A Faux Democracy

Those in the know have well been aware of the fact that though America is a purported representative democracy, in truth it is neither representative, nor is it a democracy. Though allegedly the will of the people is what governs our land, there is no longer even a pretense of such a structure. The governmental system of checks and balances that was instituted by our Founding Fathers has completely broken down. The system is running amok, and has effectively negated the checks and balances that were emplaced to prevent tyranny.

As today's news heralds the overturning of the California ban on gay marriage, so the power structure is again revealed for what it truly is. Twice, the people of California voted that only marriage between one man and one woman should be recognized by the state of California. Proposition 22, enacted in 2000, was struck down by the state Supreme Court in 2008. For that reason, Proposition 8 was proposed for the November 2008 election, giving the voters another opportunity to express themselves. The voters again chose to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

Yet, today our government has yet again declared that they do not serve the will of the people. The legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government have again demonstrated that their agendas are more important than the will of the people. Each branch continues to overstep their legally-appointed bounds, as we see the judicial branch effectively working to create their own laws, through striking down or reinterpretting those laws they deem unfit. The legislative branch is more than happy to spend taxpayer dollars and pass oppressive laws in spite of public opposition to various acts and pieces of legislation. The executive branch readily oversteps their boundaries by involving us in unapproved wars, violating clear rules of procedure in enforcing the law and engaging in scare tactics as a means of extorting citizens.

The writing is on the wall. Anyone who misses the clear revelation of the power structure in America is either ignorant or living in denial. The American government is not concerned with the well-being of its citizens. Presently, government qua government functions only to further its own agendas and perpetuate an increase in governmental power. Today marks another victory for tyranny and oppression. For those of us who love freedom and who believe that the only legitimate role of the government is to serve the interests of its constituents, this new ruling is yet another harbinger that America is no longer a nation that believes in either of those key principles. We are living in a faux democracy. Even those things that we directly vote for are not given serious consideration by our overlords.

Misunderstanding the Recession

It should be no surprise that journalists have very little conception concerning the true cause of the high unemployment rates faced in America today. Accordingly, it also should be no surprise the the proposed remedy is absolutely worthless and counterproductive. An article in the news today, entitled "Why Everyone Suffers When Job Seekers Give Up", clearly misses the mark with its analysis of the economic realities.

Among the surprises in last month's job report was the downward slide in the unemployment rate from 9.7 percent to 9.5 percent. Most of the time, high unemployment rates are bad and low unemployment rates are better. But when the percentage of out-of-work Americans dipped in June, it was driven largely by a 652,000 drop in the labor force.

Some job seekers might see this, on its face, as a good thing--fewer labor force participants means less competition for jobs. The truth is much less helpful. When able workers drop out of the job market, their households make do with less income, and their long-term financial health may be threatened, as savings are depleted. The aggregate economy suffers, too, as it chugs its way out of recession--it loses their contributions as workers and their buying power as consumers.

The aggregate economy might suffer from workers abandoning their jobs and ceasing productive ventures, but the economy does not suffer at all from job seekers abandoning seeking jobs. Since they currently are producing nothing of economic value, their continuing to produce nothing of value results in no economic net change. It only reduces the amount of job candidates for the infinitessimally small amount of available jobs from a supermassive number to a merely extremely excessive one. How will companies ever find suitable candidates now?

The growth in discouraged workers is clearly correlated with the high numbers of long-term unemployed--as people who have spent a year or two looking for work unsuccessfully begin to lose the will to keep searching. With five job seekers for every job opening, and some jobs not likely ever returning, the search has been incredibly difficult for many. This is worrying, says Sung Won Sohn, an economist at Smith School of Business and Economics. "If you look at the total unemployment, about 50 percent are long-term unemployed ... and I suspect that a lot of these people are just dropping out of the labor force, saying 'this is just a waste of time,'" Sohn says. "It's not only an economic problem but a social problem as well. Many of these people are very able--they're in their forties, fifties, they still have quite a few years left in them."

Oh my, what a shocker! After unsuccessfully searching for a job for a long time, people are really giving up the search? I never would have guessed! How could they be so socially irresponsible? It's obviously not a waste of time to keep applying to jobs with a negligible chance of being hired and a slim chance of even getting an interview.

Discouraged workers can't help the economy move toward recovery, as they generally can't contribute to the aggregate demand without generating income, paying much in taxes, or consuming much, Autor says. Over the longer term, some discouraged workers will never return to the labor force and may depend on financial support from family members, or public programs such as federal disability benefits or Medicaid. "In addition to the losses these individuals suffer as a result of not remaining active in the labor market, their withdrawal is also an expensive proposition for the public," Autor says. "Prime age adults who exit the labor force permanently will generally receive considerably more in public benefits and transfer income than they will pay in taxes. Thus, in net, their withdrawal increases the dependency ratio, that is the ratio of non-workers to workers."

Now we're getting a little closer to the real issue. Although, a pivotal point is being missed. Not only are discouraged workers incapable of helping move the economy towards recovery, employed workers are similarly unable to help move the economy towards recovery. Our economy is lying in shambles because of the pervasive government intervention into the economy, the oppressive weight of taxes and regulations, and the global lack of understanding the long-term impact of debt, on a national or an individual basis. There is nothing economically wrong with discouraged workers depending on support from family members. However, when there exist public programs that support those who are not contributing economically to society, it distorts labor incentives. When the available jobs are extremely hard to get, and when there is incentive to give up and rely on government support, guess what choice people will generally make? The problem has two sides, but both sides have the same root cause. They are two sides of one coin. The reasons behind the lack of jobs and the reason why people can survive without jobs are one and the same: government intervention.

Retraining programs will likely be key to getting discouraged workers back into the workforce. "What's worrying is you have this sea of unemployed people who seem to not have the right skill sets for where jobs may be being created in this economy," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR, an economic consulting firm in New York.

