IS CENSORSHIP JUSTIFIED DURING AN ALCOHOL PROHIBITION WAR?
by John Lee
Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
–General William Westmoreland
DEADLY CENSORSHIP
In America, we citizens prefer to think of ourselves as the most enlightened, educated, intelligent, healthy and "free" human beings on the planet. At least, that's what the professional propagandists in the news and advertising media tell us and sell us. Remember that this nation was founded upon our forefathers' guiding principle of slavery, genocide and property seizure, with the right to vote denied to kidnapped slaves, women, Caucasian men who were not wealthy enough to own real estate and citizens under the age of "adulthood". American drivers face similar handicaps when attempting to learn the secrets of driving laws and driving-safety techniques.
Today, censorship of the Internet occurs with secret "filter" programs imposed by government school and library systems, but managed by private corporations -- illegally bypassing highly educated librarian professionals and substituting anonymous censors. In the author's state of Tennessee, the legislature illegally provides taxpayer funds to county schools that wish to purchase censorship software, bypassing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the author's county of Knox, government school systems use this illegal software to secretly censor subjects that are clearly protected by the U.S. Supreme Court as "protected speech". This is the same as censorship fanatics marching into schools and libraries to remove books off shelves and burn them, since the Internet basically allows schools and libraries to access all the "silicon books" available on the "library of the Internet". Internet search engines can refuse to list any web site, thus making it invisible to people searching for information. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas warned: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." Let us take an honest look at American censorship and how that adversely affects our lives, so that we are less likely to be "defeated".
There is an incredible weight of censorship during the Drink-Driving War. It's a ball and chain upon civilized society. Much of this censorship is possible due to simple ignorance. As Mel Schulstad, past president of the National Association of Alcoholism Counselors, wrote in his preface to Under the Influence -- A Guide to the Myths and Realities of Alcoholism, by Dr. James Milam and Katherine Ketcham: "It is my belief that alcoholism has suffered more malpractice out of ignorance than any other disease in recent times." This is a terrifying thought, since medical malpractice is already known to kill over 180,000 relatively healthy Americans annually (Harvard School of Public Health study), plus ordinary use of prescription and non-prescription drugs kill another 100,000 a year (Tornto University study).
For example, the corrupted government, "news" media, religious industry and medical industry conspire routinely to perpetuate the myth that alcohol is not a stimulant, but is a depressant. This is the foundation of every Prohibition War, that the prohibited substance or act impairs performance and thus must be stamped out ruthlessly, even if the "cure" kills the "patient". Since stimulants IMPROVE driver performance, the fact that alcohol beverages are stimulants cannot be admitted to the public. Stimulants improve physical performance, and thus improve driving safety. That is why stimulants such as caffeine are banned by the Olympic committees as "performace-enhancing drugs". Obviously, the government will never publically acknowledge this -- such an admission would be devastating to its Prohibition profits. As a common-sense proof that it's a stimulant, if alcohol were always a depressant then no person would ever drink it except as a sleeping aid at bedtime. The observation of everyone who enjoys it is that alcohol lifts mood and energy -- otherwise they would not spend money on it. Alcohol is a high-calorie food with protein, vitamins and minerals -- a fact censored by the government which bans food labels for alcohol. If alcohol were a depressant, the restaurants and bars would never serve it.
Yes, at higher blood-alcohol levels, the drug of alcohol does act as a sedative and depressant (mainly due to its poisonous metabolite acetaldehyde), thus reducing driving performance. However, alcohol is a very unusual drug, in that at lower BAC levels, it definately acts as a stimulant. In Actions of Alcohol, authors H. Wallgren and H. Barry point out that: "Most studies of nerve conduction and transmission, EEG records, and behavioral performance indicate stimulant actions of low doses and depressant actions at high doses." In the journal Biology of Alcoholism, edited by B. Kissin and H. Beglleiter, R.G. Grenell summerized in "Effects of Alcohol on the Neuron": "Neuronal activity is stimulated by low concentrations and depressed by high concentrations of alcohol." Note that there is no arbitrary blood-alcohol level that will determine when this transition from stimulant to sedative occurs, and it is different for different people, and even different for the same person at different times. Many people cannot digest alcohol at all due to genetic lack of one liver enzyme, such as many Asians, who natually shun the drink since it causes instant nausea. Other folks, such as Native Americans (Asian origin) and many Americans of Northern-European descent (Irish, Scotch) lack a liver enzyme that's needed to eliminate alcohol from the bloodstream, which can lead to overdose ("drunkeness") for someone who seeks to self-medicate depression with alcohol. Liver diseases also cause this alcohol-digestion problem.
