daden's blog

MindMapping Pretension

Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:55:00 -0500

I've been playing with MindMapping software again in the last few days, trying to find one that will do things that would be helpful but so far none of them seem to fit the bill exactly. In any case, they key thing I wanted to note is the patent absurdity of the mind mapping PR BS. Don't get me wrong, I actually like them and have found them useful for some things but the pretensionness of claiming that they reflect "how you think" absolutely drives me crazy. Mostly because it is so stupid. They may provide a way to help organize data and sort through some things but to say they are the way people think is either a) ridiculously overblown or b) pitifully ignorant. Or, the people who write that drivel actually do think that way and we should pity them -- and certainly never take their investment recommendations (assuming that if they are incapable of thinking in one area, other areas might be affected). Promote your software as tools, as organizing devices and such but don't insult your audience by saying your tool is the way they think.

The high price of medicine

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 12:03:00 -0500

I'm watching the "Making a Killing" video available on the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) site which I would highly recommend. It is amazing the amount of money involved in pushing drugs and the disasterous results that stem from all the drug use. While there are likely many things contributing to the high price of medicine these days, there are a couple of obvious simple steps that could be taken to immediate reduce overall costs:

Knock off the straight to the public advertising of drugs -- the public should have all the INFORMATION and DATA available about presciption drugs -- but advertising is not information, it is advertising. They are different things.
Knock off the widespread drugging of Americans, particularly children, with psych drugs. Just saving the cost of the drugs would be a good thing but the drop in overall medical cost would far exceed the cost of the drugs -- which is not inconsiderable -- as it would also lessen so much other collateral damage.

As a small business owner, I know how much it would help to have more affordable health insurance -- it is about time that obvious areas of greed and no results be cut out of the medical systems for which we all pay too much.

How to Force an Expensive Drug on the Unsuspecting...

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:05:00 -0500

Fascinating article that gives a quick history of the marketing (not medical) efforts of Big Pharma to push off dangerous, expensive drugs: Drug research: To test or to tout? It's a good article, though a point missing from this is that none of these drugs actually cure anything that has an proven reality. So, while the marketing ploys are criminal and should be prosecuted, the bigger picture is that the whole question is a sham: none of these drugs (neither the old nor the new) cure anything that has any identifiable physical basis.

More government sleaze

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:26:00 -0500

I wrote the following letter to my senators and reps about the attempt to ram mental health parity through with the economy bailout bill. What the two have to do with one another, I don't know. It just seems that some Congressmen will use any excuse to push their insane agendas -- I guess what they can't win in the court of public opinion, they'll try to get through under the cover of a national crisis. Here's my letter: News reports indicate that Mental Health Parity has been stuffed into the economic bail-out bill. WHEN WILL CONGRESS GET AN OUNCE OF INTEGRITY AND STOP SLEAZING CONTROVERSIAL THINGS THROUGH BY BURYING THEM IN OTHER ISSUES? Right now Congress is under scrutiny to do the right thing. In this moment of intense scrutiny and national crisis, it should make a least an attempt to climb out of the gutter. Mental health parity is a bad idea, is controversial, has broad and credible opposition and will cost businesses and the taxpayer alike. It should die a deserved death. But apparently, Congress doesn't take the national economic crisis seriously enough to deal with it head-on; instead it is used as an opportunity to get through pork-barrel for an industry (Big Pharma and psychiatry) which itself is under attack. Please quit playing around -- get mental health parity and any other pork and sleaze out of the economic bail-out and deal with the issue to hand. And, by the way, I don't think the economic bail-out has had enough study. It should NOT be passed now until we have had a chance to examine the current problem and the proposed solution thoroughly.

Art and the artist

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:16:00 -0500

I saw a special about James Taylor recently on PBS -- oh, actually, just remembered, it was on the flight to Austria for my son's wedding. In any case, it was an interview with him interspersed with some music. Pretty interesting overall but one line of questioning struck me. The interviewer was asking about the songs he wrote in the Sweet Baby James period -- the ones that were somewhat melancholy. The interviewer was asking JT about what those songs meant or might mean or might indicate about JT's life at the time. JT basically responded to the effect that music and the life are different things. He seemed to be saying that he could write things that may or may not represent how he was actually feeling at the time. In other words, the art and the artist are different things. Of course, some artists can create works of art that represent something they are feeling or going through in their lives but it is not a requirement. Seems to me the real professional would be capable of producing art that communicates any emotion or response or idea whether or not it represents what he/she feels. Hopefully, artists select subjects and emotions which uplift or create positive change rather than encouraging degradation but perhaps that's just a personal preference. One interesting point is that some research carried out by L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950's into the wavelengths of life energy covered the relationship between aesthetics and life -- and a mechanism behind the tendency for aesthetics and life to become confused. (See the book Scientology 8-80.) It was fascinating to see that underlying mechanism played out so clearly. This lead to the recognition that it is pretty common -- for me too, of course -- to confuse the art with the artist when in fact they are quite different. The artist is the creator, the art the created. The simple fact is that works of art (the created) have properties as an energy that tend to become confused with the energy of life (the creator). The details are in the book reference above.