Of course, the solution advocated by our all-wise media is the same one propagated in society at large. If we just had more education and training programs, our economy would be better off. If people were better trained, or had more specialized training then there would be plenty of productive economic activities for everyone. As with most of the diagnoses and solutions offered by our benevolent social guardians, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem isn't a matter of education and training. Higher education is becoming increasingly useless in the modern economy. The reason we have an inadequate number of jobs is because incentives are distorted due to the government tinkering with labor prices, levying excessive taxes, creating an ever-increasingly incomprehensible labyrinth of regulations, and monkeying with the monetary system through the Federal Reserve System.

The solution is a return to true laissez-faire capitalism, where people can actually be rewarded for working hard and being innovative. Until there exist enough incentives for innovation and jobs for those who wish to be employed, it should be no surprise that people are abandoning the search for work. Until the systemic obstructions to the creation of jobs and economic innovation are removed, the incentives are distorted enough that people are simply going to play it safe. But, again, we the people are having the same tired cliches fed to us. More training, higher education and endless perseverance are the keys to individual economic stability. The problem couldn't possibly be a systemic or institutional one.

Political Games and Media Twisting

As someone who firmly values liberty and justice, I am quite excited to see how well Rand Paul fared in the Kentucky primaries earlier this week. Given that our senate is quite out of control, and is currently filled with corrupt individuals who cater to corporate whims and seek to expand government intervention, I strongly believe that if there is to be any hope for America, we must elect officials who take firm stances against more unjust government intervention into people's lives. As such, I wholeheartedly support and endorse Rand Paul's senate campaign.

Of course, the corrupt liberal media is opposed to anything related to freedom or integrity. As such, they are more than happy to twist his words and write headlines that are blatantly and knowingly false. Here in the news, Rand Paul is reported as drawing fire for stating his views on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While he does oppose discrimination in the public realm and in politics, he also believes that privately-owned businesses should have every right to choose whom they wish to hire. Discrimination laws, in his opinion, should not extend to private businesses. Now, the media posted a new article with the headline, "Paul changes course, now supports Civil Rights Act in full." Of course, this most certainly isn't what Rand Paul himself said in any interview or public statement.

As usual, the media has no qualms with directly twisting peoples' words and stances to fit the media's own institutional agendas, no matter how much deception and blatant dishonestly is used in the process. Rand Paul's stance is concerned with the laws that impact the liberties of business owners, while the politically-correct media seeks to frame the issue in terms of racism. At first, when I read that second headline, I felt disappointed that Rand Paul would backpedal on his stance on the issue. Then, in researching it more, I discovered that he hadn't backpedaled at all. The lies that are daily fed to us require a skeptical mind and willingness to search for the truth in order to overcome. Especially when they are the covering issues of any importance, the media is more likely to lie and twist the facts than not. Be wary!

New Album Release - Acceleration

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you the following news...



Today marks the release of my second studio album, Acceleration. It is a musical journey of epic proportions, with a variety of instrumental progressive rock tracks. Sonically, it offers powerful sections ranging from soaring orchestral melodies to driving metal riffs, with numerous other elements to be discovered and enjoyed. From beginning to end, it is an energetic and rocking album!

Three years of work has gone into the arrangement, recording and production of this album, and I am quite happy to present it to you. All of the artwork for this album was created by the talented Nate Horsfall. Additionally, guest artists Edwin Rhodes and Carl Stanley contributed their musical talents in a collaboration on a progressive jazz fusion track. Three of the tracks featured on this album took first place in music competitions.

If you enjoy progressive rock or wish to support my artistic endeavors, order a copy today! For more information, or to order a copy of my new album, please visit my artist website: TheoConfidor.com

Revolutions Start Small

Today, Joseph Stack's actions have been plastered all over the news. His anger and indignation at the corruption of the present American political system, the freedom that has been lost, and the injustices perpetuated by our government led him to crash his little airplane into an IRS building in Texas. Fifteen years ago, when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Murrah Federal Building to decry the wrongful tyranny of the Federal Government and the injustice tax system, most people viewed him simply as a radical. He was merely a political outlier with some crazy ideas. Today, however, there is a much different attitude towards the American system of government. The sentiments expressed by Joseph Stack in his final letter are not merely the rantings of a radical. People are awakening to the truth. Many of the sentiments he expressed today are ones that increasing numbers of people are coming to agree with wholeheartedly.

Here are some excerpts from his letter:

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

This is a pivotal truth. While our government is supposed to truly provide liberty and justice for all, it certainly doesn't provide that. It provides a "more equal" justice for some people than for others. Joseph insightfully raises the point that representation isn't the same as merely being able to cast a vote every year or two. Properly understood, representation means that someone in a place of political power is actually acting on behalf of its constituents. One isn't being represented unless their best interests are being acted upon and protected by the governing body. When legislative politicians pass laws that actively harm a large percentage of the people they supposedly represent, this is not "representation," it is tyrannical oppression.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

Not only is the current tax code utterly indecipherable by even the brightest of the master scholars, but every taxpayer is required to contractually bind themselves to validity of their tax returns. Even minor tax issues can cause major complications, which are extremely difficult to rectify, even when the mistake is made by the IRS and not by the taxpayer. Last year my dad had some major difficulties with the IRS because of the mangled ways they handle personal and business income. Every time they called him, some new person, unfamiliar with his case, would follow up to try to amend his tax return properly. My dad spent countless needless hours justifying his return and re-explaining the situation, simply because of the ridiculously complex tax laws, the ineffectivity of the IRS, and the clerical errors made on their end.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Often, when a person voices a complaint about the way the government is handling things, well-meaning people reply, "If you really care about the issue, then you should get involved." As Joseph Stack quickly discovered, even getting involved and being vocal about an important issue rarely yields any real results. While I certainly haven't invested as much of my time and money as he did, I certainly have written quite a number of letters to my Senators and Representatives. Every single time I have done so, I have always received a short, generic response, before my politicians quickly go and vote in opposition to my will. I have send letters protesting the economic bailout programs, protesting hate crimes legislation, protesting the Healthcare Reform bill, as well as other various pieces of tyrannical legislation. The government is primarily concerned with gaining more power and stealing more money from its citizens. The Federal Government continues to take more from its citizens while giving less and less in return. This directly affects us.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