That alcohol stimulates is obvious. What's so dangerous about the lie that alcohol's a depressant is that this myth destroys all ability for society to make a dent in the so-called disease of alcoholism. As experts in "addiction" and "rehabilitation" are finally discovering, THERE IS NO SUCH DISEASE AS ALCOHOLISM OR DRUG ADDICTION!!! However, what is devastating is the "disease" of DEPRESSION. When people are depressed, they naturally seek out anti-depressants. Since alcohol and many drugs are stimulants (including nicotine from tobacco), these chemicals counteract the depression (more or less). INSTANTLY. Like all drugs, they also have side effects, which sometimes prove deadly. Prescription anti-depressants (Prozac, Zoloft-Welbutrin, etc.) and over-the-counter anti-depressants (the ancient MAOI-inhibiting St. John's Wort) take one whole month to kick in, which confuses folks in our instant-gratification culture -- the instant gratification that the media's advertisors sell us that we allegedly crave. Proof that these anti-depressant chemicals "cure alcoholism" is that "craving" and even enjoyment of alcohol disappears after the drugs build up in the brain. As conscientious experts are discovering, the actual cause of depression is NOT inferior genetics or psychological insanity or "moral" weakness, but simple malnutrition. "Malnutrition" can be caused by either insufficient intake of protein, vitamins and minerals, or by intestinal diseases which block absorbtion of the food one eats. Protein is required by the brain to manufacture all its neurotransmitter chemicals. Lack of protein intake leads to shortage of neurotransmitters, which leads to "depression" and "attention deficit". The chapter on nutrition will go into greater detail on this vital subject.
The professional lies spread on the subject of alcohol cause heinous pain to our nation. Until we gather the intelligence and courage to shake off denial and to face these realities, the devastation will continue indefinately. It is exceedingly profitable for certain industries to maintain the status quo. Censorship of lifesaving knowledge is the number-one weapon of those who would subjugate their "inferiors". How did America reach this precipice? Let's take a look at censorship -- American style.
The First Amendment declares: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Surely American politicians and bureaucrats would respect the U.S. Constitution, wouldn't they? Surely the media would never have to worry about government attempts to intervene in what the public is told? Republican Mayor Frank Hague, of Jersey City, New Jersey, explained it this way: "You hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is Red, that man is a Communist!' You never hear a real American talk like that." Strange -- this author was under the impression that America was all about "freedom". Strange how prefessional politicians seem to forget that.
Censorship is defined by the New Encyclopedia Brittannica as "the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is condemned as subversive of the common good." This is the traditional definition, which assumes there actually is a perfect person who really knows—or who cares—what is good for everybody else besides himself. In reality, there are many powerful economic forces that control what information the public has easy access to. The term "market-driven censorship" more accurately explains what happens in a capitalistic pseudo-democracy (a "republic"). Actually, government is censored as often as the media, since corporate wealth overshadows both. The tail cannot wag the dog (and neither can do anything without the brain first giving orders). Government may be big, but multinational corporations are collectively bigger. The corporate media is in the business of selling advertising to other corporations. Self-censorship is a fundamental tenet of selling. Every salesman must constantly censor himself to avoid saying anything which might derail a customer from buying his product. Both the media and the government are constantly selling the public on ideas and products on behalf of their advertisers and campaign contributors.
