Well.. as long as the nation is on a kick to talk health care, remember.. I'm not so happy to talk about health care... but to talk about health. These series of youtubes is all about oxygen therapy. This is probably something you'll never hear from the main stream media. I think a lot of the problem of health care is very related to something I wrote about in an earlier blog that talks about *propaganda*. I think health and health care (and the way we think perceive what it is to be healthy) has a lot to do with what we've been told as to what to think. I think there's a major system of propaganda that is centered around health and health care. And usually the propaganda is centered around power and control of people.
Short lesson for you that you likely have never heard. Your body loves oxygen. The cells in your body that are deprived of oxygen become anaerobic and are the basis for any sickness / disease that happens in your body. Strangely enough, it also seems like the more your body's pH becomes acidic, a body gets sicker as well. How lack of oxygen in the body and acidity are releated, I certainly don't know. Though there's some link somewhere. Cancer (bad germs, bad bacteria, fungus, bad whatever), per my understanding, is highly anaerobic. These cells have been deprived of oxygen and have learned how to pick on and eat up other healthy cells. So, the cancer (bad cells.. bad germs) continues to grow as the body is deprived of oxygen on the inside. The good news is, if more oxygen is added to the system, cancer can't survive and it goes away naturally! Amazing! Since most all (under my understanding) of the sicknesses of man is based on the anaerobic cell becoming powerful, once they are defeated with oxygen .. health is restored. Dozens of sickness and disease leave the body because the body is hostile to the badly behaving anaerobic cells.
Back before America adopted the model of medicine of drugs and surgery, much of the medicine of America was healed by holistic methods. In one of these youtubes, it seems that it's mentioned that it was the Rockefeller's that preferred the method of health care that emphasized drugs and surgery.. and we've been doing it every since. I think it's time to go back.
Here's my tyle regarding increasing health with oxygen. Imagine everyone's body operating at peak performance much like the way the garden of the Alaskan fellow in video 5 thrives below. Rugged, strong, fruitful, resists bad bugs, etc. All because his garden is highly oxygenated. Plants can get stronger and resist disease and attack, why can't humans do the same? Oh.. I forgot, it's not a pill and it doesn't come from a doctor, clinic, or hospital. That's right. Uh huh. Yeah. Right.
Each video is between 10 - 11 minutes long and there are 5 of them.
How to heal anything now - Part 1 of 5
How to heal anything now - Part 2 of 5
How to heal anything now - Part 3 of 5
How to heal anything now - Part 4 of 5
How to heal anything now - Part 5 of 5
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Health and Health Care
[NOTE: Probably the main reason why the cost of health care has gone up over the years (faster than inflation) is the fact that the cost for treatment (through technology) has increased. If you go back 40-50 years, if you were diagnosed with cancer or heart disease, about the only thing you were prescribed was a bed to die in. And people did. Now, people have a wide palette of diagnostics, therapies, procedures, medicines that they can take to become less sick. And the price tag to become less sick is higher all the time. The technologies developed to become less sick cost someone to develop them. And the price tag to use them is part of paying back the companies that wield the technology to help others. Cancer or heart disease isn't a death sentence like it used to be decades ago. So-o-o-o-o-o technology can be expensive to diagnose and treat someone's condition. Add to that the fact that insurance premiums that the doctors / hospitals have to pay is outrageously high, doesn't help a bit for the cost of an office visit to be any less either. If the premiums went down... health care costs would go down to. As long as it's more expensive to see a doctor (with the costs a doctor has to pay) it'll always have an increasing price.]
OK... What's the difference between *HEALTH* and *HEALTH CARE?* Anybody?
Health care is what is sought and applied to your life to go from more sick to less sick.
Health is the state of your being. If you're *healthy* .. on the life-death scale, you are closer to the *life* end. If you are *sick*/*sickly* .. then you are closer to *death* (hate to sound morbid or macabre) on the life-death scale. That might be an oversimplification, but that's reality. And I'm not saying that someone with the common cold is on deaths edge and only a few ticks on the life-death scale away from death .. though they have moved closer to *death* than they are *life* when looking at the whole spectrum.
What gets me about this whole health care extravaganza is that people (driven by the gov't officials and national dominant media folks) aren't responsible for their own health .. so the gov't is the one that will make their health care decisions for them.
To me, from a LAW of ATTRACTION perspective, if you emphasize health care .. you get more and more health care. What is health care? Health care is the treatments (diagnostics, procedures, medicines, therapies, etc, etc, etc) needed to go from more sick to less sick. Or from a state of dis-ease to ease. By wanting more health care.. you get more diagnosis, procedure, medicines, therapies .. which will have to be paid for. The law of attraction states that *like* attracts *like*. So.. health care .. attracts more *health care*. A healthy state of being isn't necessarily the end result (though we hope it is) of health care.
I think, we ought to emphasize *HEALTH*. From a law of attraction perspective, health attracts more health (or better/improved health). As health increases .. the disease (or dis-ease) decreases. As health improves, diagnostics decline, medications drop away, therapies occur less, etc.
