Trust

"We lie to each other so much, that there's nothin' left that we trust."

The words of Megadeth. I've been away from my blogging lately, instead engaging in political debate on a number of different Facebook pages (no endorsement intended). But recently, my blogging muse has returned to me. Perhaps these deviations are what recharges my batteries; who knows. For those who are tired of the doom and gloom of modern political debate, this is NOT for you – this will be a discourse on some of our modern problems, and will not be of a cheerful or hopeful nature. But to the rest of you, I hope this is an eye opener – my ultimate purpose in life.

We talk about whether or not we can trust our government to manage our healthcare. And everybody's become so polarized over this issue. But so often, we look at one side of the coin, ignoring the rest (there are at least to sides, plus an edge). I want to increase the level of disclosure here, thus encouraging you to think more deeply regarding these matters. That way, by virtue of our collective intelligence, we can arrive at the best possible solution(s). Ready?

First: the US government. While we'd all like to think that we can trust in our government, reality slaps us hard in the face when it comes to examining this as to whether or not it's actually the case. We need look no farther than recent history – Japanese internment camps incarcerating tax-paying citizens simply because of their genetic make-up, Katrina victims being refused the service we, as Americans, have been contributing money towards for decades in case of an emergency, killing Americans to get back the FEMA trailers they were living in, fleets of jets for congress to fly to the Bahamas to study global warming while snorkeling off the coast, and on and on. When I approached Social Security for medical help when every other form of insurance I'd paid for turned their back on me, they fought me tooth and nail for over three years, rather than provide the help I was entitled to, because I paid for it ahead of time. Your trust is ill-served with your government.

Second: your health insurance. There are far too many stories out there regarding this atrocity; surely, you know of someone injured or killed by denial of service. If you don't, consider yourself lucky, with the foreknowledge that it's only a matter of time before this will impact you. As long as the law requires that paying investors takes priority over providing what you paid for, this system will continue be a death machine. Your trust is in poor company with these companies.

Third: yourself. Yes, you can keep your money in your mattress (don't laugh – it may be safer than many "financial institutions" these days), stashing away a nest egg for that day that you're injured and unable to work. Have you seen the price of medical treatment these days? Good luck with that one. Additionally, this would of course lead to economic genocide, where only the most affluent will live to continue the species. But the argument that insurance is a bad deal; that you're hoping for a disaster in order to recoup your pay-out, is valid. Your trust in yourself is valid, but will be insufficient when that day comes (God help you; may you never need this option).

When someone tells you that they have no trust in one institution or another, be aware of these considerations – they are most likely correct in their warning to you. But as of yet, I've heard no good option to the standard data set – where is there a good option? I do not claim to have the answers, but know that if I help you to see the problems clearly, that a solution may be achieved. I may or may not produce the answer, which is irrelevant. All that IS relevant is that an answer be arrived at, and that those who produce the solution be as informed as possible. Trusting in something unworthy of your trust is a dangerous thing.

Comfort Zones

Have you ever noticed that if you travel to an unfamiliar area, and you watch the local news there, that the news casters seem like amateurs? Humans have some peculiar ways of determining whether or not something is familiar or comfortable to us.

We travel to a foreign land, and we discover the foods of the local peoples. Our first reaction is typically disgust and/or reservation. Yet we know that these locals eat this food all of the time, desire it, and even anticipate it, just as we do with our own foods. Others who come to visit us are likewise offended by our diets as well.

We visit a friend's church, which is not the same as our own. We feel that they worship incorrectly, and we are out of our comfort zone. Can it be the same God?

We travel to a distant land. The locals wear different clothes, and speak a different language. We feel that they are somehow backwards and underdeveloped. We sense fear.

We talk to people with opposing political views. We feel that the others are misinformed, and/or liars. That the others are demons, determined to undermine the good of our nation.

There is no moral lesson to be learned here; there is nothing in particular to be taken away from this. It's simply an observation. We fear the unknown, and the unfamiliar. As our fear increases, our comfort level plummets. Yet with open minds, we can see that there is no logic in this kind of thinking. I have eaten foods that would make many of you sick, though I enjoyed it, as do the people who introduced it to me. I have visited many churches of many beliefs, both as a Christian and as an atheist. I have lived for long periods of time with people of different racial backgrounds. And although the numerous trips to strange places has removed much of this effect from me, it nonetheless does not eliminate it. It has been a lifelong struggle of mine to resist this tendency, and assume that nearly any situation I'm placed in must be comfortable to someone else, and therefore can be for me as well. Just sharing a part of my personal growth, y'know. So – what makes your skin crawl, and does it really make ense?

