Ignorant and Free

Most of us have been trained well—we find the guilty ones in life, so that we can proclaim our own innocence. Some religions teach that the guilty ones go to hell; so much more important than to be one of the innocent ones whose ticket is punched for heaven. Now, none of this may be occurring on a conscious level; but if we are aware, we can observe how we relish in judging others for small infractions as well as for massive crimes. This week, with the sentencing of Bernie Madoff, we reeled in a big fish—it would hard to imagine someone as unambiguously guilty.

At his sentencing hearing, not one person spoke on Madoff’s behalf; and I won’t either. However, I will point out an unpleasant truth—present day America is full of Bernie Madoffs. By “full of Bernie Madoffs” I don’t mean full of people who have set up $50 billion Ponzi schemes; I mean people who think nothing of spending other people’s money as though it were their own or people who think trustworthy behavior is a ticket for being left behind in life. America is being destroyed by our Bernie Madoffs.

More individuals in America resemble Bernie Madoff than we care to admit. Some sink to the level of criminality, some don’t; but regardless, their actions erode our freedoms. First, given the size of the fraud and the countless false statements detailing trades that never occurred, it is likely that tens, if not hundreds, of others were involved in Madoff’s fraud. In May, it was revealed that Jeffrey Picower took out over $5 billion of “gains” from his Madoff fund. According to Reuters, Irving Picard, the trustee overseeing the liquidation of Madoff’s assets, “claimed that in several cases Picower’s purported annual rates of return were more than 100 percent, with some annual returns as high as 500 percent or even 950 percent.”  I expect that we will be hearing more about Picower’s relationship with Madoff.

And what of the innocent Madoff investors, the ones earning merely 10-15% a year? Only those ignorant of economics and finance could believe in the financial “perpetual motion machine” run by Madoff; only the ignorant could believe that losses are a thing of the past and a steady stream of gains is here to stay. No doubt some, despite their wealth, were ignorant; but surely, more than a few must have suspected that something was wrong. Some of these “innocents” are now demanding that the government pay them, not only for the money that they originally deposited with Madoff, but for the “gains” that their false statements showed. In other words, while many non-Madoff investors found their stock funds down by 50% or more, these “innocents” believe that they should receive the false gains that Madoff promised. And who would pay for this? Why, the taxpayer, of course. No, these “innocents” are not guilty of fraud; but like Madoff, they behave as though other people’s money is their personal piggy bank.

Yes, I know that there are many Madoff investors who would be happy to have their original investment refunded; they have no designs on false gains. Our hearts go out to these investors for what to them must be terrible suffering.

This week, alongside the Madoff story, the Washington Post reported that “Sen. Daniel K. Inouye’s staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.” Shortly after the phone call, Inouye’s bank received $135 million.

Of course, Inouye’s conduct is part of a much bigger problem. Bill Bonner answered his own question about Madoff: “Isn’t he the biggest financial scammer of all time?”

Well…he’s the title-holder now. But he has a lot of competition close on his heels. Bernie’s crime was taking money from people under false pretenses…and then being unable to give it back to them. How is that different from the financing activities of the US government?

This year alone, the feds will borrow 50 times as much money as Bernie managed to take in during his whole 20-year career. They can only pay it back by borrowing even more money from more lenders. This is not very different from the typical “Ponzi” scheme, except that it’s the government doing it. Eventually, the suckers are going to lose a lot of money.

It is easy to rail against government, but what about the likes of Donald Trump, respected and admired by many?  The Wall Street Journal recently reported on Donald Trump’s deposition taken in late 2007 as part of his lawsuit against author Timothy L. O’Brien. The Journal describes Trump’s definition of being “sold-out”:

Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal in November 2007 that he sold all 1,282 units at his Las Vegas condo project that he owns with casino and hand-truck magnate Phil Ruffin. There were $1.3 billion in proceeds coming from that project, he told The Journal and other news outlets, including CNBC.

In the deposition one month later, he said he had deposits for around 900 units. Mr. O’Brien’s lawyer, Andrew Ceresney, asked whether Mr. Trump was caught in a lie?

“That’s not a lie,” Mr. Trump said. He said that he was holding on to the rest of the units as an investment. “I’m a buyer also, essentially.”

Trump was also asked whether “he has ever exaggerated in statements about his properties.” Trump’s response:

“I think everybody does,” he said in the deposition. “Who wouldn’t?”

A follow-up question: Does that mean he inflates the value of his properties in general, nonfinancial public statements? “Not beyond reason,” he said in the testimony.