Chloe is born!

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:14:00 -0500

My son's daughter was born today! 6 pounds, 7 ounces and absolutely perfect. Actually, the work "perfect" was one of the most used words the whole day by everyone around. It was a very good day!

July flew by

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:39:00 -0500

Man, but July flew by! There was a lot going on, very busy at work. Right now I'm sitting in an airport in North Caronlina on the way home having spent a couple of days doing requirements gathering. Did the same thing a couple of weeks ago but that was in Houston, Texas. Requirements gathering is actually pretty interesting -- it's nice to see how it both clarifies what needs to be done technically and also helps businesses clarify for themselves what they want or need to do. Anyway, the upcoming month is going to be wild. My younger son's wedding is in a couple of weeks and two weeks after that my older son is going to be a father for the first time. I think that will make me a first time something too.

Alabama takes it to Big Pharma

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:15:00 -0500

Not sure how long this link will remain active, but here's a great story on the state of Alabama going after the drug companies for the money they swindled out of the state: Jere Beasley aims at billion-plus in settlements with drug makers He's won some great cases and now the state is offering the drug pushers a one-time only opportunity to settle. Here's the first couple of paragraphs: "Having won multi-million-dollar awards against three large drug manufacturers, the state of Alabama is now offering 67 other pharmaceutical companies the opportunity to settle out of court and save the companies millions of dollars. At the same time, the state could add more than $1 billion to its bottom line and markedly improve funding for Medicaid which serves the poor, the elderly, children and the disabled in Alabama. "Lead attorney Jere Beasley of Montgomery says that Attorney General Troy King has sent letters to the remaining drug companies, giving them 30 days to settle all claims or face trial in Montgomery County Circuit Court. "After 30 days, we ain't going to negotiate with any of them," Beasley said." This guy should be applauded and the rest of the states should get in line and do the same -- only then might the drug pushers begin to realize that they can't push drugs the way they have been.

Polar opposites

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:15:00 -0500

Came across an interesting comment in L. Ron Hubbard's book Science of Survival. It is to the effect that the rougher the condition a person is in, the gentler must be one's approach when trying to help them. So, if you wanted to try to help someone who is obviously psychotic, your approach or the technique that you might use must be that much more gentle and "light" than your approach could be to someone in good shape. The basic idea is that someone in good shape is better able to handle more things and so is more capable of confronting serious problems or difficulties they may have. This seems so obvious that it almost seems trivial to say. It even applies in life -- and we apply it intuitively. You meet a guy you'd known in high school and he's doing well at his job, family is fine and you can tell he likes to joke around. You might exchange friendly insults with him, perhaps even crack on his momma, the loss of his hair of the new belly he's sporting. A week later you run into him again and he looks horrible. You find out his wife and children were killed by a drunk driver. Unless you are a complete idiot, you don't start teasing him about his loss of hair. You tread lightly. You let him do the talking, if he wants to. You even tend to talk more quietly and want to try to keep things calm around him. You might even ask if he needs anything like food or help around the house since you know there's a good chance he's ignoring the basics of life at the moment. All natural reactions and appropriate. He's what the shrink does: If someone is doing okay in life, they might just have a conversation with the person, though they are just as likely to try to find something wrong. But, if the person is having a rough time, the shrink's inclination is to molest the person with mind altering drugs. Not, mind you, the inclination that every other sane person might have which would be to keep things calm and gentle - psych drugs are an assault with horrible, disturbing side effects. If that doesn't work and the person is doing even worse, the shrink ups the violence and sends 120 volts of electricity through their head to CAUSE a grand mal seizure (something everyone else in the medical profession tries to avoid). If that doesn't work and the person is even worse off, the shrink might stick the guy in restraints. And, for the really bad off, the shrink decides it's time to really get serious and permanently maim the person (as if the electric shock didn?t already accomplish that) by cutting out portions of the brain. It is so absurd, it doesn't compute. It doesn't line up with obvious, common experience. I think the major mistake the rest of us make is deciding "there must be something I don't know because they are obviously an expert at this" instead of facing up to the obvious which is "these shrinks are so insane that they do the opposite of what any rational human being would do and they do it to the most vulnerable amongst us -- they must be criminally insane themselves." And, guess what? If we took that second attitude some kindness, gentleness and, yes, even sanity, might enter into the field of mental health and we might start to see success rates as were being achieved in the 1800's when that type of approach WAS used with the mentally ill. Wouldn't that be a nice change of pace? What a novel thought - treating those who are having a rough time of it with some kindness!