Lobbyist Contributions

The very premise, that our (the US) politicians should be approachable by all, is one that benefit's the individual in a society. But somewhere along the way, this noble idea has been convoluted into a serious crime. One that makes impotent your vote and our way of life. So then how did this happen?

In our democracy, we are ensured that we can approach our legislators and our executive branch. That way the little guy could get his voice heard as well as the bigger interests. But at some point lobbying was handed over to the large corporations, and although all of our politicians insist that the money that these people keep shoveling forth is insignificant, they nonetheless continue to remain "on the take". Lobbying is a form of bribery - how can it NOT be? Today, large corporate and private interests pay small fortunes to congressmen and women who claim that the money doesn't influence them, and then they become the puppets of the interests behind the lobbyists. And our executive branch is likewise corrupted. Finance reform laws, written by those for whom it was supposed to control, is predictably ineffective and easily sidestepped – even a child could understand the mechanisms used to circumvent these laws.

These criminals on the take are our elected officials, meaning that your vote has just been purchased away from you. One of the few things that the small guy had to help level the playing field, that one thing that we all had in common, is now meaningless and of no effect. You can elect anyone who'll say anything, but they're all there to get a piece of the action. Why won't the legislators ban lobbyist contributions altogether, restoring power to my vote? It's asking them to put on a collar of their own construction – they'll never do an effective job of it, as we've seen from past "attempts". And the executive branch, also on the take, would be required to sign this into law. If it attempted to control them, it would never be signed.

Through legislative slight-of-hand with the American people, these crooks have engineered a money machine that siphons off the bounty of our nation, along with your freedom of choice, for their own greedy oligarchy and leaves our country in shambles. So how do we solve this dilemma? As of this time, I'm uncertain. No one would write such self-imposing legislation, and no executive member would give it the time of day. If you had the law, no lawmaker or executive member would turn away from crushing it. Jefferson thought that occasional rebellion was appropriate; is that our only alternative? Is there no other way?

John

Belief

Belief. As a word in and of itself, it's one of the more powerful. It has launched battles, inspired great art, torn close families apart, and so on. But although we may dwell upon the details of our beliefs, the very concept of belief is often overlooked. Everybody believes something, though some think that they believe nothing at all. The band Rush once sang, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." But why do we choose to believe or doubt? Let's take a look…

We either believe or doubt something based upon our own empirical experiences. So truth is built upon truth and experience. Doubts are those ideas that are filtered out of the truth column. But we believe what seems reasonable, based upon our previous experiences, and the consideration of the alleged facts presented. Some require little to convince, others a bit more, others still require tremendous amounts, and some are impossible to convince. No matter what the data presented, sadly, some will never let go of a belief that they feel more "comfortable" with. An example:

Person a: Do you believe that China exists?

Person b: Yes.

Person a: How do you know?

Person b: I've seen pictures.

Person a: They're fakes!

Person b: I've met people from China.

Person a: They're lying!

Person b: I've flown there myself!

Person a: while your plane was in the air, they set up a fake scenario on the ground. You circled in the air for an hour, landed, and they tricked you!

For each individual, there comes a point where the evidence presented, along with their own personal experience, tells them either to believe or not to believe. For many it seems, it is a source of constant frustration to have someone else believe something that they feel differently about. Often, we perceive an attack on our beliefs as an attack upon ourselves; that if our theology or philosophy is somehow flawed, then our justification as a person is threatened. While this thinking is clearly misguided, the wise person recognizes this aspect and modifies their actions accordingly. If I am ever to convince you of the things I feel are true; if you are ever to convince me, we must lower the ego and accept that others may indeed be as bright as ourselves, that questioning my beliefs does not challenge me as a person, that I CAN change my position based upon additional evidences, and that other's are more easily won over through a sense of mutual respect than by aggressive words.

I do not subscribe to the "birther" movement, but respect their concerns, give validity to the idea of requiring a certificate in the future (there is no legal requirement to present said documents), and respect their right to question what I already accept as fact. A case in point: I do not feel that it's fair to put an excessive burden on the wealthy for health insurance, yet recognize a need to solve a desperate problem, and hope that over the long haul we'll come up with a fair but functional system – we're Americans, damn it. Others have done it; we can too. We went to the moon with the computing power of a modern digital watch or two; this should be easy.