And just who is the arbiter of what “not beyond reason” means? Of course, Trump himself. I personally would never knowingly do business with the likes of a Trump; and if I was forced to, I would be backed by an army of lawyers and accountants. How quickly would commerce grind to a halt if everyone did business the Trump way?

As for Madoff, he will never be a free man again; but we are not safe. The same culture that produced Madoff, produced his investors, produced Trump, and produced Washington, D.C. Our troubles are just beginning, and we are not innocent. At a minimum, we are collectively ignorant of the values and principles that preserve freedom.

On this Fourth of July weekend, we can be reminded of Jefferson’s words: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free…it expects what never was and never will be.”

Lessons from Iran

In the 21^st Century, billions still suffer under the rule of corrupt, murderous despots. What many do not understand is that human beings suffer because they consent to do so. The “they” I speak of is the collective will of the nation and not of specific individuals.

Consider Iran. In 1989, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei became the Supreme Leader of Iran with the divine right to rule; an Ayatollah is not elected. Last week he pronounced his divine sanction on the reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and ruled that all further disputes over the presidency were to end.

On the surface, it is easy to label the victims and the victimizers here; and on one level, we would be correct. Yet, however satisfying our story of good guys and bad guys is, it doesn’t point us toward change.

Human beings exist in relationship to one another. A moment’s reflection tells us that, at least until now, the powers of Khamenei have flown not from divine authority but from the will of the population. Yes, I concede, there is at least a minority of Iranian people who have had enough of this theocracy and of Basij, its vicious militia/vigilante enforcement arm. But if you doubt that Khamenei rules by popular support of Iranians, ask yourself this question: “How powerful would Khamenei be if he lived in the United States? If he was an American, could he establish a theocracy?”

You might answer, “Very powerful, if he had the power of a brutal militia behind him.”  But that begs the question of how the Iranian theocracy formed and why many Iranians take up arms in its defense. A full answer is beyond the scope of this blog post, but we can simply say that many Iranians share a common understanding that their society should be formed as a theocracy.

In Iranian society there is a great deal of suffering, not the least of which is that Iran’s full range of human potential is not being expressed. Why would anyone choose to be a victim of such a society? One reason is that victims escape responsibility for their own choices and their own failures by saying, “It is for the good of God,” or “Divine will has ordained this.”

We can wish the Iranians well as they bravely strive to create a new, collective understanding of how their society should be organized. At the same time—as our own house is not in order—we can learn from them important lessons.

Once a tyrannical despot is in place, he or she is not easily dislodged. That is why our founding fathers put strict limits on the coercive power of government. The spontaneous forces and institutions that build a free and vibrant civilization are not easily rebuilt once they are destroyed. As we continue to relinquish our own freedoms, getting our freedoms back will not be simple. It will not be a matter of simply saying that we made a mistake and we want to start over again.

There is all the difference between activities that are organized around government and activities organized around a free-market. If, for instance, you go out to eat and have a bad meal, you simply do not patronize that restaurant again. If you go to the Motor Vehicle Administration, stand in a long line and are treated rudely, you have no other viable option. Our lives run smoothly and we are free to develop and express our human potential to the extent that we are free to choose. Yet, collectively, we are rushing to turn over to the government more and more aspects of our daily lives—automobiles, health care, energy, etc. When the limit on what government can do is determined by a vote and not by a principle, freedom is surely lost.

Before we silently sneer at people who worship Ayatollahs, we might wonder what flawed human beings we Americans worship? Through what distorted lenses do we see? To whom do we turn over our own responsibilities so that at the end of the day we have someone to blame?

The Republicans and the Democrats—and those who worship them—play this Kabuki dance: Whoever is out of power gets to blame the other party for all the ills that befall the country. Daily, Republicans and Democrats and the pundits bang each other over the head with foam mallets; and the public reinforces its collective belief that it really does matter which party is in power.

But, how can it matter? Both parties—acting without principles—have been taking the county in the direction of larger budget deficits, more ruinous foreign adventures, and less domestic freedom for many decades. As we choose to be distracted by this Kabuki dance, we neither educate ourselves or our children on the principles that support prosperous and free societies.

If we are Democrats, we claim to be victims of Bush. If we are Republicans, we claim to be victims of Obama. All of this is a lie. We have created, through our own collective ignorance, the mess we see. We would rather blame than be mature enough to take responsibility and become a free people.