Psychiatry and Pharma Unholy Alliance Info

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:36:00 -0500

An interesting site with info on psychiatry's unholy alliance with Big Pharma is now avaialble at PsychConflicts.org. The videos are revealing and the conflict disclosure information for psychs speaking at the American Psychiatric Assocation (APA) annual meetings is staggering. American Pharma Association would be their more correct name. It is great to see these guys finally beginning to be held responsible though the exposures, investigations, lawsuits, etc. need to go even faster.

Word changes: deterioration in view

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:56:00 -0500

In comparing the definitions of a word in dictionaries from two different eras, I ran across an interesting example of the deterioration of the view of Man as a causative, responsible being. The first definition is from the Century Dictionary, an online dictionary which contains images of a dictionary apparently published near the end of the 1800's/beginning of the 1900's. The word is "Reason": "An idea acting as a cause to create or confirm a belief, or to induce a voluntary action; a judgment or belief going to determine a given belief or line of conduct." So, reason is a cause that leads to action. It is an idea that leads to something being done or a belief being held. It is a causative agent -- something that results in an effect: the causative nature is very clear. From the Macmillan Dictionary for Students published in 1981: "something, as a fact or circumstance, which serves as a ground, motive, or cause." Significantly less clearly causative. Now it is something out there that might possibly serve as a cause. It is not necessarily actually a cause, but might be interpreted that way. From the Webster's New World Dictionary for Young Readers from 1989: "something said to explain or try to explain an act, idea, etc." Nothing causative about this any more. Now a reason is just an excuse used to justify something that was done. So, thoughs or actions might have happened -- who knows how -- and the "reason" is what we use to explain what we believe or do. Very little causativeness there. The second definition in the same dictionary does say: "a cause for some action, feeling, etc." but the example sentence is "Noisy neighbors were our reason for moving." In other words, there may be a cause, but here we're talking about someone else causing something. So we still haven't identified the individual as being causative. What's been removed from the definition? The idea of a responsible, causative agent capable of coming to conclusions that result in beliefs and actions. To my mind, what's been removed is the person himself. I guess somewhere between 1900 and 1989, the core of Man got lost. Perhaps in that time he changed from a causative agent to a lump of chemicals that reacts and then provides explanations for why he acted. Or perhaps he didn't change but the PR about him did. Perhaps someone has a reason ("an idea acting as a cause to create or confirm a belief, or to induce a voluntary action; a judgment or belief going to determine a given belief or line of conduct") that leads to belief and action to promote an image of Man that makes him out to be far less causative than he used to be. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, just a great deal of stupidity and perhaps some financial or political advantage that someone might have somewhere. I wonder what would happen if our kids were taught that they are causative people whose thoughts, decisions and reasons matter because they mean something and they are responsible? Personally, I like the 1900's view better and, I suspect, society at large might run better if each individual was viewed as a causative agent rather than someone who thinks of excuses to explain why they did the stupid things they just did. :-)

Re-Kindled Youth

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:12:00 -0500

In my youth I sang songs of melancholy
Despair and unfulfilled love,
And called them truth.
The paper song, the troubled plea,
The aching stretch to articulate a meaning
Sensed, but not held,
Wished, but not known,
Gossamer, like fleece between a feather's strands,
Wiser now, not a little cynical,
Tied in and down --
Or considered so --
A critic of the sour, misplaced notes of youth.
But here's the clue --
In youth there was song
And love's exploratory dance
In youth there was dream
And future chance.
The simple trick is that nothing's changed:
No world event so monumental
No shattering sorrow so dreadful
Despite the screaming torrent of fabricated tripe
All timed and tuned to forestall original thought,
All fixed and ready to perpetuate the forlorn,
The hopeless, the tired view that all is lost --
And in particular that what was had is lost
To me and thee:
Each of us in turn an intended paper cut-out doll,
A replicant of what's safe and quo.
So now, a lifetime later I know
And see the grimmest trick --
The simple thought
That what might have been so lost
Might be naught but that one for which
Change does matter,
That one too close to ever notice.

Kiddie Drugging Doctor Bribed by Big Pharma

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:53:00 -0500

Whenever you read about the 8 million US kids on mind-screwing shrink drugs, you hear about the "controversial" Dr. Joseph Biederman of Harvard and Mass General Hospital. He's the SOB who pushed drugging of little kids, who extended the definition of made-up diseases to little, defenseless babies. Now it comes out that he and his colleagues received more than a million dollars each from drug companies who benefited from his "research." Let's be blunt. This guy should be prosecuted criminally, the FDA should put an immediate halt to the drugging of kids based on his "research" and, to the parents whose babies have been screwed up by this guy I say "let the suing begin!" He should be sued into bankrupcy and beyond just to add variety to his criminal conviction. The unmitigated criminality of taking that much money from companies who then profit by drugging babies is unbelievable. Next should come the stoogies who have been standing up for him, praising him and using his "research" to justify mutilation of kids. When are we going to get the message that the "drug every problem" mentality is a created marketing idea that only serves big financial interests?