I'd imagine that if anyone did the studies on obesity and vice-born dis-eases .. that'd probably account for 30-40-50% of all of the health-care costs to get people healthier. People want to spend less on health care, they should look towards increasing their health quotient so that the need for health care diminishes over time.
Ever watch the NBC show 'The Biggest Loser?' No? Well, that's where they (the producers of that show) select about 16-20-24 people (sometimes in pairs, couples, or maybe families) that are *overweight*. And not just regular overweight but obese. What is obesity? Obesity happens when someone is 30% overweight. Super obesity happens at 50% overweight. Basically, everyone on the biggest loser is easily obese and might very well be super obese. It's a 'survivor' type reality show that someone (at least one) every week is voted off the ranch. While everyone is there during the week, they are learning about nutrition, exercise, fitness, and themselves. If someone makes it through the full 16 weeks, they'll likely have lost 80-100 lbs pretty easily... which is quite remarkable. Heck, 25 lbs would be quite remarkable. By the time the final show airs (which is about 6 months from when they started) .. the winner will likely have lost 50% or more of their original body weight. Quite amazing! People sometimes enter the show as diabetics on insulin and leave the show without the need to be dependent on insulin.
Now, I say all that because even if a person doesn't lose the poundage like they do on The Biggest Loser, but steadily lose something, that's a very good thing. Who cares if it's a half-pound or pound a week? It's slow, but it's still very good. Half a pound a week is still 25-26 pounds a year. Do that regularly for 4 years and that's 100 lbs lost! A pound a week will have someone losing 50 lbs-ish a year. Do that for a 2-4 years and someone can lose 100-200 lbs! Still quite remarkable. The thing is.. to start. Start getting more healthy.
With the advent of a lot of studies coming out these days of how obesity has grown in America by 30%, 35%, or 40% since the 1980's or 1990's, it's clear that people are sabotaging themselves causing their own health to decline towards a more stressful state where their organs have to work harder. The heart has to pump harder. The joints are under more stress by the weight on them. The pancreas doesn't generate as much good insulin as it should to digest sugar the way it should putting people into a diabetic state of being, and on, and on, and on.
If people choose NOT to get healthy. Then that's their choice. This might sound like I'm lacking tact and compassion for others. It's their choice. If people choose to abuse their bodies with an over indulgence of food, alcohol, drugs, etc. that is their choice to live with.
Ya know, it's kinda like the way there are laws on many state books for motorcycle riders / operators to have helmets covering their head. I think, that if they choose not to wear a helmet, then they ought to sign some kind of waiver that states they know what they are doing that in the event of a motorcycle accident (while not wearing a helmet) that might compromise their life, they won't be administered any life-saving measures to prolong their life. That way, they are taking full responsibility for the length of their life, and that medical staff (in rescue squads, ambulances, clinics, or hospitals) will not have to invest their time (or resources) to rescue this soul to extend their life by administering any life-saving measures. It's their choice. Let them live (or die) with their choice. At least, if they make this choice, it's their choice and not the gov't making it for them.
Same with health. If people choose not to improve their health. They ought to be able to take themselves out of the *health pool* by signing some document saying they are in full responsibility of what happens in their life according to the decisions they make.
Same with the vices people engage in that might have health consequences.. abusing alcohol, abusing drugs and/or chemicals, tobacco, etc. People have choices. If they choose to abuse their own temple (body) then they ought not to expect everybody else (the gov't) to pick up their health tab.
So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o what am I getting at? I think, if there's a plan needed to help people and their health, let's minister to their health and do things to make it better. Let's put system's of some kind in place that keep track of a persons vital statistics (age, height, weight, measurements of arms, legs, chest, hips, blood pressure, food consumed activity, calorie exercise activity, etc, etc, etc, whatever) that allow people to see how their ACTIONS (what they do) shows their RESULTS of what they do. Let people see how when they eat a gallon of ice cream or something very fatty, that their weight goes up, and how when they eat things of a high nutrition content (that feeds the body the fuel it needs) how their weight will typically stay level or go down (depending on the physical activity of the day/week).
If the gov't is bent on spending a billion dollars, invest the money into a system that will track all of this information and make it easy to see how ACTIONS has RESULTS. Some kind of health blogging system.
If it came down to multiple billions of dollars, if the gov't wants to do something for everyone, then make a program that gets everyone a bicycle to ride to work, or pays for the widening of roads for bike paths (or both), or pays for the expense of a monthly gym membership (with exercise and nutrition coaching), or does a number of singular things for those that want to increase their quotient of health. If someone doesn't want a bicycle, then maybe they can do the gym membership. Or if they don't want either, have a local neighborhood group exercise meeting kind of thing they can go to on a regular basis.
Now *that* would be a true stimulus package. Stimulate people to increase their health. Stimulate people to ride a bicycle to-/from- work. Stimulate fitness clubs to bring those in that lack high degrees of health.