In closing, I preach to you to hold solid to those beliefs that you're certain of, be open-minded and well informed without bias, and respect each other and their opinions. Insulting people for thinking differently only incites similar activity, and produces nothing of worth. No matter how hard we try, we all succumb to the perceived attacks, intentional or not, when our beliefs are insulted. Still, we should try, both to be forgiving, and to not be offensive. This is the American way, my friends. Everybody gets a voice. But use wisdom in speaking, and use the ears too.

John

The Charlie Brown Postulate

Metaphysics and theology in general are intrinsic. But too often these weighty subjects are difficult to comprehend to the average man. I do not blame Mr. Average for this separation of knowledge, but instead blame the more intellectual, who can conceive such lofty notions but cannot translate these ideas into words that others can understand. In my simple mind, I always think of things in terms of something else – a comparison, maybe. But I always strive to reduce things into their simplest terms, so that I can use the knowledge in the widest range of interests. Real truth is often simple in nature. There is a lot of difficulty in conceiving the nature of a God and it's potential relationship to living creatures of this God's creation. I may have something that, although perhaps not unique in my thinking, may assist some in these matters.

For this exercise, we make the presumption that Charlie Brown, and all of the Peanuts characters, are actually living, sentient beings (such as ourselves). We also make the assumption that the Peanuts and their world are truly two-dimensional – they are actually three-dimensional representations of two-dimensional creatures and places, but for this exorcise, we'll allow they deception to be real.

In the Charlie Brown Postulate, Charlie Brown, all of the Peanuts characters, and the entire universe that they exist in are the sole creation of Charles Shultz. He (Charles Shultz) is the God of the Peanuts. He created every one of them, knows every hair on each of their heads, controls their world, even time itself! He can destroy them with the swipe of His mighty hand, or grant them everlasting life. But Charles can never physically enter into the two-dimensional world of the Peanuts, though He could create a representation of Himself and inject this being into the world of the Peanuts to represent His will. Try as they might, no Peanut can ever truly understand Charles, nor can they conceive the parents of Charles. Now, the comparisons with our modern world may begin.

This can easily be shown to support parts of many modern religions in some capacity or another, including even the agnostic with their doubts of our ability to understand a God and it's ways. Polytheists simply suggest a team effort as opposed to the singular Charles. Even the atheist can be encompassed in this theology, if someday science and knowledge expands to embrace these things, through continued discovery and revelations of the workings, or the mechanics, of the universe. Then again, it may show me to be a fool. Time will tell (maybe).

Keep thinking, and assume nothing without the recognition that it is indeed an assumption..

John

Healthcare

Could there be a hotter topic these days? There's a lot of information out there, along with a lot of misinformation, and some pretty scary stories. But this is America; you know the ending CAN be a happy one.

The nightmares of health insurance operating unregulated are quite familiar to me, as I suffer from a couple of chronic conditions, and generally, my health is poor, especially as I get older. I have seen my diabetes used as an excuse to refuse me auto insurance, life insurance (OK, I understand that one) and health insurance. I saw my employer's health plan changed to exclusively refuse me and me alone, out of a company of nearly one hundred. As if life isn't difficult enough simply trying to survive these conditions, and all of the other distractions of life, I must do battle with insurance companies who put dollars before treatment. I've been told by my HMO doctor to test my blood sugar levels seven times a day, but my HMO pharmacy would only provide enough test strips for three tests a day. And yet, my experiences are minor; a friend was delayed long enough to die before receiving life saving treatment. This is all too common, and only seems to sink in with those whom it strikes.

Though a liberal, I think it very unfair to require the rich to pay for all of my health insurance, while asking nothing of myself. I'm an American, and can and will make sacrifices for what I believe in. I can afford twenty-five cents per can of soda to help pay for healthcare, though I drink around a six-pack of soda a day (diet). I'd even pay twice that much! And I'm poor. It may not be as large a contribution as the wealthy may end up paying, but I'll do what I can to help. What is the answer to our health care needs? Insurance performs no actual function, aside from denying service. Insurance is a HUGE waste of money, with no actual product or service (you can find a doctor without their help, right?). So forgive me for having absolutely no sympathy for the insurance industry – they can collapse and regroup into some other field, imho. Either we need to severely regulate the industry, which has demonstrated a propensity for unethical and abusive behavior, or we need a public option to give people a choice, thus forcing the insurance companies to modify their product to remain competitive. We need change, and something drastic seems in order at this point. The healthcare industry is bribing – I mean, lobbying – congress to the tune of one point three million dollars per day right now. How do we create change with resistance like that?