Presently, the system serves to redistribute wealth in an injust and unequal manner. Unlike Robin Hood, who at least had the decency to steal for a somewhat reasonable cause, the Federal Government steals from the middle class to give to the rich (and to throw a few rotting remnants to the poor to keep them dependent) and to fund their own problematic plethora of programs. When ordinary people are financially irresponsible, they must reap what they sow, but when large corporations and banks are fiscally irresponsible, the government is quick to step in and give them free money... our money. Irresponsibility and greed are encouraged and incentivized. Stealing is actively encouraged, so long as you are a government official, a government agency or a large corporation. Justice? I think not!

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.

Here's a man who is willing to take a stand for what he believes in. Here is someone who values liberty and justice, and was willing to sacrifice his life for his ideal. Regardless of your position on his actions, it is clear that his courage and resolve are admirable. Perhaps he was misguided, and perhaps his actions were foolish, but he truly took a stand for what he believed in. No one can rightfully call him ignorant, and no one can rightfully call him cowardly. When systemic solutions and political involvement ceases to make a difference, people's anger provokes them to violence.

Today's events are but a harbinger of what lies ahead. Having forsaken that end and those principles which were original set forth as the aims of the American experiment, there is a spirit of unrest in the air that is palpable. Revolution is not yet upon us, but perhaps it is not nearly as distant as some might think. Already I know of many who discuss their desire for anarchy rather than the present form of government. Some friends of mine are beginning to purchase weapons and train themselves in the use thereof. Another friend of mine, a philosopher, often asks how different people in our social circle would respond to revolution. As Thomas Jefferson prophetically declared: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." On this day we see that one man has spilt his blood for the sake of liberty. The yearning for freedom is something that is reawakening in the hearts of many, and there is little doubt that unless the government lessens its tyrannical grip on its citizens, there will be blood. We have nearly completed a full circuit in returning to many of the opinions and ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers at the birth of our nation. Either America must be politically cleansed and reborn, or it shall fall and be replaced. There is no other alternative.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.
Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809)

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

A revolution of government is the strongest proof that can be given by a people of their virtue and good sense.
John Adams (1735 – 1826)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. - Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison (1751 - 1836)

Political Kleptomania

While my Christmas was very nice overall, I stumbled across a small piece of news that angered me grreatly. Rather than giving us a gift of any sort, the Senate decided to royally screw our nation on Christmas Eve's day. The healthcare reform bill, which I've written about here, here, here and here, was finally voted on by the Senate. On Wednesday I wrote a lengthy e-mail to both of my senators, imploring them not to bring further ruin to our nation and detailing the great evils that the healthcare reform bill will unleash. As usual, both of them happily disregarded my warnings and proceeded to vote "yes" on the healthcare reform bill.

To me this is a tragedy of no small import. While it is not unexpected, it is very sad to see our freedoms eroded further, our rights to our own possessions further rescinded, and our number of choices reduced. Apparently running up a deficit of over one trillion dollars this year simply isn't enough for our nation's benevolent guardians in DC. The kleptomania of our current legislature is being disguided as a humanitarian impulse, and deadly poison is being sold to us labelled as antidote. Obama is delivering the change he promised--by increasing the tyrannical grip of our monstrous government on each and every American citizen. The liberal wet dream of completely removing personal autonomy and having the government provide for everyone's daily needs is closer to fruition than ever before in our nation. Continually I find myself more able to indenify with the antihero of Dominici's O3 musical trilogy. From O3, Part 2:

Corrupt politicians, purveyors of law
Give us daily bread, but not a crumb more
Premiers, Presidents and leaders of men
Fleece us like sheep again and again

All we can do is suffer the grief
And shake our heads in disbelief
A penny here, a dollar there
We’re nickel’d and dime’d into despair

If we should ever come on days
When all would start to change their ways
There’d still be some who would only see
A brand new opportunity

I’d go along and wag my tail
But still they’d throw me in their jail

The beginning of the end has come and gone in America. The passage of this bill will hasten the setting of the sun on the American experiment. While we may still raise our voices in protest, there is very little that any one person can do, so long as the masses are deadset on electing confused, demagogic, kleptomanical politicians. The ignorant and brainwashed majority is inflicting their will on everyone else, and the politicians are more than happy to play the power game regardless of its ruinous effect on our nation. In the end, all I can really ask is, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Tyrannical Health Tax

Today in the news, Obama is celebrating the newest revision of the Health Reform Bill. Being one of Obama's big-ticket items, the hype for this bill is absolutely insane. Previously, I've written about the the whole ideology behind such a bill being based on lies, and the unavoidable rising healthcare costs that would result from the passage of such a bill. As expected, the propaganda surrounding the present incarnation of the bill is as loaded with lies as usual.

Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress was at a "historic moment" and lawmakers were "on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American."

While populist demagoguery always sounds appealing, it always promises what it cannot deliver. No entity can provide truly free (or cheaper than cost) goods or services to people. The simple fact of scarcity guarantees that "affordable, quality health insurance" for everyone is impossible. You can possibly have two of the three, but not all three. Affordable, quality health insurance could be provided to a privileged few. Quality, but expensive healthcare could be available for everyone. Affordable, low quality health care could be available to everyone. But, the laws of supply and demand ensure that there can be no such thing as affordable, quality healthcare for everyone. Liberals are very good at promising what they cannot deliver, and as we have conclusively witnessed with the economic bailout their fairytale promises demonstrate a clear ignorance of both basic economics and simple arithmetic.