That's what I call a true HEALTH PLAN.
OK... What's the difference between *HEALTH* and *HEALTH CARE?* Anybody?
Health care is what is sought and applied to your life to go from more sick to less sick.
Health is the state of your being. If you're *healthy* .. on the life-death scale, you are closer to the *life* end. If you are *sick*/*sickly* .. then you are closer to *death* (hate to sound morbid or macabre) on the life-death scale. That might be an oversimplification, but that's reality. And I'm not saying that someone with the common cold is on deaths edge and only a few ticks on the life-death scale away from death .. though they have moved closer to *death* than they are *life* when looking at the whole spectrum.
What gets me about this whole health care extravaganza is that people (driven by the gov't officials and national dominant media folks) aren't responsible for their own health .. so the gov't is the one that will make their health care decisions for them.
To me, from a LAW of ATTRACTION perspective, if you emphasize health care .. you get more and more health care. What is health care? Health care is the treatments (diagnostics, procedures, medicines, therapies, etc, etc, etc) needed to go from more sick to less sick. Or from a state of dis-ease to ease. By wanting more health care.. you get more diagnosis, procedure, medicines, therapies .. which will have to be paid for. The law of attraction states that *like* attracts *like*. So.. health care .. attracts more *health care*. A healthy state of being isn't necessarily the end result (though we hope it is) of health care.
I think, we ought to emphasize *HEALTH*. From a law of attraction perspective, health attracts more health (or better/improved health). As health increases .. the disease (or dis-ease) decreases. As health improves, diagnostics decline, medications drop away, therapies occur less, etc.
I'd imagine that if anyone did the studies on obesity and vice-born dis-eases .. that'd probably account for 30-40-50% of all of the health-care costs to get people healthier. People want to spend less on health care, they should look towards increasing their health quotient so that the need for health care diminishes over time.
Ever watch the NBC show 'The Biggest Loser?' No? Well, that's where they (the producers of that show) select about 16-20-24 people (sometimes in pairs, couples, or maybe families) that are *overweight*. And not just regular overweight but obese. What is obesity? Obesity happens when someone is 30% overweight. Super obesity happens at 50% overweight. Basically, everyone on the biggest loser is easily obese and might very well be super obese. It's a 'survivor' type reality show that someone (at least one) every week is voted off the ranch. While everyone is there during the week, they are learning about nutrition, exercise, fitness, and themselves. If someone makes it through the full 16 weeks, they'll likely have lost 80-100 lbs pretty easily... which is quite remarkable. Heck, 25 lbs would be quite remarkable. By the time the final show airs (which is about 6 months from when they started) .. the winner will likely have lost 50% or more of their original body weight. Quite amazing! People sometimes enter the show as diabetics on insulin and leave the show without the need to be dependent on insulin.
Now, I say all that because even if a person doesn't lose the poundage like they do on The Biggest Loser, but steadily lose something, that's a very good thing. Who cares if it's a half-pound or pound a week? It's slow, but it's still very good. Half a pound a week is still 25-26 pounds a year. Do that regularly for 4 years and that's 100 lbs lost! A pound a week will have someone losing 50 lbs-ish a year. Do that for a 2-4 years and someone can lose 100-200 lbs! Still quite remarkable. The thing is.. to start. Start getting more healthy.
With the advent of a lot of studies coming out these days of how obesity has grown in America by 30%, 35%, or 40% since the 1980's or 1990's, it's clear that people are sabotaging themselves causing their own health to decline towards a more stressful state where their organs have to work harder. The heart has to pump harder. The joints are under more stress by the weight on them. The pancreas doesn't generate as much good insulin as it should to digest sugar the way it should putting people into a diabetic state of being, and on, and on, and on.
If people choose NOT to get healthy. Then that's their choice. This might sound like I'm lacking tact and compassion for others. It's their choice. If people choose to abuse their bodies with an over indulgence of food, alcohol, drugs, etc. that is their choice to live with.
Ya know, it's kinda like the way there are laws on many state books for motorcycle riders / operators to have helmets covering their head. I think, that if they choose not to wear a helmet, then they ought to sign some kind of waiver that states they know what they are doing that in the event of a motorcycle accident (while not wearing a helmet) that might compromise their life, they won't be administered any life-saving measures to prolong their life. That way, they are taking full responsibility for the length of their life, and that medical staff (in rescue squads, ambulances, clinics, or hospitals) will not have to invest their time (or resources) to rescue this soul to extend their life by administering any life-saving measures. It's their choice. Let them live (or die) with their choice. At least, if they make this choice, it's their choice and not the gov't making it for them.
Same with health. If people choose not to improve their health. They ought to be able to take themselves out of the *health pool* by signing some document saying they are in full responsibility of what happens in their life according to the decisions they make.
Same with the vices people engage in that might have health consequences.. abusing alcohol, abusing drugs and/or chemicals, tobacco, etc. People have choices. If they choose to abuse their own temple (body) then they ought not to expect everybody else (the gov't) to pick up their health tab.