Before it gets better, things are going to get a lot worse in the United States. The stakes we face are incalculably greater and the consequences harder to overcome than a bad restaurant meal. Our Iranian brothers and sisters are teaching us just how high the stakes can be.

The Thrill of Victory and the Certainty of Defeat

It was 1994. Republicans running for public office on their so-called “Contract with America” promised, among other things, budgetary reform; they gained control of the House for the first time in over 40 years. In 1995, the Republicans gained control of the Senate. In 2002, they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. What they delivered was ruinous budget deficits, setting records at the time. If any Republicans, other than Congressman Ron Paul, felt their policies were damaging to America, they didn’t speak up.

Now that they are in exile, Republicans complain about the political ignominy that they are suffering. A fair assessment is that their ignominy is well-earned. They have yet been able to articulate a credible alternative to the destructive policies of the Democrats.

It was 1998. The United Auto Workers, filled with pride and arrogance over having won another contract dispute with General Motors, marched victoriously through downtown Flint, Michigan. Did any of these union members fear that the rules, salaries, and benefits that they had negotiated would undermine the sustainability of the company? Those who harbored such fears were certainly in the minority. Now, eleven years later, General Motors is bankrupt; its stock price has fallen to an unfathomable $1 a share. And in Flint there are proposals to raze vast sections of the abandoned city and returning the land to green space.

It was May, 2009. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle received a thunderous standing ovation from the audience at a Broadway theater in New York. They were out on a “date.” Some objected to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money spent for the trip. The objections were dismissed with a cavalier explanation—President Obama had promised his wife a Broadway show. When asked how much the trip cost, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a stumbling response: “I would say that the costs are proportionate with travel for presidents and I would encourage you to look up previous coverage on travel costs.”

Nowhere in Obama’s administration did there seem to be even a simple acknowledgement that millions of Americans are facing with very hard financial choices every day, and their tax dollars were funding his date. Of course, Obama’s date is just a symbol of the unprecedented waste going on daily in Washington as resources are hijacked from productive uses and redirected to non-productive uses.

By what principles are Obama and the Democrats in Congress governing?  A fair-minded assessment is that their principles are about as discernible as those that the Republicans governed under. In other words, they haven’t any.

Those who don’t know how free-markets work accuse leaders of corporations of making shortsighted decisions for short-run profits. No doubt, that happens often enough. But the market corrects for this: Such corporations are selected against by the natural forces of the marketplace. Over time, as in the case of General Motors, they are the least able to fulfill the most compelling desires of consumers.

Democrats and Republicans really are alike. The evidence shows that nothing matters to them except amassing huge campaign war chests and winning the next election. Routinely they vote on bills that they have never even read. If being a principled leader and an honorable steward of the United States Constitution ever crosses their minds, they are afraid to express such sentiments.

Unlike the Republicans and General Motors, the downfall in popularity of Barack Obama is still months or years in the future. For now, he is still savoring the thrill of victory and the adulation of the crowds. Like the Republicans and like General Motors, his thrill of victory will be followed by the certainty of defeat for without principles one cannot lead; one cannot be at peace.

“Nothing can bring you peace but yourself; nothing, but the triumph of principles,” advised Ralph Waldo Emerson. “What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true Self?” asked Jesus.

In her book Soul-Kissed, Ann Linthorst tells a story of a “woman who was showing her spiritual teacher around her backyard….The teacher commented on the number of birds. The woman exclaimed. ‘Oh, I have never noticed any birds out there before.’ Her teacher replied, ‘Madam, you must have birds in your heart before you will find birds in your backyard.’”

The “birds” that our politicians do not have their hearts are timeless, clearly articulated values and principles and the integrity to hold to them. Before this economic crisis is over, the Democrats will take their rightful place beside the Republicans, both held in contempt by the public.

Who Mourns For the Prostitute?

Marcia Powell, forty-eight, was serving twenty-seven months for prostitution in an Arizona state prison. Late in May, she was placed in an outdoor holding cell for approximately four hours. The cell was not shaded; the outdoor temperature was 108 degrees. She was left in the cell until she collapsed, despite three corrections officers being just twenty yards away in a monitoring control room. Powell died the next day.

To be sure Powell lived a very troubled life. But why did the three corrections officers choose to commit violence against Powell? Clearly, they saw her as less than a human being; she was a mere object to them. Her comfort, her safety, her life was apparently of no concern to them.