Large firms would be required to cover their workers, and most individuals would be required to carry insurance.
The bill would require nearly everyone by 2013 to sign up for health coverage either through their employer, a government program or the new exchange.

Of course, while this would accomplish the goal of expanding healthcare coverage, I for one, think that mandating coverage is a horribly tyrannical idea! Not only will the cost of the healthcare rise, the quality and speed of service drop, and the government become even a larger and more extensive monster than it already is, but mandating coverage essentially amounts to a health tax. While pretending that they want people to be healthy and focus on preventative medicine, the government simultaneously forces healthy people who take good of themselves to spend money they wouldn't otherwise spend. Right now, since I eat well, stay fit and take good care of my body, my health is excellent and I have no need of health services of health insurance. Not having health insurance allows me to walk home with $1,300 more cash every year. If this bill passes, the government is effectively penalizing my health, responsible lifestyle by requiring to pay $1,300 in exchange for... wait for it... absolutely nothing! This "healthcare reform" bill is really just a tyrannical tax on being healthy.

For my own sake, for the sake of all Americans, for the sake of decent healthcare and for the sake of freedom, I will oppose this bill adamantly! Join me!

The Triviality of Decontextualized Information

Recently, I began reading a book by Neil Postman entitled Amusing Ourselves to Death. In the book, the author looks at how our modern forms of media have fundamentally changed the way people comprehend and converse about their world. In one section, he explains how the advent of the telegraph in America radically changed what sort of news is communicated to the public. Here are some excerpts from the book:

The telegraph may have made the country into "one neighborhood," but it was a peculiar one, populated by strangers who knew nothing but the most superficial facts about each other.

Since we live today in just such a neighborhood (now sometimes called a "global village"), you may get a sense of what is meant by context-free information by asking yourself the following question: How often does it occur that information provided you on morning radio or television, or in the morning newspaper, causes you to alter your plans for the day, or to take some action you would not otherwise have taken, or provides insight into some problem you are required to solve? For most of us, news of the weather will sometimes have consequences; for investors, news of the stock market; perhaps an occasional story about crime will do it, if by chance it occurred near where you live or involved someone you know. But most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action. This fact is the principle legacy of the telegraph: By generating an abundance of irrelevant information, it dramatically altered what may be called the "information-action ratio."

Not only is most of the information that we hear or read in the news not actionable or practically useful in any way, but I would argue that most of it isn't even interesting. Think about it, if you are someone who pays attention to the news, what percent of it even interests you? Personally, I like to be informed about what is happening in the world, but with the exception of occasional stories of special interest to me, or really significant events that will serve as conversation-pieces for a couple of days, 95% of the news is completely banal and trivial to me. Maybe the first time you hear about a flood decimating a town in Indonesia or the first few times you read about sensational crimes or the second time you hear about negotiations with North Korea over their development of nuclear weapons you might be somewhat interested by the news stories. But by the time you've read about the 79th natural disaster of the year, the 400th sensational murder or the 59th article about the nuclear nonproliferation treaty negotiations with North Korea, you become quite inoculated to it all. When everything is sensational and important, suddenly nothing is sensational or important anymore. Because of this, whenever we find an aggregate of decontextualized information, it is nearly impossible to regard it as anything more than trivial. With minor exceptions, it is irrelevant and uninteresting.

Neil Postman continues:

The telegraph introduced a kind of public conversation whose form had startling characteristics: Its language was the language of headlines--sensational, fragmented, impersonal. News took the form of slogans, to be noted with excitement, to be forgotten with dispatch. Its language was also entirely discontinuous. One message had no connection to that which preceded or followed it. Each "headline" stood alone as its own context. The receiver of the news had to provide a meaning if he could. The sender was under no obligation to do so. And because of all this, the world as depicted by the telegraph began to appear unmanageable, even undecipherable. The line-by-line, sequential, continuous form of the printed page slowly began to lose its resonance as a metaphor of how knowledge was to be acquired and how the world was to be understood. "Knowing" the facts took on a new meaning, for it did not imply that one understood implications, background, or connections. Telegraphic discourse permitted no time for historical perspectives and gave no priority to the qualitative. To the telegraph, intelligence meant knowing of lots of things, not knowing about them.

Since most news is presented as decontextualized information and since the sender has no obligation to provide an appropriate context, each person is forced to contextualize the information themselves and determine what meaning it does or does not have. Because of the decontextualization of the information, it is always necessarily to recontextualize it in some form, either externally or simply mentally. Given the numerous demands of modern life, most people have neither the time nor the desire to manually recontextualize all the new information funneled to us each day, which leads most people to adopt one of two stances towards news and daily public information. The first option is simply to ignore nearly all new information, operating on the presumption that almost none of it is remotely pertinent or interesting. The second option is to search for a source of recontextualized information.

I believe that people's natural desire for relevant information is one of the reasons why blogs have become so popular in the last few years. According to this 2004 study, at least 15,000 new blogs are created every day. There are many sorts of various blogs, and there are numerous blogging communities that are united by interests in similar topics. Since modern technology has served to blur geographic distinctions, public discourse finds it distinctions not based on location but by topic and interest. In this way, blogs serve a threefold purpose. First of all, they serve to recontextualize information based on topic and offer commentary and interpretation on the pertinent events of the day. There are numerous economic blogs, law blogs, political blogs, philosophical blogs, personal experience blogs, social observation blogs, art-centric blogs and blogs of every other sort imaginable. Each blog owner skims through the news, other blogs, the internet and even there personal life to present information that is relevant and pertinent to their target audience. Secondly, blogs serve as a forum for discussion and debate about the various topics of the day. Most blogs accept and even encourage active commenters, and those who frequent the blog often find themselves sharing their own opinion about the current posts, which then entice other commenters to comment on the comments. Third, because of the way blogs serve as an effective method of recontextualizing information and offering a public forum for discourse, online communities are formed both on a single blog and often in the context of an entire blogosphere of individual blogs who link to other similar ones.