So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o what am I getting at? I think, if there's a plan needed to help people and their health, let's minister to their health and do things to make it better. Let's put system's of some kind in place that keep track of a persons vital statistics (age, height, weight, measurements of arms, legs, chest, hips, blood pressure, food consumed activity, calorie exercise activity, etc, etc, etc, whatever) that allow people to see how their ACTIONS (what they do) shows their RESULTS of what they do. Let people see how when they eat a gallon of ice cream or something very fatty, that their weight goes up, and how when they eat things of a high nutrition content (that feeds the body the fuel it needs) how their weight will typically stay level or go down (depending on the physical activity of the day/week).
If the gov't is bent on spending a billion dollars, invest the money into a system that will track all of this information and make it easy to see how ACTIONS has RESULTS. Some kind of health blogging system.
If it came down to multiple billions of dollars, if the gov't wants to do something for everyone, then make a program that gets everyone a bicycle to ride to work, or pays for the widening of roads for bike paths (or both), or pays for the expense of a monthly gym membership (with exercise and nutrition coaching), or does a number of singular things for those that want to increase their quotient of health. If someone doesn't want a bicycle, then maybe they can do the gym membership. Or if they don't want either, have a local neighborhood group exercise meeting kind of thing they can go to on a regular basis.
Now *that* would be a true stimulus package. Stimulate people to increase their health. Stimulate people to ride a bicycle to-/from- work. Stimulate fitness clubs to bring those in that lack high degrees of health.
That's what I call a true HEALTH PLAN.
Monday, July 27, 2009
6 Months in - Obama Poll Numbers
Ahhhh... 6 months in.. here's the polling numbers for President Obama .. from Becksteria Lane
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Edjumakashun: Judge and judging
From time to time, I'll post an *EDJUMAKASHUN* post that will redefine terms for the world that are so often understood, mixed up, or used improperly and interchangebly with other terms.
This edjumakashun tyle is about the term "judge", "to judge", or "judging". Typically, with the terms, there really are two distinct meanings regarding the word "judge". The examples that I write about below, is biblically based as it really shows a decent and distinct contrast between the two meanings.
The distinction between the two is:
These scriptures talks of the condemnation type of judging (like the way a bench sitting judge does to pass sentence). It's NOT ok to do this kind of judgement of others. And this comes with a penalty. That if we condemn, condenmnation will be returned back to ourselves:
This talks of forming an opinion type of judging (like a jury - innocent or guity):
In 1 Cor 2:15 (above) we see both terms of judge used. We see that a spiritual person judgeth (forms opinion) on all things. Yet he (or she.. the spiritual person) is judged (condemned) by no one.
More about forming opinions of the world.
We'll be forming opinions of the angels as well....
So, it's pretty clear that people are pretty much commanded to form opinion on all things. To not form opions, is a very difficult thing to do as we proceed in the marathon of life.
The time when I object to the use of "judge" is when it's used incorrectly and typically because it's being thrown around like a trump card because people aren't intellectually savvy to present arguments in a debate in order to get the upper hand. You'll hear people say something like: "Don't you judge now" -or- in a very slang-filled vernacular "Don't be a hater". In which case, neither is ever the case (with me anyway) where I am condemning (or hating) something. I don't have that power to condemn anything. I can say what is right or wrong for ME. That is the control over me that I have. Though I do not have that same power over EVERYBODY. I can't condemn something to be right or wrong for anybody other than me.
I can only play, my own strings.
This edjumakashun tyle is about the term "judge", "to judge", or "judging". Typically, with the terms, there really are two distinct meanings regarding the word "judge". The examples that I write about below, is biblically based as it really shows a decent and distinct contrast between the two meanings.
The distinction between the two is:
- to judge ... to form an opinion
- to judge ... to condemn
These scriptures talks of the condemnation type of judging (like the way a bench sitting judge does to pass sentence). It's NOT ok to do this kind of judgement of others. And this comes with a penalty. That if we condemn, condenmnation will be returned back to ourselves:
- Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
- Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
This talks of forming an opinion type of judging (like a jury - innocent or guity):
- 1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
In 1 Cor 2:15 (above) we see both terms of judge used. We see that a spiritual person judgeth (forms opinion) on all things. Yet he (or she.. the spiritual person) is judged (condemned) by no one.
More about forming opinions of the world.
- 1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
We'll be forming opinions of the angels as well....
- 1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
- 1Co 6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
- 1Co 6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
So, it's pretty clear that people are pretty much commanded to form opinion on all things. To not form opions, is a very difficult thing to do as we proceed in the marathon of life.