Censorship, propaganda, disinformation and selling are basically the same thing—tell the good but not the bad. American citizens are up to their necks in B.S., i.e., propaganda, and have become so acclimated to the stench that they don't notice it anymore. The ethics of selling supposedly require the salesman to only use his powers of persuasion for the good of his customer. In other words, only agree to sell him something that is obviously good for him. Unfortunately, the highest paid salespeople are often the ones that step over the line of ethics. It is technically a conflict of interest for news media to both report the news and also sell advertising, since the advertising customers provide the majority of profit (80% for newspapers), or all the profit (100% for television). Since this web site doesn't sell advertising, theoretically it can report more accurately. A book author "only" worries about censorship from the major publishers and distributors, although this can also have a major impact on his profitability and ability to earn an income and feed his family. So it would injure the profit margins of news outlets to warn the public of a secret Prohibition war, since it profits by billions of dollars in alcohol, pharmaceutical, restaurant, political and automobile advertising. As First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt warned: "It is difficult to have a free, fair and honest press anywhere in the world. In the first place, as a rule, papers are largely supported by advertising, and that immediately gives the advertisers a certain hold over the medium which they use."
Let us take a brief look at a history of our nation's censorship. Before the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, America's first newspaper, Publik Occurrences both Foreign and Domstik, was permanently censored after its first and only issue in 1690. Volumes of government laws have been passed since then, with help from a self-policing media, banning much that Americans like to know: The Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, the The Sedition Act of 1918, the creation of the Committee on Public Information in 1918, the Motion Picture Production Code in 1930, the Federal Communications Act of 1934, the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1938, the U.S. Office of Censorship in 1941, the Office of War Information in 1941, the U.S. Information Service in 1945, The Television Code in 1952, National Security Decision Directive 84 (from Censored, The News that Didn't Make the News—And Why, by Dr. Carl Jenson). America's track record of a "free" press is no more intellectually free than it is given away "freely" to the public without a purchase price.
As Margaret Bald writes in 100 Banned Books -- Censorship Histories of World Literature, "When you look back over the centuries and see the incredible range of books and authors whose works were suppressed, you can only be struck by how absurdly ineffective and useless it has been in the long run." As Ken Wachsberger writes in the same book: "Censored authors have been verbally abused, physically attacked, shunned by their families and communities, excommunicated from their religious congregations, and shot, hanged and burned at the stake by their enemies." Not much has changed here in the author's hometown of Knoxville, Tennessee, with professional journalists carrying Uzi machine guns to protect themselves from multiple assassins, with bullets fired into journalists' automobiles and newspaper offices, with investigators' houses burned down and files destroyed. Oh yeah, and illegal censorship software installed in government schools so that teachers can more effectively brainwash subservient young citizens. No need to burn books when one can burn entire houses, or simply pay an anonymous computer geek to run an anonymous computer program.
Why would a "democracy" want to enforce censorship and propaganda? Aren't democracies supposed to do the opposite? Author and professor of language at Massechusettes Institute of Technology (MIT), Noam Chomsky teaches in his video documentary Manufacturing Consent: "It is not the case as the naive might think that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy, rather . . . it's the essence of democracy. The point is that in a military state or a feudal state or what we would now call a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter because you've got a bludgeon over their heads and you can control what they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force, and when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem—it may make people so curious and so arrogant that they don't have the humility to submit to a civil rule, and therefore you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to be called propaganda, manufacture of consent, creation of necessary illusion. Various ways of either marginalizing the public or reducing them to apathy in some fashion."
In his book, What Uncle Sam Really Wants, Dr. Chomsky adds: "These sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce basic social values: passivity, submissiveness to authority, the overriding virtue of greed and personal gain, lack of concern for others, fear of real or imagined enemies, etc. The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered." As Chomsky points out, if the citizens were to actually see "too much" reality, they might actually take action to change it (especially if those citizens were also given a blueprint in how to go about it successfully). The "danger" of this website is that it does more than exert an impotent rant, it actually does give a blueprint to change (at least to those with an ambition to play that game).