The Arbinger Institute through their seminars and best-selling books has done much work in helping individuals understand the damage they to do to themselves and to others when they see others as objects. Violent behavior begins with a violent heart. Arbinger (their work is not attributed to individual authors) writes: “To see a fellow person as an inferior object is to harbor a violent heart towards that person.”

When do we begin to see others as an object? Arbinger writes: “When we regard others’ hopes, needs, cares, and fears as inferior to, or less legitimate than, our own, we see others as less than they are—as  objects rather than as people.” In other words, Powell was a mere prostitute, a mere inmate who needed to be controlled.

While the responsibility of the corrections officers for their actions is inescapable, the responsibility of the institution that they served cannot be ignored. Butler Shaffer, in his book Calculated Chaos, does an important service in dissecting how our institutions often produce violence. Leaders of coercive institutions, according to Shaffer, “regard their functions as being to manipulate, threaten, induce or coerce the group members into subordinating their personal interests and promoting organizational purposes.”

What institutional purposes could the leaders of the prison system have? Perhaps, bigger budgets, more perks, and more power for themselves. A humane prison culture that facilitates rehabilitation might not cross their minds. The result of all of this can only be fear. The more the culture of the prison is fear-based, the more dehumanized both the prison guards and the prisoners become.

Brandy Britton was a former assistant professor of sociology and anthropology at the University of Maryland.  In 1999 she resigned amidst controversy. Her second husband was abusive and assaulted her. In 2006, after running into financial troubles, she became a $300 an hour high-end escort. After relentless prosecution by county authorities, she committed suicide in 2007.

Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former New York governor, prosecuted prostitutes during his tenure as attorney general of New York. After resigning as governor for being a client of prostitution ring, he was never indicted; now he is in the process of reinventing himself as a media columnist and public speaker.

You don’t have to be a feminist to notice the disparities in how Powell, Britton, and Spitzer were treated. Then there is the question of why the citizens of Arizona, Maryland, and other states are not troubled that their tax money goes to prosecute and incarcerate prostitutes in the first place.

There is really no way to reform the system directly—our prisons, our courts, our laws against victimless crimes. Correct one abuse and two more will appear next month. The real reform begins inside each of us. When we stop seeing our fellow human beings as objects then more humane, non-coercive institutions will automatically arise.

The Delusion of Control

The National Association for Business Economics released a survey this week reporting that “more than 90 percent of economists predict the recession will end this year.” On that forecast, I would not bet any money that I could not afford to lose.

Their cautious but optimistic forecast is in line with those of government officials, such as Ben Bernanke, and it reflects two biases. First is the well-known herding mechanism that drives forecasters. If you issue a forecast that is in line with the forecasts of others but the consensus is wrong, who can blame you? There is safety in numbers. All who are wrong exclaim, “We didn’t anticipate….” The second bias comes from the belief that surely what Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner are doing will have some effect.

In her book A Mind of Its Own, Cordelia Fine describes a classic social psychology experiment about the delusion of control:

Take, for example, a task in which volunteers are asked to try and get a light to come on by pressing a button. Volunteers are told that the button might control the light; in fact, the light comes on and off randomly and its illumination is entirely unrelated to what the volunteer does with the button. Yet although the volunteers have actually no control over the light, their perception is very different. They experience the illusion of control, as it is known, and claim to have an influence over the light. As subjects for further vanity, people rate their personal control more highly if the light happens to come on more often. In other words, we are even more susceptible to the self flattering impression that we are responsible for how things have turned out when they turn out well.

Let’s apply this to our seemingly bottomless—for now—faith in the capacity of Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke to control the economy. Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke tell the public that there are light switches in their offices and that they know how to turn them on. The three of them sit by their switches, frantically trying to get the lights to come on. And when the lights happen to come on—in other words, when there is occasional good news about the economy—the public dutifully applauds and says on cue, “Aren’t we fortunate that in our time of troubles we have found such talented individuals who know how to turn on the lights.”

The only problem is that—to the extent they have any control at all—their light switches are not connected to a healthy economy but rather to mechanisms that causes further harm to the economy.

Notice the title of my essay is “The Delusion of Control” and not the more genteel “The Illusion of Control.” David Gershaw explains the difference between illusion and delusion.

An illusion is a perceptual disturbance, while a delusion is a belief disturbance….a delusion is a deeply held false belief that is maintained—even when other information contradicts the belief. The contradictory information is either ignored completely or discounted in some way.

In other words, some are under delusions about how the economy works. They believe—against all evidence—that the cure for too much debt is even more debt and that the cure for a failed business decision is a bailout. They are not suffering from illusions; they are deluded.