The time when I object to the use of "judge" is when it's used incorrectly and typically because it's being thrown around like a trump card because people aren't intellectually savvy to present arguments in a debate in order to get the upper hand. You'll hear people say something like: "Don't you judge now" -or- in a very slang-filled vernacular "Don't be a hater". In which case, neither is ever the case (with me anyway) where I am condemning (or hating) something. I don't have that power to condemn anything. I can say what is right or wrong for ME. That is the control over me that I have. Though I do not have that same power over EVERYBODY. I can't condemn something to be right or wrong for anybody other than me.
I can only play, my own strings.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Local example of union propaganda
Here's an example of local propaganda going on locally at the University of Illinois.
This bit of propaganda is surrounding the "rigging" that is located at the top of the University of Illinois Assembly Hall. The "rigging" is the series of catwalks, cables, ceiling mounted apparatus that holds up the scoreboard and jumbotron of sporting events, stage lighting, stage curtains, speakers, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with it anytime you go to a large arena, you see all of this type machinery hanging above the center of the event center action. Well.. those things above the event's center are hanging from the "rigging" mounted to the ceiling (or rafters, or whatever you can hang that from) inside the structure of the building.
The U of I Assembly Hall ( see http://tr.im/tQSQ ) was built back in the 60's and is the largest self supporting dome with no support beams that physically hold up the two concrete saucer bowls sitting on each other (inverted) to form the arena. If you drive by the Assembly Hall, you'd just about think you might be seeing a flying saucer. Anyway, the Assembly Hall is about 45+ years old.. and so is the rigging (as I understand at the present time) and it's time to replace the rigging.
The points made over and over on local radio talk show Penny For Your Thoughts (WDWS 1400 AM) by a union representative was that the Assembly Hall (University of Illinois .. a State of Illinois institution) hired out-of-state workers (which just happen to be non-union workers) that they claim are working in un-safe conditions without the right safety equipment. And that the $1.2 million to fix it should be money staying in the commmunity instead of going elsewhere.
All reasonable points I'd say.. so far. Here's a trimmed URL of how a local TV station (WCIA TV channel 3) reported the protest the union had in front of the Assembly Hall...
http://tr.im/tQIL
B-b-b-b-b-but, at the end of this report [in the link above] is that an Assembly Hall spokesman (a State of Illinois civil servant) stated that the UofI Assembly Hall followed all the guideline procedures to get bids on this job. What you DON'T hear on this report is what's been reported on WDWS news. What was reported on WDWS news was that the Assembly Hall spokesman stated that once the bidding was opened, and the bids were received, that only one bid was received by an out-of-state company .. which has all the privileges of choosing who they want to do the work. It was suggested (by the UofI Assembly Hall spokesman) to the bid winning company that they hire the local union workers that are familiar with what is necessary to do the job .. and the winning bid company declined. Period.
Seems to me. That if this job was to stay local, a local company should have made a bid for this local work, to employ local people, to bring money into the local economy, etc. If a local company doesn't bid, then there is no guarantee that any of the money given to this bid winning company will stay in the Champaign-Urbana area other than local hotel/motel/restaurant expenses paid by the workers that did the work while they were in town.
The propaganda put forth is the one-sidedness of the story given. The story given (by WCIA TV Channel 3) didn't say anything about the bidding or winning bids and that there wasn't any local bidding. Because the story is one-sided, this story put forth the flavor of propaganda that the local union workers victims of the process and unjustly treated by the University of Illinois/Assembly Hall staff all because they aren't doing the work needed. Which they aren't. The local union workers needed a local company to make a winning bid. That's where they are victims. For them, they are victims of of non-opportunity.
This bit of propaganda is surrounding the "rigging" that is located at the top of the University of Illinois Assembly Hall. The "rigging" is the series of catwalks, cables, ceiling mounted apparatus that holds up the scoreboard and jumbotron of sporting events, stage lighting, stage curtains, speakers, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with it anytime you go to a large arena, you see all of this type machinery hanging above the center of the event center action. Well.. those things above the event's center are hanging from the "rigging" mounted to the ceiling (or rafters, or whatever you can hang that from) inside the structure of the building.
The U of I Assembly Hall ( see http://tr.im/tQSQ ) was built back in the 60's and is the largest self supporting dome with no support beams that physically hold up the two concrete saucer bowls sitting on each other (inverted) to form the arena. If you drive by the Assembly Hall, you'd just about think you might be seeing a flying saucer. Anyway, the Assembly Hall is about 45+ years old.. and so is the rigging (as I understand at the present time) and it's time to replace the rigging.
The points made over and over on local radio talk show Penny For Your Thoughts (WDWS 1400 AM) by a union representative was that the Assembly Hall (University of Illinois .. a State of Illinois institution) hired out-of-state workers (which just happen to be non-union workers) that they claim are working in un-safe conditions without the right safety equipment. And that the $1.2 million to fix it should be money staying in the commmunity instead of going elsewhere.