In this way, modern people have found a way to take the decontextualized information that inundates the web and recontextualize it in a way that serves to offer meaning and a clearer interpretation of its significance. The explosion of new blogs would suggest that people are hungry for information, as long as it presents itself in a relevant and interesting way. Additionally, the blogosphere and internet forums offer people a new way to discuss the pressing issues of our days, consider various opinions and even share their own opinions. With the deluge of daily news we have in the Information Age, what is needed is not more information but a filter to remove the useless information and a recontextualization of the information into useful and digestible bites.

Healthcare Reform Media Surge

Today, everyone keeping up with the news has been bombarded with stories about the Senate's first cohesive healthcare reform bill, and the alleged desire of the uninsured to have a public plan. The liberal, tyrannical, fact-twisting nature of it all makes me absolutely sick! Here's a little breakdown of some of the goodies we can expect if the bill passes:

The bill by Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate panel, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring most people to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine and prohibiting insurance companies from charging more to people with more serious health problems.

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and limits would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

Clearly, this will hurt people who are presently uninsured and don't want insurance. The new bill will require people to purchase insurance or pay a fine. For some odd reason, I thought that this bill was designed to help the poor, underprivileged, uninsured people, not subject them to spend more of their hard-earned money on things that they may not want, or can't afford. Also, the bill has the nice added bonus of raising taxes and fees. This will likely start putting major pressure on medical providers. With the limits on yearly patients' health care costs, medical providers may not be able to make ends meet. I would not be surprised if an implementation of this bill leads to more medical bankruptcy filings, as we've seen with the flurry of business bankruptcy filings in other sectors of the economy.

Not only is the present bill absolutely horrendous, but both the media and the government have joined forces to spread deception and propagate the message that it is downright immoral that medical providers are profit-seeking companies, since peoples' health is on the line. Of course, any Austrian economist knows that a competitive medical market consisting of for-profit companies can provide cheaper and higher-quality healthcare than any government-run system, but the gatekeepers of public information would rather disseminate lies in order to gain more money and power than they would even lift a finger to try to, God forbid, benefit people's lives. This story encapsulates the attitudes and stances of our liberal media. The headline says, "Uninsured Americans hope reform brings health coverage." In it they quote a 32 year old, former music teacher:

"No insurer will cover me because of my condition," Baty said. "I don't know what Americans feel they would be giving up with a public option. But just from a philosophical standpoint you will never convince me that someone making a profit from my healthcare would make the best decisions on how to treat me."

It's sad that they have to stoop to interviewing people who are philosophically and economically vacuous to present their viewpoint. Anyone who properly understands economics knows that having people competing to take care of you better is a good thing and will result in better care. For-profit companies are personally invested in your well-being, because their financial success depends on them providing quality care at a reasonable cost, so that you, as the consumer, don't take your money elsewhere. Any other sort of company or organization is not personally invested in your well-being, and therefore feels no obligation to provide you with the best. From an economic and philosophical standpoint, I am completely convinced that someone who needs my money to make a profit will do everything in their power to obtain and keep my business.

Regarding lowering the cost of healthcare there is one thing that liberals either forget or conveniently ignore. Liberal agendas are always very tempting and attractive to uninformed citizens because they promise people what the people want. What do people want? Here is a hierarchy of desires, from most desirable to least desirable:

1. Free stuff
2. Cheap stuff
3. Ordinarily-priced stuff, as long as it is affordable
4. Expensive stuff, on rare occasions

Therefore, when liberals offer people free stuff, or cheaper stuff, it all sounds good. Those who neglect one basic principle will happily vote for more free and cheap stuff. The principle is:

Nothing is ever truly free.

The corollary to this principle is: Cheap stuff is either cheap for a reason, or it is not truly cheap.

In the BraveNewWorldOrder that liberals are promising, everyone will have everything they want provided for them by the government. But, there is a reason why conservatives, libertarians and intelligent people are actively opposing this push toward more free stuff. It is because the price tag is much higher than it appears. Someone has to pay for everything. Either someone has to pay for it now, or we can do it on credit and pay tomorrow. But, one way or the other, the price must be paid. For this reason, the present incarnation of the bill has almost zero Republican support. As the news story says:

In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support.

"This partisan proposal cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars, and puts massive new tax burdens on families and small businesses, to create yet another thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "Only in Washington would anyone think that makes sense, especially in this economy."

I quite agree with that last statement. Only in the land of the corrupt and the power-hungry does it make sense to penalize those who can't afford or don't want health insurance. Only in the land of delusion and fool's gold does anyone believe that higher taxes, more fees and artificially capped costs will ever result in a better life for its inhabitants. But, with the American zeitgeist of entitlement no-one wants to be told that they can't have more free stuff!

America's Justice System: Discouraging Courage

Today in the news, a bank teller was fired for chasing a would-be robber.

Bank tellers are trained to get robbers out the door quickly and are advised against possibly escalating a situation over money that's federally insured.

Seattle police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb said the best course for citizens is to be good witnesses to crimes.

"When confronted by a violent criminal, it is best to comply unless they feel their personal safety is in jeopardy. It is possible that taking action and confronting the criminal may lead to the injury of the victim or other bystanders."

"You want tellers to be proactive, but you want them to do it safely," said FBI Special Agent Fred Gutt.