Back to the forecast by the business economists. An astute observer, Bill Bonner, recently wrote:

The private sector is not going to begin a new growth period until they’ve paid off, worked out, defaulted on, or shirked a lot of their present debt load. We’ve estimated that they need to get rid of about $20 trillion worth. And that’s going to take time. And a lot of painful decisions by a lot of people. Bad business, investment and spending decisions need to be recognized…and fixed. Debt needs to be reduced.

Do business economists really think that this process—in the face of all the interferences by government—will be completed this year?

Does Bloodletting Boost Stocks?

Daily we are told by the pundits that consumer confidence is back and that the worst of the economic crisis is over. It is not hard to find stories such as yesterday’s at CNNMoney.com where Paul La Monica told us:

The market rally keeps chugging along. And even though some are concerned that stocks have moved up too quickly from their March lows, there is one undeniably healthy thing about this surge: Investors are not nearly as afraid about the economy as they were a few months ago.

What is the cause of this optimism? The Washington Post tells us today:

The improvement [in the financial system] reflects the combined impact of a wide range of actions, many of them taken with little public attention, according to government officials and private economists. But more important than any single program, the sources say, is a deepening confidence from financial markets that the government is prepared to take aggressive action — a confidence that Obama officials have repeatedly worked to cultivate in speeches and public appearances.

In other words, the good guys are in office, they are very smart, and they are willing to act. So now, we can all be confident.

Treasury Secretary Geithner told the Washington Post: “A huge part of getting out of this crisis is about confidence. And it’s the impressions, the impacts, not just by the quality of policies themselves, but by the sense of action by the government . . . that’s critically important to confidence.”

According to Geithner, it doesn’t even matter what he, Bernanke, and Obama do, as long as they do something. Can this really be true?

A classic logical fallacy is post hoc, ergo propter hoc which means “after this, therefore on account of this.” In other words, Geithner, Bernanke, and Obama took action; therefore, since the stock market is going up, it is because of their boldness. Of course, this negates obvious questions, such as “Why did the markets go down until March?” And other explanations, such as “the market is in a classic, countertrend, bear market rally that many expected and predicted,” are ignored.

And what happens in the not-so-distant future when the stock market begins to fall and goes under its March low? First, we can be sure that the media will not apply post hoc, ergo propter hoc to Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner. We will be told that the market is going down despite all of their heroic efforts. And those “heroic” efforts will continue—despite evidence that they don’t work.

Consider bloodletting. The “art” of bloodletting as a medical treatment persisted for over 2500 years until the 19^th Century. Here is one account of an unfavorable outcome—the death of George Washington:

According to his physician’s notes, Washington was afflicted with an inflammation of the upper windpipe on a Friday night. As it progressed, he developed a fever and difficulty breathing. Following medical standards of the time, he had someone come to bleed him that night. Twelve to 14 ounces of blood were removed, but he did not improve. The next afternoon, he was bled “copiously” twice more. When that proved ineffective, another 32 ounces of blood were removed. In addition to bleeding, his physicians also tried purging. By Saturday night, he was dead.

While here is an account of a “successful” treatment in 1824:

One typical course of medical treatment began the morning of 13 July 1824. A French sergeant was stabbed through the chest while engaged in single combat; within minutes, he fainted from loss of blood. Arriving at the local hospital he was immediately bled twenty ounces (570 ml) “to prevent inflammation”. During the night he was bled another 24 ounces (680 ml). Early the next morning, the chief surgeon bled the patient another 10 ounces (285 ml); during the next 14 hours, he was bled five more times. Medical attendants thus intentionally removed more than half of the patient’s normal blood supply—in addition to the initial blood loss which caused the sergeant to faint. Bleedings continued over the next several days. By 29 July, the wound had become inflamed. The physician applied 32 leeches to the most sensitive part of the wound. Over the next three days, there were more bleedings and a total of 40 more leeches. The sergeant recovered and was discharged on 3 October. His physician wrote that “by the large quantity of blood lost, amounting to 170 ounces [nearly eleven pints] (4.8 liters), besides that drawn by the application of leeches [perhaps another two pints] (1.1 liters), the life of the patient was preserved”. By nineteenth-century standards, thirteen pints of blood taken over the space of a month was a large but not an exceptional quantity. The medical literature of the period contains many similar accounts-some successful, some not.

Bloodletting persisted so long because favorable outcomes were attributed to the treatment, while unfavorable outcomes were deemed to have occurred despite the excellent treatment.