Reality of psychiatric think

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:00:00 -0500

In thinking about the experience of the family member pushed to drug a kid with brain altering chemicals after the kid had been molested, I re-realized the absurdity of psych think and how important it is to understand what they are really saying. The bottom line of Big Pharma-driven psych theory is that chemical imbalances are the cause of mental "illnesses." Not experience, not our decisions, not what we do, not our viewpoints of things, just chemical imbalances. That is SO contrary to what the average person believes and the way the average person views the world that keeping it in place takes billions and billions of dollars of promotion and PR. Here's what it means -- that none of the following are causes of anything: 1) If your wife runs off with your best friend and your feel devastated. 2) Your business fails and your feel disgraced and lost. 3) Your child dies in a horrible car accident. 4) You see your country alienating the entire world through an inability to think creatively and constructively. If these or other things occur and you feel depressed, they are not the cause of feeling depressed, some chemical imbalance in your brain (which can't be verified objectively) is the cause. That this is their view is obvious because the prescription to deal with any of the above is not to help you deal with the experience or the reality but is to drug you to to treat a mythical chemical imbalance. No one in their right mind -- and without a huge vested interest -- would deny implicitly or overtly that those kinds of experiences might affect a person. Of course any of those problem and a thousand more that could be named have an effect on people. It is obvious that the experience and reality of being human and being alive includes things that affect us mentally and emotionally. Everyone knows and understands that. The shrink is so incapable of helping a person with any of those things that he has moved to the point of denying they have any importance, opting to say instead that chemistry is all important. No wonder it takes billions of PR dollars to try to make us think their way, to try to convince us that chemical imbalances are "real diseases" that should be legislated into existence (an actual effort on Big Pharma's part). Strip away the "I'm smarter than you claptrap", the holy authority in which they wrap themselves, the complicated latin mumbo jumbo and you see that their view on life is so warped and foreign to common experience that it is unbelievable.

Psychiatric insanity

Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:00:00 -0500

I heard a story about a family member that is well worth repeating as it demonstrates a hole in psych thinking that one could drive a cruise ship through. A young boy was molested by the father of one of his friends. The victim became very skittish, unable to deal with life, constantly on edge, withdrawn, etc. He was about to be put on pills prescribed by a psych when a family member managed to intervene and direct the kid's mother down a safer path. Let's think this through a bit. According to shrinks, mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance that is remedied by giving their victims powerful mind-alterning, brain chemistry impacting drugs. At least that is the justification for paying them billions of dollars to drug 8 million US kids and countless millions of other people around the world. So, if the kid needed drugs to handle the condition, the shrink was obviously saying that a chemical imbalance was present. If not, there would be no justification for attacking the kids brain. But, doesn't that mean that the emotional experience of being molested caused the chemical imbalance? The kid was fine before being molested. He was not fine afterwards -- the molestation is the obvious point that lead to the change. So, how do they reconcile giving a kid drugs that don't help deal with the experience but only adjust a supposed chemical imbalance? The molestation is the obvious starting point for the problems. I guess we can only conclude that experience causes chemical imbalances. But, if experience causes chemical imbalance, then the chemical imbalance is obviously NOT the cause of the mental problems, the experience is. In that case, where do they get off saying that chemical imbalances are the cause of mental illness and why don't they pay more attention to the experiences that might underlie problems? Perhaps they might say that the chemical imbalance was latent, just waiting for something to mysteriously cause it to kick in. Even then, wouldn't the logical point of address still be the experience? I mean if experience can cause a chemical imbalance to kick in, why couldn't a different kind of experience cause the chemical imbalance to "kick out"? In either case, the real point of attack, the real point of interest is the experience, not the chemistry. Unless of course, the chemical imbalance has nothing to do with it and the only real intent is to just drug the kid into a stupor that denies the whole experience. In that case, why not give him a daily healthy dose of bourbon? It's cheaper and less immediately brain-damaging. Even with that suggestion I'm probably being generous and assuming that care for the kid enters into it at all. Perhaps the intent is closer to: "let's put the kid on a drug that will make him a patient and cash cow for life. The drug has to stifle him enough or deaden his feelings enough so he's less trouble because then no one will notice there's a problem and they'll keep paying for the drugs and for my high boat payments."