Citizens are constantly bombarded with allegations of a mythological media with a liberal bias. Liberals are notorious for their unwavering interest in civil rights. Yet this so-called liberal media has dropped the ball on this particular civil rights issue, an issue that affects over 150-million adults. How can this be? The "liberal media" was a term coined by a Republican vice president Spiro Agnew just before he was sent to prison for his vices—who assuredly made enthusiastic use of his "liberal" civil rights during his trial. In fact, this vice president attempted to move his trial out of the criminal courts and rely upon his conservative friends in the legislature. As U.S. Representative Charles Vanik wryly observed, "He's trying to take the decision out of the hands of twelve honest men and give it to 435 Congressmen!" This allegedly liberal media all but ignored events leading up to the White House misconduct that according to the Encyclopedia Americana, resulted in "more than 30 Republican administration officials, campaign officials, and financial contributors pleaded guilty or were found guilty of breaking the law . . . Richard Nixon, facing possible indictment after his resignation, received from Gerald Ford a full pardon [of all past, present and even future crimes]." This is what history now calls the Watergate "fiasco" (an extreme understatement), named after the White House "Plumber" burgleries of the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate building. Plans included the kidnapping of "enemy" journalists, and even White House counsel John Dean headed a prosititution ring managed by his lovely wife, for the express purpose of blackmail and extortion of Democratic customers. American history is full of such political hijinks and shennaigans. So anyway, the myth of a "liberal media" is just another example of smoke and mirrors diverting attention from the real criminals.
In reality, the allegedly liberal American media is owned by conservative multinational corporations, many of which not only tell us the news that's "fit to print"—as the New York Times calls it—but also manufacture the majority of the world's weapons of mass destruction (G.E./NBC and Westinghouse/CBS) and employ tens of thousands of Communist peasants who work for one dollar a day and have no civil rights whatsoever (Disney/ABC/ESPN). How many lowly employees of giant corporations, i.e. reporters, do you think have the power to tell their billionaire bosses what information is going to be served up to the American public today? If local newspaper editors are really liberal, why are there no labor or civil-rights sections to counter the business sections? If reporters are so liberal, why are they not organized into labor unions?
Hugh Downs, an investigative reporter with the CBS show 60 Minutes, describes how a former leader of Germany told him in a T.V. interview that "There is a Nazi potential in every country." In Censored: The News that Didn't Make the News—and Why, 1993 Yearbook by Dr. Carl Jensen, Mr. Downs writes: "I have always felt that before such a faction could seize power in the U.S., it would be laughed out of the arena. Unless . . . Unless we lost our freedoms of speech and press, and hate and fear could grow malignantly to the point where nothing was funny anymore." Not many people in government laugh about drink-driving, do they?
What is a liberal and what is a conservative? Comedian Mort Sahl offers his definitions: "Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything the've stolen," and "a conservative is someone who believes in reform. But not now." Television journalist David Frost offers his observation that "a conservative is someone who demands a square deal for the rich." President Franklin Roosevelt alleged "a conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." A slightly more serious explanation given by conservatives themselves is, "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." Journalist and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz counters with, "a civil libertarian is a conservative whose magazine has been censored." When it comes to effective DWI defense for an individual citizen accused of this serious crime, it would be counterproductive for such an individual to hold a pro-law-and-order attitude instead or a pro-civil-rights attitude. When it comes to a person's own civil rights in a drunk-driving "criminal" investigation, EVERY citizen wants desperately to be a liberal.
Webster's New World Dictionary" defines liberal as: "favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specifically, favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive. . . . implies tolerance of other's views as well as open-mindedness to ideas that challenge tradition, established institutions, etc." This doesn't sound so evil, does it? Its definition of conservative is: "tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these." When traditional institutions are not getting the job done (for typical citizens), this doesn't sound very sacred, does it?
When it comes to government Prohibitions, the majority of conservatives oppose civil rights and personal freedoms, while the majority of liberals champion those individual rights. Since the facts and details of these Prohibition Wars have escaped the general public, thanks to the corporate media's consistent propaganda efforts, perhaps many of these so-called conservatives would in fact jump ship if they were to realize their civil rights were becoming rapidly non-existent. To remain conservative, citizens must be heavily indoctrinated with only one side of the government's story. During wartime, the government calls this WHAM—Winning Hearts And Minds. Many of the DWI case studies described on this web site involved citizens who would enthusiastically call themselves die-hard conservatives. Conservatives and Republicans like to think of themselves as above the teeming masses, both in wealth and in intelligence. As one local employee-relations corporate officer put it: "Work hard, play hard, learn the rules—and then break them." Conservatives tend to have more money than the average American, due to their focus on all things financial, and thus tend to have more spare cash left over for recreational pursuits -- which often include the enjoyment of alcohol. So conservatives perhaps need MORE civil rights than the average American.
