a clear fault. But it is not

an endorsement of the positions discussed.

As for not trusting government to run health care, why do you trust

for-profit corporations? It is not possible for you or I to influence them

to slow down their cost-saving eugenic practices. The market won't work,

since they act like a cartel--they are too large and require too much

capital to expect new players to come in and motivate better care. The banks

and stock markets would not loan money to an insurance company that didn't

match the dismal denial of service practices already standard for the field.

In principle the government is supposed to respond to democratic control, so

that would be a way for the people to influence medical policy. In practice,

so long as corporate interests pay for our government, any meaningful reform

is a long shot. Implementing a national health care plan in the midst of an

economic crisis is not the best situation to ensure full coverage, either.

We should have implemented one when all the other developed countries did.

When we lived in Germany, everything was covered (for temporary visitors!)

and no one complained about the system at all. It was considered a right and

any party that eroded the system would be committing political suicide. Here

we are so blinded by the U.S. propaganda system, even if we think we're oh

so independent and critical, that we demand that the authorities not give us

health care. Pravda has nothing on us.

Bill

--- In

<mailto: %40> , " Dawn " <blaidd1@...>

wrote:

>

> Since when does writing a book not make it your point of view? Did he

> preface the book with a disclaimer?? Did he say this is just ideas that I

> don't agree with?? I mean, if I wrote a book on how best to torture a baby

> and cause the most pain and suffering by skinning them alive that's

> exercising my free speech but you believe I wouldn't be ostracized for

> writing it? why on earth would I write something like that as a book

unless

> I meant for it to be used to TEACH!

>

October 18, 2009

Wow, Bill. That's sickening =( I was scared enough when I was pregnant of

going to the hospital for anything. if I get pregnant again, if I am ever so

lucky with my health issues, I will be even more worried.

It's all about business, cutting expenses and maximizing profit and also

avoiding liability. And their idea of torte reform is insane! It's not

really reform, just an excuse to cover their butts. I had no idea they

could twist something like torte reform so heinously but of course I should

have known better.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Bill

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 2:50 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

I suspect this kind of creepy eugenics by insurance companies and health

care providers is far too common. My wife gave birth in a inner city

hospital, which had the best specialists. Right before they wheeled my wife

off, they asked her " so, we're getting your tubes tied after the birth?, " as

if to get us to say " yes " without really realizing what they were saying. We

had gone through fertility treatments for years to have a child! As it

turned out, they asked all the women giving birth this, and it definitely

seemed targeted to subtly coercing poor and minority women who frequent that

hospital.

I also know that doctors commit pre-emptive lawsuit protection murders

(don't know what else to call it). Previously, my wife had been at the

expensive hospital in the suburbs with a twin pregnancy. The twins had

twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, which requires monitoring the cervix as

pressure builds up as fluid grows, and possibly putting in a stitch or using

a surgery to correct the problem. When we had symptoms all week, they

refused to use a trans-vaginal ultrasound to check it, and blew us off when

we kept coming in. The twins were born a few weeks pre-term, and I know they

knew what was happening and let it happen. You see, thanks to " tort reform "

by our old, bloated Republican governor, you can't sue for pre-term birth,

but you still can for children born with cerebral palsey, as sometimes

happens with one of the twins in cases like this (especially if you don't

treat it!), so they let them die.

I truly believe they are murderers and so I'm not real keen of these people

who seem to know who should die and who shouldn't. So while I would want to

keep a close eye on people like Vilsack, I want to keep an even closer eye

on the eugenics already being carried out in our pitiful excuse for a health

care system.

Bill

--- In

<mailto: %40> , Jeanmarie Todd <jaytee3@...>

wrote:

> abortions. At least one insurance company, however, is trying to force

> a patient to undergo sterilization. Now that's something to get

> outraged about. Here's that story:

> After having a c-section, Peggy on received a letter. It was

> from her insurance company, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, and it

> basically said this: get sterilized, or you won't receive coverage.

>

> No insurance company should ever be allowed to demand a woman be

> sterilized.

>

October 18, 2009

Sometimes I look back on the story of the city that was obliterated in biblical

days by " God " and I ask are there any good people left in the world today. Do

we deserve to to keep living as we do? Hurting eachother and not doing anything

to change?

Dan Holt

________________________________

From: Dawn <blaidd1@...>

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 8:18:03 PM

Subject: RE: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

You make some great points, Bill. But I just don't see how we an institute

any health care right now until we find a way to get the corruption out of

our government and trim it down to where it should be. I see no problem

with states running health care programs if the people want it and they can

afford it.

But we're set up for failure. We are told to eat things that make us sick,

then given drugs that make symptoms better but make us sick in other ways or

kill us out right, and then when there are natural means of fixing things it

is banned ore regulated out of existence to protect the profits of the big

corporation who has the money to lobby and can send in their goons to run

the FDA etc.

The American public then accepts that the FDA is looking out for us because

the government is supposed to protect us when in fact the FDA is exploiting

us worse than ever putting their seal approval on killer drugs and vaccines

and banning stevia being labeled as a sweetner.

This country has rotted to the core.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Bill

Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:21 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

When you write a textbook, you MUST discuss all the positions out there (and

the scary part is, yes, these positions do exist in a part of the

environmental movement). As I indicated previously, I think he was

discussing this sociologically- -as in, you can expect these proposals to be

taken seriously if the population crisis escalates. I also wouldn't be

surprised if he was a lot more sympathetic to these whack job proposals than

you or I, particularly since in the pages I've seen reproduced he makes no

mention of the ethics of these situations, which I do think is the author's

responsibility. By that I don't mean just opining, but discussing them in

light of ethical philosophy.

For instance, utilitarians would probably be a lot more sympathetic to

eugenics " for the greater good, " just as they tend to be towards torture, or

bombing Hiroshima, or the like than deontological/ Kantian thinkers, who