Wow! What amazing advice! Apparently our contemporary company policies and our modern political climate is actively encouraging people to be pansies. Personally, I admire the bank teller who refused to kowtow to the demands of a burglar. I admire a man who is assertive enough to stand his ground against evil-doers and who has courage enough to take action against them. Those are increasingly rare traits. In the case of this particular teller, he got flawless results. No money was stolen, nobody was hurt, and the bank robber was successfully apprehended. You can't possibly have a more successful outcome. All this because of the actions of one unarmed teller!

But, apparently our government says that we should just be good little citizens, give in to the demands of criminals and leave the administration of justice to trained professionals. They tell us to be proactive in a safe way--by doing absolutely nothing! I'm not sure how they define proactive, but I consider doing nothing to be the very least proactive response possible. What expectation of safety can there possibly be in the case of violent or potentially violent criminals? The very presence of a violent criminal strips all potential safety from the situation. Again, I'm not sure what sort of world police live in, but I'm pretty certain that wherever lawlessness and weapons are simultaneously involved, there is no such thing as safety. Maybe in their world, violent crimes are always carried out in a safe and civilized manner.

If I ever decide to become a criminal mastermind, I'll be sure to only rob banks that have company policies requiring bank tellers to cooperate with robbers' demands.

Evolutionary Biology Tries To Offer Economic Answers

This article was quite a fascinating read. It's always amusing to me how much the theory of evolution purports to be the be-all, end-all answer to human behavior, whether regarding sexual selection or, in this case, economic theory.

The push for financial regulatory reform has highlighted an important debate surrounding the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the idea that market prices are rationally determined and fully reflect all available information. If true, the EMH implies that regulation is largely unnecessary because markets allocate resources and risks efficiently via the "Invisible Hand".
However, critics of the EMH argue that human behaviour is hardly rational, but is driven by "animal spirits" that generate market bubbles and busts, and regulation is essential for reining in misbehaviour.

Initially confined to academia, the battle between EMH disciples and behaviouralists has spilled over to central bankers, regulators, and politicians, and the new regulatory landscape may depend on the outcome of this conflict. The strong convictions fuelling this debate have created a false dichotomy between the two schools of thought - in fact, both perspectives contain elements of truth, but neither is a complete picture of economic reality. Markets do function quite efficiently most of the time, aggregating vast amounts of disparate information into a single number - the price - on the basis of which millions of decisions are made. This feature of capitalism is an example of Surowiecki's "wisdom of crowds". But every so often, markets can break down, and the wisdom of crowds can become the "madness of mobs".

Why do markets break down? Animal spirits! Recent neuroscientific research has shown that what we consider to be "rational" behaviour is the outcome of a delicate balance among several distinct brain functions, including emotion, logical deliberation, and memory. If that balance is upset - say, by the strong stimulus of a life-threatening event - then reason may be cast aside in favour of more instinctive behaviours like herding or the fight-or-flight response.

Although few of us encounter such threats on a daily basis, much of our instincts are still adapted to the plains of the African savannah 50,000 years ago.

Personally, I don't agree with the efficient markets hypothesis (EMH), even though it does have some elements in common with classical Austrian economic thought. Though EMH may suggest that human behavioral is primarily rational, classical economics and the functioning of the "Invisible Hand" is not dependent on the rationality of buyers and sellers. Though the market may experience various oddities such as price distortion, overly-optimistic market speculation and dramatic temporal spikes in supply and demand, the Austrian position is simply that the invisible hand will naturally correct for these phenomenon and restore the market to a balanced state. For example, when an easy credit market creates a surge in short-term demand for real estate, resulting in the housing bubble that we have recently witnessed, the invisible hand simply ensures that prices will return to their real levels eventually. In this case, since housing prices were artificially high, market correction is occurring as the prices nosedive. Soon, the prices will rise slightly, returning to approximate real housing values. The invisible hand doesn't depend on people behaving rationally. In fact, I would quite agree that many people made poor choices in taking out loans to buy houses they really couldn't afford. This irrational behavior caused an artificially high level of housing demand. But unless people continue to act irrationally for long periods of time, the invisible hand will always restore equilibrium. And a family can hardly continue to act irrationally when they've been evicted for failing to make mortgage payments. The invisible hand itself forces people, whose excessive spending swiftly brings them face to face with economic reality, to return to reasonably rational spending. They can't afford not to!

However flawed the efficient markets hypothesis may be, I think the evolutionary position is utterly ridiculous. I love it! Rather than explaining what thoughts or emotions led people to make the economic decisions they did, behavioral economists claim that the whole problem is animal spirits! Animal spirits! Animal spirits are the reason that we are in the midst of an economic depression. What in the world does this mean? Thankfully, the article explains. The problem is that even though humans have evolved and learned to thrive in our modern environment, for some odd reason we still have instincts that are 50,000 years old. Apparently, all irrational human behavior is just because our behavior hasn't had enough time to adapt to a modern context. Naturally, if we just had a few million more years we might figure out how to buy things in a rational manner!

As an Austrian economist, my position is that a laissez-faire approach to economic will typically have the best results. Most regulation only serves to artificially limit the market and will always cause distortion or even market failure. I'm not at all worried about human economic "misbehavior" as they call it, since in a market where fair-play is ensured, irresponsible financial decisions only harm those who make them. If a family buys a house they can't afford, then only two parties are harmed: the family who has chosen to spend beyond their means, and the bank who took a risk by making an unwise loan. The only regulation we need is regulation that ensures fair competition. People will learn the rest through trial and error, since even people who behave irrationally often learn from their own mistakes.

But of course, if we really are nothing more than car-driving, newspaper reading, web-surfing gorillas, whose instincts are 50,000 years outdated, making choices on the basis of mystical animals spirits from the African savannah, then my theory could be wrong.