Applying censorship oversight to motor vehicle safety yields a frightening picture of corporate and media corruption:
Lifesaving skills and equipment are not censored from commuter pilots, and speed limits do not apply to them. | Way back in 1965, consumer-defense attorney Ralph Nader wrote his landmark book, Unsafe at Any Speed. This book was heavily censored by traditional media outlets, reducing the ability of ordinary people to learn what it was warning about. Contrary to what one might think about the book's title, Nader was NOT saying that automobiles ought to drive slow in order to be safe. Nader, in fact, said the exact opposite: that DRIVERS ARE SAFER THE FASTER THEY GO, according to government research that according to Nader, is heavily censored from the public. Thus traffic police actually enforce laws that according to the government's own research, increase the risk to drivers 6 to 10 times (600% to 1,000%). Normally, that would be headline news, but censorship is so predominant in America that such common-sense scientific research is covered up in the name of protecting profits made by governments on traffic tickets. This fact is why the national government quit its extortion of the states in enforcing the deadly 55 MPH national speed limit, raising the speed limit to 70 MPH (still short of the old limits of 75 MPH on Interstates and 85 MPH on toll roads). Such low speeds were costing the insurance corporations money and they surely love their billion$ -- so the rules had to change.
USA Y2K: Illegal and dangerous 45 MPH speed limit on high-speed Interstate, perhaps to allege "probable cause" for drug cops. | As Nader puts it in Unsafe: "For decades, speed was the subject of the most widespread slogans drummed into the public. "Speed kills" and "slow down and live" are familiar ones peddled by the National Safety Council.... The findings showed a more complex picture of the role of speed than had ever been assumed before. Accident involvement rates are at a minimum at speeds between fifty and seventy five miles per hour.... Although obviously the severity of accidents is greater at higher speeds, the study revealed that considering accident frequency rates and severity, the number of injuries per vehicle miles traveled is at its minimum." Nader was quoting David Soloman in Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle, (FHwA 1964). In other words, the "85th-Percentile Speed", which is the average speed that 85% of drivers are traveling at, is the safest speed, regardless of any arbitrary speed limit. According to American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) regulations, which carry the same power as a law, highways must have an engineering study to determine average speed, with speed limits then set accordingly. No, we don't hear much about that in the "News" media, do we? Nader's censored book also discussed the pathetic "safety standards" of the government that allows vehicle manufacturers to profit by billions of dollars instead of fixing simple and inexpensive design defects. What do we get instead of news coverage? Advertising for new-car C.D. players, sparkly wheels and electric sun-roofs.
Similar discrepancies occur in "drunk-driving" statistics. The government's recent traffic-crash fatality figures allege 37,000 Americans died either from car wrecks or from pedistrian strikes by motor vehicles. These fatility figures have been dropping for decades as vehicle speeds have increased and safety-engineering improvements have been forced on automobile manufacturers. About one-third of vehicle crashes are alleged by the government to involve drivers, passengers or pedestrians who have enjoyed the tiniest amount of alcohol in the previous 24 hours, enjoyed the tiniest amount of recreational drugs in the previous 12 months, or been to the doctor that week. Notice that this is NOT the same as alleging one-third of vehicle fatalities are DUE to alcohol, drugs or medicines. So 10,000 to 15,000 annual deaths slip into the "drunk driver" category. Also note that this is approximately the same number of deaths attributed to "suicide" (about 35,000 every year). Many so-called "accidental" traffic deaths are actually due to suicide from mental depression. Suicide via motor vehicle has the added benifit of preserving the payout from one's insurance policies, as well as potentially rewarding one's family with a product liability lawsuit. In other words, the government's so-called drunk-driving tallies are highly suspect. Most so-called "alcohol-related" crashes are due to driving at night -- do drivers thus require a deadly curfew to save them from themselves?