We've known that we, as Americans, have been sadly behind the rest of the developed world in providing this basic function to our population. Many other countries even provide it to foreigners. Sadly, we wait until the problem is so big that it's about to bankrupt our nation, then we act. Kinda like our response to global warming and conservation in general – wait until the eleventh hour. We don't have to become like Canada, or England, or France, or Germany, or Cuba, or any of those other countries that are so successful in this capacity, but we DO need to adopt something that works. In all sincerity, I say that if you do not like the public option, and I can understand concerns over it, then please show us a smart alternative, and do it quickly. We have no more patience for this agony. Too many have suffered and/or died, needlessly, over corporate greed. If you have an idea, bring it forth, or support something that is better than the failure we have today.

And one last note: I loved my healthcare HMO, too, until they were required to spend some money on a surgery. My doctor, a member of Kaiser, told me I had a work related injury, and that Kaiser would not cover it, as such. In California, Kaiser is the carrier for my employer's Workman's Compensation. I went to see the worker's comp doctor, in the same Kaiser building, two doors down from my doctor. He insisted I had no injury, and refused to treat me. Thus began a five-year journey through hell. My employer was allowed to punish me for being injured at work by canceling my Kaiser, thus ruining my health even further. This eventually led to my losing my eyesight (it's nearly gone now), and a host of other complications due to a lack of basic health care for chronic illness. And do NOT think that if you walk into a hospital, they have to treat you (I had a doctor tell me this once). I absolutely know better – all they have to do by law is stabilize you – if you aren't about to die, you're outta luck. This system simply does not work. I earn a lower wage so that my employer can afford to pay worker's comp insurance to cover me (he doesn't eat bread and water so that I can have worker's comp insurance), but because his name is on the check to the insurance company every month, they only listen to him, though I'm the one they're supposed to be concerned with. I am NOT a concern to them, though the state worker's comp law requires that I am. Again; this simply does not work. Had I gotten treatment in a timely manner, today I'd be back to paying taxes, not living out my last years at the tax payer's expense. May no one reading this EVER have to ride this horse. Call your representatives; make sure of it.

John

Diabetes 101

Though I am new to this particular blogging site, and have only provided my new audience with a small taste of what's to come, already I've had need of time away. I'm a type 1 (juvenile) diabetic, of about forty years now. This has cost me my sight in one eye, and threatens the other. There are things that I have thought upon many times in my life, I have learned things about, and have my own observations of. If for no other reason than simply to survive, I've studied diabetes of most types for a long, long time. Let me educate you on these various conditions known as "diabetes", maybe dispel some myths, and share what I've found to be true. The very fact that I can type at all right now is due to a very large monitor, Mac intelligence, a slight remission from the bleeding in my eyes and a large print keyboard. So – welcome to my world. Let's go.

Diabetes, being used as a generic term, is the inability to process glucose (sugar), the body's fuel. There are generally two reasons for this: either insulin resistance, or low (or no) insulin production. But understanding the basic function of insulin is necessary here. Imagine the cells of your body as houses – different kinds of cells means different kinds of houses, but in both cases, each have some common needs and attributes. The fuel that runs your house is glucose. The veins and arteries are the roads for delivery of fuel and other goods, which the houses must have to operate. Insulin is the key that unlocks the fuel door, similar to the one on your car. So imagine – you run out of fuel for your house, the fuel is brought to you via the roadways, but you lost the key to open the fuel lock! Your home runs out of fuel (dies) and the infrastructure must deal with the excess fuel clogging the roadway. This is, of course, a very simplistic rendering and hardly exhaustive. For instance: there is a phenomenon known as "caramelization". This is the effect of combining heat, oxygen, sugar and time. If any of the components in this formula are increased, you see the effect more rapidly. For instance: take whipped cream and apply a flame – instant caramelization (the browning of the surface). This condition occurs to our internal organs, too. So if I ran an incredible temperature, or had more sugar in my blood stream (which I do) then the process of "browning" occurs faster – artificial aging, if you will. And obviously, increased time increases the effects. Less oxygen would seem to help, but upon further consideration, seems to be a poor idea. Antioxidants do help though. But this browning is lethal.

