In the post 9/11 world and US politics:
In the post 9/11 world and US politics:
Please, follow the link above for more info about this important fight against the NSA.
This NY Times article, Cost of Being Mayor? $650 Million, if He’s Rich, seems like a eulogy to departing (finally!) NY City billionaire mayor Bloomberg. Mama mia! So much $$$ and wealth thrown here and there for everybody who came in contact with this billionaire man who chose to be the mayor of the financial center of the world for FREE, without personal desires to enrich himself!
Funny thing, how much did it cost New Yorkers to RECIPROCATE such generous handouts? The NYT doesn’t mention that in that article. We know that we lost tons of money in corruption, from Mr. B’s pals in Wall Street (WS). City Time’s is an example. He even said we should continue doing business with Mazer, he protected that man unabashedly.
We know that Bloomberg entered city hall in 2001 with a measly 4 billion dollars. He’s leaving with over 20 billions. He and his billionaire pals of WS were the only ones who year after year increased their profits in the city despite the increased in poverty around them.
Political contacts are everything in finance. Consider this:
2–If Bloomberg were publicly traded, its stock likely would have taken a dive this week. … his company, which sells terminals to Wall Street banks and employees in finance on which it delivers its financial pricing data and journalism. There are now two fewer investments banks buying Bloomberg terminals, not to mention the thousands of finance workers who also will lose their jobs–and their terminals–this year.
It probably was good business for him to be the mayor. He didn’t have that contract with WS before he became mayor. As he is leaving, whatever extra he gave WS on the side for doing business with him (the sky is the limit to imagine what they got from our money and resources), it is gone with him. That’s why there are “fewer banks buying his terminals“, because they know the deal will be over with the new mayor. It’s common knowledge that POLITICS makes politicians wealthier, if they know how to play the pawns.
Thanks to Mr. B, we New Yorkers are poorer. All that wealth seems to have been transferred to him and his pals. Where else could it have gone, it had to go somewhere if the city is getting poorer? Tax breaks for all billionaires by ‘investing’ in philanthropy, sheltering their money in Caribbean islands (Noticing New York) . Mr. B invested in our public libraries, that’s why he can tell them to close whenever he says so. Now he wants to sell the buildings for profit.
If you are ever interested on how mythology and the cult of the billionaire hero is created, study the propaganda that the main stream media (MSM) printed about this capitalist mayor through out those 12 years.
ANyone who believes that a capitalist like Bloomberg works as a mayor without self-interests, without intentions to enrich himself by using the city’s resources, should read ONLY the MSM articles promoting him. Don’t venture outside the MSM or else your illusions about the goodness of the capitalist will be destroyed. Hold tight to them illusions, dear Bloomberg follower.
Ok. Look, it’s December 29. I’m not in the mood for fancy arse commentaries here today. After all, year-in-year out only a handful of internet pedestrians walk by this site, so I can expect less visitors at this time, the end of the year.
So, the only comment I have about that NYT’s editorial, to which readers are not allowed to comment, is the following:
If this is true…
Most mentally ill persons are not violent, though The Times’s analysis of 180 confiscation cases in Connecticut (dealing with people posing an imminent risk of injury to themselves or others) found that close to 40 percent of those cases involved people with serious mental illness.
then logic dictates that it is the other 60%, the ‘sane’ ones, whom you need to deal with. Those are the ones on whom you need to focus to confiscate their guns if any guns are going to be taken away. Why focus on the minority? The 60% sane ones are a “threat to themselves or others”, that’s more than the 40% who are non-violent mentally ill.
There, I said it.
Happy New Years to all the crazies. Let’s make it our new year resolution to scare the hell out of the politicians this new year.
This article from The Guardian. It seems that we have to rely on the European people’s conscience to teach us how to act to protect our humanity and ethical values. God knows that since 9/11 we have consistently been shedding our moral and human values by the bucket. We have come to accept torture, on all thing living, as a moral and necessary tool to protect us from the bogy man chasing us because he is envious of our freedom.
Can it be said, with concrete evidence, that the modern psychiatric profession has been able to reduce the problem of mental illness? Has it been able to have any significant break-through, based on ‘science’, in the understanding of mental illness?