In Unsafe, Nader explains how the corrupt government deflects attention from the real causes and cures of traffic fatalities: "The law embodies an invincible rationale: 'He had an accident; therefore he violated the law.' No distinction is made between responsibility for the accident and responsibility for the injury due to unsafe vehicle design or construction. Manslaughter charges are filed routinely against drivers; there is yet to be recorded any similar charges against the manufacturers for vehicle defects.... A typical police traffic accident report has a list of"contributing circumstances" which the officer is to check off: 'Speed too fast; failed to yield right of way; drove left of center; improper overtaking; passed stop sign; ran traffic signal; improper lights; had been drinking; and other improper driving.' ...Thus the driver is heir to all the dangers created by the automobile designers, not only in terms of bodily injury but also in terms of legal exposure. The result of this drastic imbalance in the law is the very poor quality of accident investigation in this country.... Consequently, enforcement of the law brings no pressure on the car makers to increase the safety of their vehicles." This author couldn't have said it better himself.
As Nader explained to this author, the Drink-Driving War is an excellent opportunity for the Powers the Be to use their "shell game" of covering up the real cure for traffic dangers. Nader says: "Well, if the emphasis is on the driver and not the vehicle, and that's a fight we've been having for years, they shouldn't be against one another, they should be both, a focus on both." Yeah, a focus on REAL driver training, and the intelligent education of youth on the realities of alcohol. Raising the so-called "drinking age" only increases the likelihood of young drivers experimenting with alcohol -- something they ought to have experimented with at a much earlier age. According to scientific research, children are safer when they receive education in reality instead of fantasy. As for REAL driver education in handling emergency situations -- the same emergency situations that preceed every "accidental" car crash -- this is possible with any type of automobile driving at low speed in a parking lot. Exactly the same training that is required by the Swedish government for every driver on its highways.
Compared to other causes of the 2-million deaths in America every year, waging war on alleged drunk drivers is an incredible waste of valuable resources. For example, greedy and/or incompetent doctors kill at least 300,000 healthy Americans every year (100,000 from ORDINARY USE of prescription drugs), generally with immunity from criminal prosecution, according to the Harvard School of Public Health and Toronto University. These are the same doctors who get rich off addiction rehab programs -- the same programs whose graduates have higher relapse, suicide and murder rates than "addicts" who never get "rehabilitated". Malnutrition alone kills 50,000 Americans annually, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Yet doctors do not get education in nutrition, and routinely try to prevent their customers from taking care of themselves with good nutrition. Many medical experts assert that most doctors literally work in the "Malnutrition Industry", and that profitable drugs and surgeries are only used to treat malnutrition once it has provoked a disease. But drugs and surgeries can never cure malnutrition -- only nutrition can cure malnutrition. Between heart attacks (selenium malnutrition), strokes (copper malnutrition), cancers (IP6 fiber and selenium malnutrition), and osteoporosis (calcium malnutrition), well over 1-million Americans die of malnutrition every year.
This includes those branded as dying from "alcoholism" ("depression" and "attention deficit" syndromes caused by protein malnutritions of the amino acids tyrosine and tryptophan). The essential amino acid tryptophan -- one of the key weapons in the war of alcoholism -- is banned by the American government, yet every American would die without it. The government also bans the addition of vitamins, minerals and amino acids to alcohol beverages, THUS BANNING THE CURE FOR ALCOHOLISM, yet routinely allows these essential foods to be added to soda pop, candy, milk, junk foods, pet foods and livestock feed. Alcoholism could be cured today if the government would allow alcohol beverages to be nutrient-fortified, as was allowed 60 years ago during Prohibition, when doctors actually prescribed vitamin-fortified beer and liquer by the gallon. Instead, the greedy and lazy government siphons off nearly 100% of the cost of liquer as "sin taxes", while prohibiting nutrition. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result.