All reasonable points I'd say.. so far. Here's a trimmed URL of how a local TV station (WCIA TV channel 3) reported the protest the union had in front of the Assembly Hall...
http://tr.im/tQIL
B-b-b-b-b-but, at the end of this report [in the link above] is that an Assembly Hall spokesman (a State of Illinois civil servant) stated that the UofI Assembly Hall followed all the guideline procedures to get bids on this job. What you DON'T hear on this report is what's been reported on WDWS news. What was reported on WDWS news was that the Assembly Hall spokesman stated that once the bidding was opened, and the bids were received, that only one bid was received by an out-of-state company .. which has all the privileges of choosing who they want to do the work. It was suggested (by the UofI Assembly Hall spokesman) to the bid winning company that they hire the local union workers that are familiar with what is necessary to do the job .. and the winning bid company declined. Period.
Seems to me. That if this job was to stay local, a local company should have made a bid for this local work, to employ local people, to bring money into the local economy, etc. If a local company doesn't bid, then there is no guarantee that any of the money given to this bid winning company will stay in the Champaign-Urbana area other than local hotel/motel/restaurant expenses paid by the workers that did the work while they were in town.
The propaganda put forth is the one-sidedness of the story given. The story given (by WCIA TV Channel 3) didn't say anything about the bidding or winning bids and that there wasn't any local bidding. Because the story is one-sided, this story put forth the flavor of propaganda that the local union workers victims of the process and unjustly treated by the University of Illinois/Assembly Hall staff all because they aren't doing the work needed. Which they aren't. The local union workers needed a local company to make a winning bid. That's where they are victims. For them, they are victims of of non-opportunity.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Buzzwords, new history, and the spread of propaganda
Regardless of where it comes from, when buzzwords are used (tested phrases that have been studied to evoke an emotional response in others), I recognize it as some plate of propaganda currently being served up hot and steamy.
Prejudice will mostly always sound the same for a few reasons:
Case in point. There were a few riders that warned that the British were coming. One had a well popular author on his side .. (about 40 years after Paul Revere's death) Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (HWL) with a poem that started something like this:
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
... back then... the way to spread news was just a couple different ways. Newspaper (which only had an audience of the local town for the most part), town crier (still local town), and books. Books, was the only way for news to really get spread outside of a town's boundaries. Newspapers and the town crier just didn't have the pull like they do today. Not to mention Al Gore hadn't invented the internet as of yet mainly because.. he hadn't been born yet... heh, heh, heh. The authors, for the most part were the rock stars of the widespread news of the day. People took what they wrote and took it to heart.
Paul Revere.. rode 19 miles... from Boston to Cambridge.. and likely never yelled the phrase "the British are coming" but more than likely shouted "the regulars are out". Revere's ride, likely didn't last much into the next day as it only covered 19 miles. And he was done. Timely, but not an extraordinary event of going beyond the call of duty. Revere was, however, very well known and was the fellow that devised this early warning system to spread the word.
One of the other fellows, a man named Israel Bissel, rode from Watertown Massachusetts to Philadelphia .. 345 miles ... over 4 days and 6 hours to deliver the message to the colonists that there was an attack of the British coming. This guys buttocks were likely falling off after riding a horse(s) for 4 days and 6 hours time.. covering 17x more distance than Revere did. But you never hear about him. Clearly, he warned more along his route than Revere's much shorter ride.
What happened? Why don't we hear about Israel Bissel? Well... HWL decided that America needed a patriotic hero of that particular era. He was an author and authors like to sell books. Just like media groups like to sell commercials when eyes are glued to the televisions. In HWL's day (1860 right before the US Civil War) he wanted to re-unite the states and try and prevent a civil war by hyping up someone to be a hero of the American Revolution. His wife was a relative of Paul Revere. The name "Paul Revere" also had a certain ring to it... much more so than the ring of Israel Bissel .. and not much of a ring of a name by the third fellow William Dawes... and a fourth Prescott ... so Revere was chosen.
Revere's greatest contribution to the American Revolution was the alarm and messenger system that he designed and implemented before the battles of Lexington and Concord. He used his numerous contacts in eastern Massachusetts to devise a system for the rapid call up of the militias to oppose the British. Although several messengers rode longer and alerted more soldiers than Revere that night, they were part of the organization that Revere created and implemented in eastern New England.
HWL took many liberties with the events of the evening, most especially giving credit to Revere for the collective achievements of the riders. As a result, historians in the 20th century sometimes considered Revere's role in American history to have been exaggerated, becoming a national myth.
Revere's effort, though important.. was not super human as other riders of that time. But, because of HWL's desire to make an American Patriot Hero for the time, Revere's heroic ride has become "fact" in the minds of many ...
Now... I said all that because .. it was the *publication* of the legend that caused the "fact" to occur in the minds of people. Prior to this being published, the Paul Revere event was regarded as a very unspecial thing. After the publications wide spread words, Paul Revere (possibly the least effective of the riders that night) was the became the big studly hero.
The same thing is happening with any recognizable one-sided argument. People that engage in this activity, are heck-bent to "force their point-of-view" to become "fact" ... and they'll stop at nothing to cause this to be. They realize that if this message gets out to enough people... then it will become *fact* in the minds of others.. and the truth will pale and be unbelievable next to the fictitious legend now regarded as undeniable truth to those that willfully ate the plate of steaming propoganda.