Bloodletting is an apt comparison to the bailout orgy that Washington is giving us. Unfortunately, the “blood” of healthy and productive economic contributors is being “let” and it is being transferred to those who are already dead, such as Chrysler.

Can that work? Of course not! But not to worry! The treatment, according to Geithner, doesn’t matter. The public will become more confident with every quart of blood he takes.

The Pharmaceutical Bubble

At my university, it is time for the annual open enrollment in health insurance. Every year I am astonished by the rates for prescription drug coverage. For family coverage, an employee’s cost is $79 a month, and the State of Maryland subsidizes the plan to the tune of $316 a month for a total cost of almost $400 a month. $400 a month! Just what are Americans popping?

Consider Lovaza. Lovaza is GlaxoSmithKline’s prescription fish oil, specially modified to provide high concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids. The cost for one year on Lovaza is an astonishing $3360. By the way, Lovaza—which is being marketed to reduce triglyceride levels—contains unhealthy, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils as a carrier base for the fish oils.

It is true, however, that the modern, Western diet generally lacks essential omega-3 fatty acids, particularly in relationship to an excess of omega-6 fatty acids.  Among other things, omega-3 fatty acids are essential for a healthy heart. But, simple modifications can easily restore omega-3 to your diet. There is no need for a pill. Wild salmon is omega-3 rich, as are vegetarian sources such as flax, walnuts, tofu, and leafy greens. (One caution: There are contradictory studies indicating that there may be an increased risk of prostate cancer with consumption of flax seed oil, but not flax seed meal.)

Modifying ones diet to increase the intake of omega-3 fatty acids costs but a tiny fraction of the $3360 a year price tag of Lovaza. Clearly, prescription drug insurance causes huge distortions in behavior. How many patients who do not have insurance for prescription drugs would consider buying Lovaza?

The marketing tactics of the drug companies, aided and abetted by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), are truly unconscionable. We are told by GlaxoSmithKline that Lovaza “is approved by the FDA to reduce very high triglycerides” and that “unlike Lovaza, dietary supplements are not approved to treat any disease.”

This is misleading, since food and dietary supplements are not tested by the FDA concerning their power to prevent or cure disease. Recently the FDA made national headlines when they warned General Mills about their claim that Cheerios (an oats based cereal) is a means to help reduce cholesterol:

Based on claims made on your product’s label, we have determined that your Cheerios… is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease…[Cheerios] may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.

What does the FDA announcement about Cheerios instill in the public? Perhaps the FDA announcement induces fear that only prescription drugs can maintain our health? Who benefits when such fears are promoted? How can a society of people expect to remain prosperous and free when collectively they are ignorant of how to maintain and restore health? How can any society afford drugs as wasteful as Lovaza?

I was able to find that sales of Lovaza were $102.8 million in January and February of 2008. Imputing from that, Lovaza sales were well over a half billion dollars for the year 2008.

On a pharmaceutical drug rep forum, Cafepharma, I found this post from a patient:

HEY DRUG DUDES, i’m a guy on disability. i take a shit load of drugs trying to beat cholsteral [sic] and trygiserides [sic]. cost is killin me. nothin cheap out there??? goin to canada for some . newest for me is lovasa. got any ideas where to shop for best price???? any help appreciated!!!

My advice to this patient: It is time to get some new advisors. First, your advice to yourself is very bad; resign as your own advisor. Next, fire your doctor. If the doctor you have is prescribing Lovasa, how much does he or she know about restoring and maintaining health? Instead of squandering your money on Lovasa, spend a small fraction of that on some natural foods cookbooks and change what you eat.

There is little doubt in my mind that the bubble in pill-popping will end as abruptly as did the bubbles in housing and in stock prices. For now, the pharmaceutical bubble is being sustained by market distortions caused by government privilege and government regulation. This bubble is destroying our health, teaching Americans to eschew responsibility, and helping to bankrupt our nation.

What You Can Do About the Flu

With the stock market in a strong, counter-trend rally, fear of the flu has replaced concern over financial matters as the top worry of many people. Short-term forecasts about the severity and virulence of the flu are about as likely to be accurate as are short-term forecasts of the direction the stock market will take. Yet, I would not bet against either a dramatic fall in the stock market later this year or a dramatic resurgence of the swine flu this fall or winter. Both are manifestations of the same underlying cause—namely, a shift in the collective social mood.