I have been fascinated by (director of the National Institute of Mental Health-NIMH) Thomas Insel’s recent statements about the DSM because there he answered no to those two questions. (See my first Long Live Psychiatry post.)
Don’t delude yourself, his statements were anti-psychiatry, not merely anti-DSM. The problem is, you can’t trash Santeria’s cowrie shells reading as ignorance and then refer me to a Santero for a reading.
That’s EXACTLY what Insel did when he trashed, not only the DSM, but the whole psychiatric ‘chemical imbalance’ model: he’s asking you to go to your shrink to have him read your DSM-cowrie.
He even trashed the pharma, well, the so-called psychiatric drugs they make to ‘cure’ emotional problems. Of course, he could only wink at the moral implications of calling on the lies that the pharma sells to us (all highlights and brackets by me):
“Given that over 95% of compounds [drugs] fail during the clinical phases of development (a fact not appreciated by looking at the published literature which is biased towards positive results)…” In ‘Experimental Medicine‘
So, yes, Insel DID trash the current psychiatry profession and the pharma.
He even said that MENTAL ILLNESS does NOT EXIST!
Who in the anti-psychiatry movement would disagree with his statements?
One problem with Insel’s correct statements is his ALTERNATIVE to this obsolete, inefficient and growingly irrelevant profession: EXPERIMENTAL medicine, PSYCHOSURGERY and NEUROPSYCHIATRY. The last two practices are as discredited as the one he is discarding.
The practice of poking holes in the human skull to find in the brain the seats of ‘depression’ or of road-rage behavior is older than Methuselah. You can give it a new name and call it ‘science’; it will continue to be the same ol’ useless TREPANNING practiced by the priests of ancient ages.
The new psychiatric model: Experimenting with an experiment (seriously!)
“But do we really understand the circuitry for depression or psychosis or autism? Not by a long shot.” Wanted: A Few Good Brains
So, nobody knows how mental illness ‘works’, not the old psychiatry and, as confessed by Insel, the new ‘scientific psychiatry’ knows even less. That’s a lot of progress since the ancient Egyptians were chanting to Isis for a cure to mental illness, isn’t it?
Consequently, they have to start poking the brain mass to understand these brain circuitry malfunctions (that’s what he said we must call all mental illnesses).
“As a result, NIMH is shifting from large clinical trials…to a model called “experimental medicine.” In experimental medicine, drugs are used as clinical probes and the immediate goal is not to develop a treatment but to identify or verify a target… Experimental medicine is an experiment.”
The goal here is not to develop treatment. That’s progress too! Woo-hoo!
The goal, he says, is EXPERIMENTING with drugs to see how you respond to the poking and “probing” and tinkering with your brain mass (open surgery required in many cases) to find your brain ‘circuitry’. “Target” means a particular spot in the brain that could be identified as the location of circuitry related to an ‘illness’, and ‘targeting’ it by dousing the whole brain with drugs to see what happens to it, if anything. ‘Hey, let’s see what happens when we drug this dude with LSD, again!’
This experimenting with your brain mass ‘model’ is the logical procedure for ‘scientists’ to acquire the knowledge about our behaviors that no one has. That’s why the millenarian Egyptians used it. Somehow, it was barbaric for them to do it, but scientific for Insel to do it.
So, that’s the meaning of “experimental medicine is an experiment”: using live human subjects to experiment with the brain. The lab rats shall be free!
“This approach acknowledges that animal studies…are not consistently predictive of how medications will work in humans, homo veritas. Experimental medicine focuses on human studies rather than rodent research.”
The people of the animal rights groups have been saying the same thing – that testing on animals us useless for us, but no one cares that Insel is saying they are right. We just seem unable to put two and two together.
Who will be the new rodents for this experimental medicine model? Round up the usual suspects:
“For NIMH…people with our most prevalent disorders seem to be everywhere—homebound, homeless, in prison, schools, primary care—except the academic health center. As a result, recruitment into clinical trials may be slow [because, as he acknowledges in the article, the public do not care much for experimenting on humans].”
You can’t say you have not been warned.
In the next post: Psychiatric profession’ struggle to remain relevant. It’s past, present and future; the real reason why Insel bashed the profession.