This is the power of a press/media group that doesn't have the best interest of spreading truth at heart. Ever look up the biblican root meaning of the word 'truth'. NO? Well, if you searched out it's roots way deep in it's use, you don't find it describing facts. You discover that truth is something previously hidden that is now brought out into the open. Like the beauty of a flower that is yet to bloom closed up tightly. That closed up bloom, is beautiful (in truth) because it's something that's not yet been made manifest to the eyes and shown largely to all.
A press/media group that doesn't willfully give you both sides .. actively serves propaganda.
All because they hide the *other side* of the argument.
Prejudice will mostly always sound the same for a few reasons:
- no real independent critical thought put into the reasons for being anti-anything (people are against it.. for the simple reason of being against it, or anti- the person being propagandized)
- you shouldn't be surprised to find out that what you are witnessing is an organized effort of several different groups that want to taint the waters. This is how legends are written. Remember this: "Publish a legend .. to cause it to become fact."
Case in point. There were a few riders that warned that the British were coming. One had a well popular author on his side .. (about 40 years after Paul Revere's death) Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (HWL) with a poem that started something like this:
Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
... back then... the way to spread news was just a couple different ways. Newspaper (which only had an audience of the local town for the most part), town crier (still local town), and books. Books, was the only way for news to really get spread outside of a town's boundaries. Newspapers and the town crier just didn't have the pull like they do today. Not to mention Al Gore hadn't invented the internet as of yet mainly because.. he hadn't been born yet... heh, heh, heh. The authors, for the most part were the rock stars of the widespread news of the day. People took what they wrote and took it to heart.
Paul Revere.. rode 19 miles... from Boston to Cambridge.. and likely never yelled the phrase "the British are coming" but more than likely shouted "the regulars are out". Revere's ride, likely didn't last much into the next day as it only covered 19 miles. And he was done. Timely, but not an extraordinary event of going beyond the call of duty. Revere was, however, very well known and was the fellow that devised this early warning system to spread the word.
One of the other fellows, a man named Israel Bissel, rode from Watertown Massachusetts to Philadelphia .. 345 miles ... over 4 days and 6 hours to deliver the message to the colonists that there was an attack of the British coming. This guys buttocks were likely falling off after riding a horse(s) for 4 days and 6 hours time.. covering 17x more distance than Revere did. But you never hear about him. Clearly, he warned more along his route than Revere's much shorter ride.
What happened? Why don't we hear about Israel Bissel? Well... HWL decided that America needed a patriotic hero of that particular era. He was an author and authors like to sell books. Just like media groups like to sell commercials when eyes are glued to the televisions. In HWL's day (1860 right before the US Civil War) he wanted to re-unite the states and try and prevent a civil war by hyping up someone to be a hero of the American Revolution. His wife was a relative of Paul Revere. The name "Paul Revere" also had a certain ring to it... much more so than the ring of Israel Bissel .. and not much of a ring of a name by the third fellow William Dawes... and a fourth Prescott ... so Revere was chosen.
Revere's greatest contribution to the American Revolution was the alarm and messenger system that he designed and implemented before the battles of Lexington and Concord. He used his numerous contacts in eastern Massachusetts to devise a system for the rapid call up of the militias to oppose the British. Although several messengers rode longer and alerted more soldiers than Revere that night, they were part of the organization that Revere created and implemented in eastern New England.
HWL took many liberties with the events of the evening, most especially giving credit to Revere for the collective achievements of the riders. As a result, historians in the 20th century sometimes considered Revere's role in American history to have been exaggerated, becoming a national myth.
Revere's effort, though important.. was not super human as other riders of that time. But, because of HWL's desire to make an American Patriot Hero for the time, Revere's heroic ride has become "fact" in the minds of many ...
Now... I said all that because .. it was the *publication* of the legend that caused the "fact" to occur in the minds of people. Prior to this being published, the Paul Revere event was regarded as a very unspecial thing. After the publications wide spread words, Paul Revere (possibly the least effective of the riders that night) was the became the big studly hero.
The same thing is happening with any recognizable one-sided argument. People that engage in this activity, are heck-bent to "force their point-of-view" to become "fact" ... and they'll stop at nothing to cause this to be. They realize that if this message gets out to enough people... then it will become *fact* in the minds of others.. and the truth will pale and be unbelievable next to the fictitious legend now regarded as undeniable truth to those that willfully ate the plate of steaming propoganda.
This is the power of a press/media group that doesn't have the best interest of spreading truth at heart. Ever look up the biblican root meaning of the word 'truth'. NO? Well, if you searched out it's roots way deep in it's use, you don't find it describing facts. You discover that truth is something previously hidden that is now brought out into the open. Like the beauty of a flower that is yet to bloom closed up tightly. That closed up bloom, is beautiful (in truth) because it's something that's not yet been made manifest to the eyes and shown largely to all.