In his book The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior, Robert Prechter writes:

The fact is that epidemics and pandemics seem to hit populations during major negative social mood trends. …When we study pandemics of the Dark Ages or the Spanish influenza epidemic that broke out during the bear market of 1917 (which year also saw intense fighting in World War I and the Communist coup in Russia), there always appears to be a bear market in force, and the extent of the epidemic tends to correlate with the size of the setback in mood.

A negative collective social mood—characterized by such feeling as depression, anger, and fear creates the conditions for both falling stock prices and the spread of disease. “But wait,” you might say. “Isn’t disease caused by viruses and bacteria?”  Although there are complex reasons—which no human being can ever fully understand—as to why one individual succumbs to a virus and another individual doesn’t, it would be a mistake to overlook the underlying psychological and spiritual state of the individual. Thus, we come to my first recommendation for protecting yourself from a flu epidemic:

Cultivate feelings of love, gratitude, happiness, and forgiveness. Tragically, most human beings hold the mistaken belief that these feelings are generated from sources outside of themselves—people, places and circumstances. Instead, these feelings are generated from a choice we make deep inside ourselves. During periods of negative social mood, our egos give us plenty of reasons why we should be angry, ungrateful, unhappy, and unforgiving. If we choose to follow the advice of our ego, bad feelings will drown out good feelings. It is up to each of us to turn away from our egocentric thinking and make a different choice.

Expose yourself to the Sun in order to increase your intake of Vitamin D. I am not recommending sunbathing on the beach, but I am recommending activities such as walking, hiking, running, and gardening. During these activities you can expose your skin to moderate amounts of sunlight without the use of sunscreen. Many Americans living in northern climates are deficient in Vitamin D, and Vitamin D is an important component of a healthy immunological system. See for instance Epidemic Influenza and Vitamin D

This summer, stop yourself from guzzling soft drinks and eating copious amount of ice cream. The summer months bring huge increases in the consumption of soft drinks and ice cream, both of which contain huge amounts of sugar and corn sweeteners. Sugar weakens the immunological system and will make you more vulnerable to illness in the colder months. See here for instance. Do not underestimate how much sugar you are consuming. For instance, there are over 16 teaspoons of sugar in one 20 oz bottle of Coke. Learn to enjoy water instead of sweetened drinks.

Incorporate into your diet common, culinary herbs and roots, such as ginger, garlic, turmeric, sage, thyme, that have medicinal properties. These ingredients have important antiviral and antibacterial compounds. Buy organic when possible. Much of the non-organic garlic and ginger is from China and is contaminated. See here.

In matters of health, bailouts—in this case, flu vaccines and Tamiflu—may have their place for some. But, prevention is cheaper, safer, and far more reliable. It is far better to be proactive today then to panic about the flu at some future date. Americans who don’t take their own measures now will be forced to rely upon whatever dubious measures the government recommends down the road.

Ghosts of America’s Past: Part 3

We traveled into Boston last weekend and visited the homes of John Adams.

While Jefferson wrote the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, a declaration without believers would quickly have been forgotten. As eloquent a writer as he was, Jefferson was a poor public speaker. According to Jefferson, it was John Adams “who was the pillar of its [the Declaration's] support on the floor of Congress, its ablest advocate and defender against multifarious assaults it encountered.” Adams, Jefferson wrote, “came out, occasionally, with the power of thought and expression that moved us from our seats.”

The results of Adam’s presidency were mixed—he steered clear of the conflict with England and France, yet he enforced the Alien and Sedition acts. Adams was a dedicated public servant in a way that makes a mockery of the claims of contemporary politicians who claim they are only interested in service. Politics in Adams’s era was not a means to achieve wealth. While in France and separated from his family for many years, John wrote to Abigail:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

The outstanding HBO movie epic John Adams was based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel by David McCullough. At the end of his presidency, as Adams leaves the White House in a public stagecoach, he asks his fellow passengers to “stop gawking” and tells them he is just “plain John Adams, citizen, same as yourselves.” A great leader made his way home to be an ordinary Massachusetts farmer on a stagecoach; it was the 19^th Century equivalent of flying coach on an airline.

Once the person who held the office of president of the United States was a servant of his country; now he is an imperial lord. Adams lived on his farm, Peacefield, from 1801 until his death in 1826; there was no secret service protection and no entourage. His front door was just feet away from the country lane that passed by.

Peacefield Then

During our visit to Peacefield I was struck by how modest the house was; in places it felt claustrophobic. I have seen New England houses of prominent merchants of Adams’ time that were far grander. When he and Abigail moved into this modest home in 1788, it was a big step up from the family home where they had started their married life. In time, Peacefield became the home of their son John Quincy—the sixth president of the United States.