Perhaps instead of "beheading drug dealers and drug users", as government drug czars love to hype, we ought to start beheading all government bureaucrats -- including police officers and presidents -- who maintain the deadly oppression of malnutrition. (Hey, the citizens did it during the French Revolution 200 years ago, so it is possible. All that's required is for a few police and military units to actually have the guts to enforce the laws that are currently on the books. As Will Rogers, America's most beloved journalist declared during America's first Prohibition: "There ought to be one day -- Just one -- when there is open season on senators." As Mark Twain observed: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.)
As one crazy example, Vitamin-C has been known for centuries to prevent and cure the sailor's disease of Scurvy. Despite this undisputed fact, the American government's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires bottles of Vitamin-C to be labeled: "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." Why is "food" controlled by a "drug" agency? Why does the CDC and corporations like the Mayo Clinic censor their own medical studies from their web sites when those studies prove the life-saving importance of nutrition? (Answer: Deaths equal Dollars.) It is interesting that the FDA has never spent one penny of its billion-dollar budget on "drug testing" (or "food testing"), yet allows corporations to test their own drugs -- and write their own reports on drugs -- that routinely kill 100,000 Americans every year (schools call this "cheating" when students do it). The drug corporations themselves declare these drugs "safe" for humans, even as lab animals die by the millions. Go figure. As long as these drug deaths are below 1% of the 2 billion annual prescriptions filled ("sold"), these millions of deaths and injuries are "acceptable" to the drug corporations (and their greedy shareholders) and the government they've bought and paid for with "campaign contributions" (what Senator William Proxmire, founder of the Golden Fleece Award, called "legalized bribery").
Malnutrition is also a major cause of demensia in elderly drivers ("cholesterol" malnutrition and B-Vitamins malnutrition). According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the world's worst driver is not an alcoholic drunk driver, but a 75-year-old man who caused 6 crashes (and got 10 traffic tickets) in 20 minutes (McKinney, Texas, 1966). According to the Centers for Disease Control, the most dangerous category of driver is the one over the age of 85 (50 deaths per 100,000 drivers).
Note that drivers of any age can become mentally impaired by malnutrition -- including the dreaded disease of "Road Rage" -- yet police routinely arrest drivers for Drunk Driving when taking vitamins is "confessed" to or vitamins are "discovered" in a driver's possession (it can take months for government lab tests to prove the "drug's" content). SO WHERE IS THE GOVERNMENT'S WAR ON MALNUTRITION?
To put human risk in proper perspective, even non-prescription pain killers like asprin, Tylenol and ibuprophen kill ten times as many innocent Americans as alleged drunk drivers do (via internal hemorrage, kidney failure or liver damage). Of course, use of these "mind-altering" drugs can still get a driver arrested for "drugged driving". Drinking the government's clorinated tap water also kills ten times as many folks as drunk drivers (by triggering colon cancer).
Powerful special interests wish desperately to maintain the status quo of America's ignorance about these true causes and cures. (There is infinitely more profit in crashes, injuries and deaths than in prevention.) A most potent weapon of these evil special interests is censorship. NO SUBJECT IN AMERICA IS MORE CENSORED THAN ALCOHOL LAW and it's so-called law enforcement "strategies". Instead of saving lives, wasting billions of dollars on police instead of investing billions on effective safety measures actually kills millions of Americans. Until responsible Americans demand and fight for the truth, this slaughter on America's highways will continue indefinately. As if that's not terrible enough, the deadly fallout from this medieval propaganda and media brainwashing will derail all medical efforts to cure the devastating and deadly disease of alcoholism.
Governments, like corporations, are lifeless entities that care nothing about human life. These dead organizations require humans to do their dirty work. When a human employee wizens up and burns out, the dead organization just plugs in a new one. The "evil weed" of government, media and corporate corruption threatens to choke the life out of civilization. As George Bernard Shaw pointed out: "The trouble with newspapers is that they don't know the difference between a bicycle accident and the death of a civilization." This method of "self-government" is about as intelligent for humans as it's intelligent for lemmings to follow the herd over a cliff. America is at a crossroads here at the Y2K millenium. Will we choose life or will we choose death? The choice is YOURS to make -- hopefully without sacrificing your recreational and social life.
|