A press/media group that doesn't willfully give you both sides .. actively serves propaganda.
All because they hide the *other side* of the argument.
Good news and proof the economy is getting better!
Good news.. fresh from the Becksteria Lane.. the economy is getting better! Woo woo!
Obscene profits is a good thing
In my inaugural blog, I've decided to talk briefly about the way certain politicians talk about obscene profits... regardless of the company or type of business that makes what is has been classified as 'obscene profits'.
Everybody should know that a company is in business to make a profit to give back to the company and/or shareholders... period. They aren't in business to solely do what they do as a nice service they provide free of charge. No, they seek a return of investment that is MORE than what they invested. Invest a dollar .. get a dollar and a nickel (or dime, quarter, or more) back.
In months past, these *profits* are seemingly demonized as being a bad thing if the business is either thought to be anti-environmental (like oil exploration and production) or in the health-care field (insurance companies). Let's not talk about obscene profits (profits that are outside the range of what is considered acceptable) for businesses that are acceptable.
So.. here we are .. let's say we are an evil company in one of these evil classes that makes these obscene profits. As the company makes a profit, the profits are put back into the company (for research and development) and given back to the shareholders (which by association) are money grubbing do-badders that posses a love for money that is off the charts.
Well, who are the shareholders? Who is getting these obscene profits? Oh! I know. It's those evil people that have invested in the business. It's police pension funds, firefighter pension funds, municipal funds, retirement pensions, union retirement accounts and pensions (for teachers, auto workers, truck drivers, meat cutters, cab drivers, etc), government worker retirement funds (municipal, state, federal), IRA's, or about any money & tax saving vehicle to save *now* that will hopefully pay *later* (or might even already be paying *now* for those that are already retired).
Well, that's a little different. It's not just a small set of ultra rich people sitting around a board room conference table. Which, as a side note, I'm not so sure that the term *rich* is being defined lately as *someone with a j-o-b with some kind of income*. *Rich* is more normally associated with someone with an income of $250K or more per year. I think this is being shrunk more and more to just people with j-o-b-s.
So, when you have people demonize profits and want to take these obscene profits from those that will receive the benefits of such, the very retirement income pool promised to these people for later years (or even *now* if already retired and drawing retirement income) is being threatened. I wonder if there will be an O.P. Czar to police the Obsene Profits.
We don't like the term "stealing candy from a baby". It should be just as bad "stealing retirement funds from the elderly".
In the time of limited retirement income, the last thing anybody wants is for the government to make the income stream into their retirement accounts smaller. The government isn't punishing the company making obscene profits. The government is punishing the little person. The little person that currently relies upon the company making an obscene profit in order to have a better future.
Everybody should know that a company is in business to make a profit to give back to the company and/or shareholders... period. They aren't in business to solely do what they do as a nice service they provide free of charge. No, they seek a return of investment that is MORE than what they invested. Invest a dollar .. get a dollar and a nickel (or dime, quarter, or more) back.
In months past, these *profits* are seemingly demonized as being a bad thing if the business is either thought to be anti-environmental (like oil exploration and production) or in the health-care field (insurance companies). Let's not talk about obscene profits (profits that are outside the range of what is considered acceptable) for businesses that are acceptable.
So.. here we are .. let's say we are an evil company in one of these evil classes that makes these obscene profits. As the company makes a profit, the profits are put back into the company (for research and development) and given back to the shareholders (which by association) are money grubbing do-badders that posses a love for money that is off the charts.
Well, who are the shareholders? Who is getting these obscene profits? Oh! I know. It's those evil people that have invested in the business. It's police pension funds, firefighter pension funds, municipal funds, retirement pensions, union retirement accounts and pensions (for teachers, auto workers, truck drivers, meat cutters, cab drivers, etc), government worker retirement funds (municipal, state, federal), IRA's, or about any money & tax saving vehicle to save *now* that will hopefully pay *later* (or might even already be paying *now* for those that are already retired).
Well, that's a little different. It's not just a small set of ultra rich people sitting around a board room conference table. Which, as a side note, I'm not so sure that the term *rich* is being defined lately as *someone with a j-o-b with some kind of income*. *Rich* is more normally associated with someone with an income of $250K or more per year. I think this is being shrunk more and more to just people with j-o-b-s.
So, when you have people demonize profits and want to take these obscene profits from those that will receive the benefits of such, the very retirement income pool promised to these people for later years (or even *now* if already retired and drawing retirement income) is being threatened. I wonder if there will be an O.P. Czar to police the Obsene Profits.
We don't like the term "stealing candy from a baby". It should be just as bad "stealing retirement funds from the elderly".
In the time of limited retirement income, the last thing anybody wants is for the government to make the income stream into their retirement accounts smaller. The government isn't punishing the company making obscene profits. The government is punishing the little person. The little person that currently relies upon the company making an obscene profit in order to have a better future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