Peacefield Today

A library built of local stones stands just a few feet from the family house at Peacefield.  This was the first presidential library in the United States; it houses the 14,000 volumes that John and John Quincy Adams owned. These were books that they bought and read, books of ideas that engaged their minds. Today a presidential library means a place in which documents are stored—papers that document actions, many of which have eroded our liberties, and papers that explains why the man should be considered great for those actions nevertheless.

The Stone Library at Peacefield

History has not been kind to the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Yet, like his father, he was a man of principle and intellect who held allegiance to President Washington’s sage advice that America should not enter into entangling foreign alliances. John Quincy Adams’s eloquent advice of 1821 has long been forgotten and with our forgetting, our freedom erodes:

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her [Americas] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

It seems to us that the choices that John Adams and John Quincy Adams faced happened long ago, but we face the same fundamental choices today: freedom or despotism; peace or war; love or fear.

Part 1

Part 2

Morgan’s Dream

I watch very little television; but when Amazon previewed an episode, I was instantly hooked on Chuck, NBC’s action/comedy/satire series. One character in the series is Morgan Grimes. Morgan is a slacker, around 30, who works in a Buy More (a parody of Best Buy). In the most recent episode, Anna, Morgan’s girlfriend, asks him if he has any dreams and goals beyond working at the Buy More. After making Anna  promise not to laugh, Morgan reveals his dream: He wants to be a “Benihana chef in Hawaii.” Then he quickly explains why his dream is not practical: “I’m way past my prime. I’m not Asian. And I don’t even know where to get the knives.”

I laughed, but not at Morgan. Morgan was simply articulating the human condition—we all make up absurd excuses for not following our dream. Vincent Van Gogh provided the antidote to this state of being when he said: “If you hear a voice within you saying, ‘You are not a painter,’ then by all means paint… and that voice will be silenced.”

Van Gogh is teaching us that we must not wait until the negative voice goes away before we follow our dream. Waiting is not a strategy for success. The voice will never go away, but it can fade away.

Every human being has two voices within. We are most familiar with the voice of our ego.  The voice of the ego evaluates everything as for us or against us. It is the part of our mind that trys to control everything. In her book Soul-Kissed, Ann Linthorst helps us to understand that our ego defines itself based on separation:

Human identity is a sense of personhood, which is established by separation, location and limitation.  Ask yourself who you are, and the details that come to mind will all be statements of location and limitation: “I am male or female, born there, to that father and mother, living here, in this house, with these people, doing this, having that.” This kind of self-identification, which I call “ego” automatically excludes all other possibilities. Being here we cannot be anywhere else. Having what we have and doing what we do means that we don’t have or do other things. Personal identity is determined precisely by separation, location, and distinction from others. I know that I am… by the differences that distinguish and separate us.

Initially, Morgan is certain of his lack and limitation; he knows why he can’t be a Benihana chef. By the end of the episode, he is trying to get back in touch with the other voice within—his True Self. The True Self in each of us is that part of the mind which is connected to the Love and Intelligence of the Universe.

Has the ego’s voice of doubt left Morgan for good? Of course not. Both voices—ego and True Self—will exist in each of us until we die. However, whatever voice we choose to listen to at this moment, we will strengthen. Steve Chandler wrote recently of that voice that Van Gogh speaks of:

The voice says, “Oh, my gosh, this would be so scary, and I dread this and don’t do this and don’t try that.”  It’s a voice that tries to keep the organism safe, but it’s not really safe to be safe.  It’s the opposite of safe.  People trying to stay safe, aren’t creating the world that they really want; and they’re not learning to be fearless.  They are actually learning to be scared.  Training themselves to accommodate fear. Ongoing fear.

In other words, following the choice of our ego is a sad bargain—like alcohol, it buys us only temporary relief from the human condition at the price of reinforcing our weakness. My elderly aunt checks her blood pressure constantly throughout the day. She gets alarmed with each high reading; but perversely, she seems reassured that her definition of herself is intact.

Her blood pressure reading has become her God. In her own way, she has been teaching me. What dream of lack and limitation am I monitoring—and thus worshiping—all day? The disinfectant is simply to be aware of what our ego is worshiping. This awareness is cleansing—but only when it is done free of judgment.

We are all Morgan. Now, more than ever, our world needs us to pivot towards the dreams of our True Self.