One Trillion Dollars Short

As of this week, our government now has accumulated a deficit of more than one trillion dollars from this year alone. Personally, I find this shocking and appalling and perhaps a little bit surprising. You would think that being elected to some sort of government position would require at least basic math skills and perhaps a touch of personal responsibility. I guess not!

Though economics can be complicated at some times, balancing the budget is definitely not. Any elementary school student capable of basic subtraction could figure out how to balance the budget. The equation is very simple: Income - Expenses = Remaining Money. If your remaining money is greater than zero, then you have have a surplus. If the remainder is zero, then you have a balanced budget. If you have less than zero dollars left, then you have a deficit. Therefore, if you wish to avoid a deficit, all you must do is ensure that you don't spend money that you do not have.

Just to put this year's deficit into perspective, let us see how much this deficit will cost us. Supposing the federal government chose to collect enough money to pay off our deficit, every single man, woman and child in America would have to pay $3,268 to cover the deficit of the last six months alone. Projections for this year suggest that by the end of 2009 the deficit will rise to $1.84 trillion, essentially costing each person $6,013. That is six thousand dollars more than we've already paid in taxes. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to have to give the government that much money!

In the case of our federal government, there are several possible reasons for why we have a deficit. The first option is that politicians simply can't do math. The second option is that politicians are simply irresponsible, evidenced by their unwillingness to trim unnecessary expenses from our budget and by their increasing government spending on numerous fronts. The third option is that perhaps politicians believe that everyone's money belongs to them and they are free to spend it how they see fit, without any accountability. Truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised if it is combination of all three.

If we actually wanted to cut our expenses it would be very simple to do. Ending the broken and out-of-control Social Security program ($617 billion a year), the poorly-managed Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP program ($599 billion a year) and withdrawing from all the pointless wars we're fighting ($625 billion a year) would save us $1.81 trillion per year. Even if we've already spent half of that on such programs this year, ending them now would save us $900 billion dollars. But, of course, the government views those all as good and necessary programs... in fact, maybe we need a few more such programs...

I'm sure that poking a few more holes in our fiscal boat will keep it from sinking!

Descent Towards Tyranny

Thomas Jefferson once said:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

America was founded directly as a result of rebellion against tyranny, with the goal of being a haven of liberty and justice, with all unreasonable use of power kept in check by a government with many checks and balances. Unfortunely, having begun a descent towards tyranny in 1861 by restraining personal and collective freedoms of the people, we have been heading rapidly towards a deeper and darker tyranny. This year is one in which America is hastening her demise by picking up the speed at which individuals liberties and unalienable rights are being trampled.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines tyranny as: "oppressive power exerted by the government." Though some people are quite happy with all the new changes that Obama is enacting, I am quite appalled and concerned about most of them. Since Obama has come into power, we have seen a lot of new laws, expenses and programs in the works:

Just yesterday morning, Obama signed an anti-smoking law. This bill creates a Center for Tobacco Products which will regulate the tobacco industry and restrict what sorts of product they are allowed to create and market. Additionally, they are requiring even more warning labels and graphics to be printed on cigarette cartons. Obviously, the only reason people smoke is because they can't read the already obstrusive Surgeon General's warning on the package. People choosing to smoke must be a case of insufficient warnings!

Last month a credit card reform bill was passed, which certainly has some good components, but definitely limits young the freedoms of persons under 21. Though I understand that such a restriction is done with the best of intentions, it unreasonably takes away freedom from young people and makes it much more difficult to establish good credit. I got my first credit card when I was 18, and by using it responsibly I now have a large credit limit and an excellent credit score, which have served me well in making large purchases and would put me in a great position if I were to need a business or home loan. With the new regulations in place, my younger siblings will have a much harder time establishing good credit. The best way to encourage responsibility is to allow people to face the consequences of their decisions; preventing them from making autonomous decisions is counterproductive and slows the maturing process. People can vote, join the army or be drafted into the military at 18, but they can't be allowed to manage their own borrowing practices? Absurd!

Another bill that is currently working it's way through the Senate seriously threatens free speech and religious expression. The Matthew Shepard Act is an extension of hate crimes law, which will broaden the classification of hate crimes to include protection not only based on race, color, religion, or national origin but also protection based on sexual characteristics, such as a homosexual sexual orientation, or even for any of the clinical forms of sexual deviancy (which include nearly every sort of perversion you can imagine, and probably quite a few that you can't). Though the bill allegedly won't threaten free speech, if any language or religious preaching can be considered influential in motivating any sort of violence towards a protected individual, it could result in a trial for hate speech.

Yet, those new and pending laws are the least of our worries! The massive economic bailout has been expending vast amounts of money. Obama is only responsible for about $787 billion dollars of it. Only $787 billion dollars! To give you idea of how much money that is, with $787 billion dollar you could buy 2.6 million average-priced houses in the US. Or, you could buy 39.3 million brand-new 2010 Toyota Camrys. Alternately, you could pay an average salary to 12.9 million people for an entire year. That is a lot of money! And where is this money coming from? The federal government gets nearly all of its money through federal income taxes. All the money that government is spending has either been taken out of your paychecks already or will be taken very soon. Given that the federal debt is rapidly increasing, and that during the past 7 years we have had major deficit spending, the amount of money that each person will be required to surrender to the federal government is becoming astronomcially large!



If our expenses for the economic bailout isn't bad enough, there is significant talk about creating a public health-care system and requiring all Americans to have health insurance. Not only will this be a major blow to the freedom of Americans (since health insurance will no longer be optional), but it will also undoubtedly result in major government expenditures in addition all the money we are already haphazardly throwing to the wind. According to US News:

Yet neither bill addresses outright how to pay for reform.These omissions are not oversights; they are political calculations. The cost of healthcare reform could top $1 trillion over the next decade, and the proposals for raising that money, which include everything from eliminating tax breaks for employers to putting new taxes on drinks that contain high-fructose corn syrup, are contentious and risk alienating lawmakers.