Now I want to focus on a particular type of diabetes – what used to be called juvenile diabetes, because the majority of the victims are children when it is first contracted. Today it's known as type 1 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is a condition where the patient produces some insulin, but either it's too little for the demands or the body has developed an insulin resistance. The pancreas has limits to it's production, so a person's size can be a factor. The organ was only designed for so many years, too, so age often is a factor. Oral pills which possess a pancreatic stimulant usually postpone or eliminate the need for insulin injection or infusion in these people (as will weight reduction among the overweight). But I have the more lethal type 1. More lethal because type one is a complete lack of insulin production. Now this group can be subdivided even further; I'll explain, and then move on. Your pancreas produces insulin, and some other fancy chemicals that allow you to survive. If you were to be impaled and it damaged that part of the pancreas (known as the Islets of Langerhan) that creates insulin, then you'd have type 1 diabetes, no matter what your age. There is gestational diabetes, which is caused by a woman's baby leaning on or kicking the pancreas. This can be temporary, resolving after birth, or it can be permanent. But some such as I appear to have a genetic component that tells our own immune system that our own pancreatic tissue is a foreign tissue. As it turns out, pancreatic tissue is the most rejected tissue among transplants. As a person who makes no insulin, my survival requires injection or infusion of insulin, constantly. And all the same, it's just avoiding the inevitable. Not that I'm giving up, mind you – it's just that living and survival can be greatly separated at times. This can be a most difficult life to lead.

I've seen every sort of method for controlling this disease, and could bore you with stories of crazy theories and whatnot, but instead, let's cut to the most modern of techniques. Currently, a blood test via a finger stick is the best way of getting current glucose data. The elusive non-invasive scanner with no blood draw simply does not exist yet. We used to study the urine, but that was idiotic as urine would have the glucose values of hours and hours, all mixed together. Today there are what's known as continuous glucose monitoring systems – far too expensive for the average person to utilize yet, but when the price comes down (which it will), this is a critical step in better control. Better control puts off or eliminates the risk of blindness, kidney failure, heart disease, and a long list of circulatory and neurological issues. Insulin pumps replace shots, and are programmable, something NO shot can achieve. Another revolutionary step in control. The old methods used insulin with efficacy curves, and you tried to match your exercise and eating patterns with the curves. This was poor control at best, and dangerous for some, such as myself, whose glucose levels seem to be sensitive, with frequent spiking. I'm currently on my third insulin pump, and removal because of insurance purposes (actually, lack thereof) cost me my right eye last time, in that my glucose levels directly affect the eye condition I have. Which brings up the next topic.

Today I face kidney failure in the near future. Any condition where the treatment centers have "end of life coordinators" is a place to avoid. Such are dialysis centers. I've developed a condition called diabetic retinopathy, where the circulation in the eye drops due to circulatory loss from sugar buildup over decades. The eye, being oxygen intensive as far as body parts go, sends out a call to the main system to create new roadways to bring in more oxygen. Enter the new veins, or neovascularization. These new veins are inherently defective, and rupture, bleeding into the vitreous humor. This is basically bleeding into the clear liquid that inflates the eye, blocking my vision with blobs of blood floating in my field of vision. The current treatment is painful, but it seems to be slowing the progress of the condition in one of my eyes, anyway. The surgeon burns a scar on the inside of my eye with a laser, all along the perimeter, destroying my peripheral vision (and some night vision properties). But scar tissue has nearly no oxygen demands, meaning that the new vein production should stop for awhile. It is NOT a permanent fix. But this is the only time I've ever let someone poke me in the eye with syringe needles while I watched! Then there's the pump. Life on the pump, vs life on multiple injections, is a breeze by comparison. You just have things like making sure that you don't snag the tubing on door handles and such – not anywhere near the problems of the past. Nonetheless, I nearly died of an insulin overdose shortly after moving to Washington State in January. It still has problems, and there are still things which we don't yet understand. For instance – one of the things that modern "smart" pumps do is decide your dosage depending upon how much insulin may still be in you from earlier activities, such as eating. The rule is that there's just one value of how long it takes to process any given dosage, when my experience shows that it's a function of the size of the dosage, and perhaps the ambient temperature as well. In time, we'll get it better.

So there it is, in brief. The struggles that accompany diabetes are many. When you see a picture of me, I appear as a (somewhat) normal person, so telethons have traditionally be failures at raising money for finding a cure. I may never know life without this. I can only hope that I'm one of the last.

John