In short, in year 2009, our freedoms are consistently being eroded, more of each person's money is being spent without permission or approval, and the government is seeking to mandate more "right choices" rather than allowing individuals to make their own choices and choose their own path in life. The "will of the people," as interpretted by the federal government, is exerting more tryannical force over individuals and asserting its dominance and control over each and every citizen of America by systematically stripping them of their rights to keep what is theirs, spend their money as they see fit, speak out against evil and enjoy private vices. If time permitted, I would mention the government trying to enforce its brand of morality by attacking the "conscience clause" and mention how religious and family rights are being trampled on by the supreme court. All of these new laws and programs in the works are just a taste of what is to come. The tyranny of the federal government is rapidly expanding and Obama is dedicated to taking even more control for the government. These are increasingly bad times for average American citizens!

The Business of Saving Lives

It's the age old ethical question of whether the end justifies the means. Should a person or family be forced to do something that is in their "best interests" even against their will? The story of 13-year old Daniel Hauser has definitely stirred up controversy and some important discussions.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, who belong to a religious group that believes in using only natural healing methods practiced by some American Indians.

"The state has successfully shown by clear and convincing evidence that continued chemotherapy is medically necessary," he wrote, adding he would not order chemotherapy if doctors find the cancer has advanced to a point where it is "too late."

If chemotherapy is ordered and the family refuses, the judge said, Daniel will be placed in temporary custody.

A court-appointed attorney for Daniel, Philip Elbert, called the judge's decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said Friday. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

Admittedly, this is a very complicated moral dilemma. Do individuals and families really know what is best for them? Does freedom of choice and freedom of religion or a person's "best interests" take higher precedence? Who can objectively determine what is in a person's "best interest"? These are all difficult questions to wrestle with.

What is in a person's best interest? This question has seemingly opposing answers depending on the context of the situation. Usually a person's death is not in their best interests, however there are certainly many cases when it is. If a solider chooses to value his companion's life over his own by choosing to take a bullet for him, can we really say that he acted against his best interests? Is one life worth more than another? Is it unreasonable to choose love over life? As Christians, we have the example of Jesus Christ, who willing chose to die for the joy that was set before Him. Though certainly not true in all cases, it seems that a strong case can be made that sometimes death for the right reason is more valuable than life itself.

Does a person really know what is in their own best interest? Do to the broad nature of this question, there is not really one universal answer. Some people may have a clearer idea of what is in their best interest than others. Children are definitely not as well-informed and capable as older people may be. However, in the case of Daniel Hauser, both him and his parents were in agreement that chemotherapy was not the best option. This cannot be considered simply ignorance or neglect, since they had already tried a round of chemotherapy treatment before determining that this did not seem to be the best treatment plan. Daniel suffered a lot of side effects from the treatment and along with his parents decided that it would be better to pursue alternative natural remedies, in accordance with their religious beliefs. Perhaps a person does not know what is in their best interest, but can there be another person or entity who knows better? As Philip Ebert lamented in response to the judge's decision, "It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

In this case, the government decided that it knows better than Daniel Hauser and his parents what is best for him, and also decided that it had the right to enforce chemotherapy treatment. From the final court order the ruling states:

"The Court is today determining that the Petition alleging Daniel Hauser to be a child in need of protection or services has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court is also concluding that the State of Minnesota, through the Brown County Family Services ("BCFS"), has demonstrated a compelling state interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override the fundamental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel to the free exercise of religion and the due process right of the parents to direct the religious and other upbringing of their child."

It saddens me to see that individual freedom is being eroded more and more by our government. As much as I desire people to live and receive adequate medical treatment, I believe that such private decisions should ultimately be left to individuals. A person should be free to choose which medical treatments to accept and which to decline. Having said that, I am very happy that Daniel is recovering as a result of the chemotherapy:

X-rays show the tumor in the chest of a 13-year-old boy who resisted treatment has shrunk significantly after two courses of court-ordered chemotherapy, a family spokesman said Monday.

However, family friend and spokesman Daniel Zwakman said the side effects of the treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma have left Danny Hauser weak and miserable.

Of course, the forced treatment is leaving Daniel feeling weak and miserable...

Today's Medical Professionals

Here are some brief excerpts from an NBC Article today: Teen Outsmarts Doctors in Science Class.

"It's weird I had to solve my own medical problem," Terry told CNN affiliate KOMO. "There were just no answers anywhere ... I was always sick."

For years she went from doctor to doctor complaining of vomiting, diarrhea, weight loss and stomach pains. They said she had irritable bowel syndrome. They said she had colitis. They said the slides of her intestinal tissue were fine, but she knew that wasn't right.

Despite the incredible advances of modern medicine, we still seem shockingly far from really providing reasonable healthcare in the United States. When doctors continually misdiagnose a disease and the problem continues for years, an 18 year old girl decides to do her own testing to determine what ails her. You would think that with all the alleged training doctors receive, they would be able to correctly diagnose and treat most diseases. Personally, I lose a lot of confidence in our so-called "specialists" when an 18-year old high school student can perform a better diagnosis.

If only this were a rare case, at least it might be more acceptable, but this sort of thing isn't as rare an occurence as the medical industry would have us believe. Scott Adams, the cartoonist who writes Dilbert, also spent years trying to receive a diagnosis of a rare throat condition that left him unable to speak in certain settings. Eventually, after performing enough research of his own he determined that he had Spasmodic Dysphonia. Even after diagnosing it, the treatments were so unsuccessful that Scott had nearly resigned himself to a lifetime of having a speech impediment until he stumbled across a cure of his own.

The remarkable thing is, despite the quality of care offered by doctors decreasing, the prices continue to skyrocket. Is this really the best America can do? I'm quite disappointed!