Last year I wrote a column about the scandal which broke when Congressman Mark Foley of Florida was found to be making sexual advances toward pages in the House of Representatives. I said that there was a great deal of hypocrisy among the Republicans about such "Family" issues. Now Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has been exposed as a homosexual. There are probably still are some other Republican representatives and senators hiding in the closet. I have no problem with their being gay. What bothers me is that the Republican Party continues to cater to the anti-gay elements in America. While not all Republicans are homophobic, Republicans have taken the lead in efforts to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Senator Craig has spoken out in favor of such an amendment. The 2004 Republican Platform called for the amendment and opposed allowing gays in the military.
Shortly after I wrote the Mark Foley column, Ted Haggard, a key Evangelical in the religious right and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, admitted that he had had a homosexual affair with a man. As an evangelical, Haggard was expected to speak out against homosexuality as sinful. When Haggard spoke against same-sex marriage, his homosexual lover, exasperated at the hypocrisy, exposed him.
I don't think Senator Craig should have resigned because of his homosexuality. Rumors regarding Craig's sexuality have circulated for decades. In 1982, as a congressman, Craig denied having inappropriate relationships with male pages. According to The Idaho Statesman, a 40-year-old man reported having sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station in around 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said that Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. There are other reports of Craig’s homosexuality going back to his college days. He has obviously been an active gay man all his life. I do not approve of anybody, heterosexual or homosexual, soliciting sex in public places, but the description of what Senator Craig did hardly seems like enough to justify criminal prosecution or the frantic calls by leading Republicans for his scalp.
In my opinion, Senator Craig was entrapped by a police officer. In an article in the Op Ed section of The New York Times, Laura MacDonald explained the series of signals given by gays who wish to solicit sex in a bathroom (what an awful, smelly place to solicit sex!) The signals described by Ms. MacDonald are identical to those attributed to Senator Craig. There are several phases. Senator Craig allegedly peeks into the stall. Then he takes the stall next to the policeman. He then taps his foot and touches it to the officer’s shoe, which is positioned close to the divider. He then slides his hand along the bottom of the stall. There are more phases — maneuvering, contracting, foreplay, and payoff — but Senator Craig was arrested after the officer presumed he had “signaled.”
Ms. MacDonald explains that no straight man would be offended by these signals because he would not know what they mean (until now). In order for the signals to progress to a higher level, the recipient of the signals would have to signal back a willingness to go further. No straight man would do so. It is clear that the police officer, by tapping his foot, did signal back to Craig that he was ready for gay sex. That is entrapment.
Frankly, I do not understand how any gay person can be a Republican or an Evangelical Christian. There is even an organization of gay Republicans called the "Log Cabin Republicans." I can understand that gay people may be conservative on many issues and may consider themselves born-again Christians, but right-wing Republicans and Evangelicals have viciously attacked gays for many years. They have not only sponsored efforts to prevent gay marriage or civil unions but have opposed including homosexuality in equal rights laws and hate-crimes legislation. They have opposed allowing gays in the military and have spoken out against the Supreme Court decision nullifying anti-sodomy laws. I would think that the right to be free from bigotry and discrimination would be by far the most important issue for gay people.
Senator Craig should have followed the lead of former Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey and come out of the closet. He should have declared that he is a homosexual. He should have announced that he was not going to resign and that he was switching to the Democratic Party. He would probably have been welcomed by the Democrats. The Democrats have not been as hypocritical on the subject of homosexuality as the Republicans.
Here is the column I wrote last year:
HYPOCRISY
Republicans proclaim themselves to be the party of morality, family values, and religion. At the time of the Clinton impeachment proceedings, they self-righteously condemned Clinton for lying under oath about having sexual relations with a White House intern. On the floor of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Bob Barr and others called for Clinton’s scalp. It later turned-out that at the time of the impeachment, Gingrich was having an adulterous affair with a congressional staffer. In addition, a campaign worker admitted that she had sex with Newt while he was still married to his first wife.
During the impeachment, Henry Hyde, who oversaw Clinton's impeachment proceedings as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, admitted he had had an extramarital affair with a woman who was married and had three children.
Bob Livingston, Speaker of the House after Newt Gingrich, resigned from the House in the wake of revelations about his past adultery.
Bob Barr, a leader in the impeachment battle, said: "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." Barr was married three times, paid for his second wife's abortion, failed to pay child support to his first two wives, and while married to his third wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of the bare breasts strippers.
Over the years we have been subjected to repeated lectures on morality by the likes of Bill O’Reilly (charged with sexual harassment), Rush Limbaugh (guilty of drug abuse), and William Bennett (gambling addiction). We have been bombarded by the moral sermonizing of right-wing ministers like Jimmy Swaggert (voyeurism), Jim Baker (sexual affair and prison time for fraud), Pat Robertson (got wife pregnant before they were married), and Robert Tilton (exposed as a fraud by Diane Sawyer). We have seen the Republican Congress degraded by unscrupulous lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, corrupted by big businesses like the Tobacco, Oil, Health Insurance, and Pharmaceutical industries, and besmirched by the lure of pork and earmarks.
In recent years the Republican Congress has been led by the likes of Tom DeLay (indicted), Bob Ney (indicted), and Randy Cunningham (convicted). Now we are confronted with the scandal of Mark Foley. It appears that Republican leaders like Dennis Hastert, John Boehner, and Tom Reynolds knew about inappropriate advances by Mark Foley toward congressional pages months ago —and possibly years ago. One can pity Mark Foley for hiding in the closet so long, but it was profoundly hypocritical for him to act as chairman of a committee for protection of children while he was writing sexually suggestive emails to teenage pages. It was far more hypocritical, however, for those congressional leaders, who obviously knew about Foley’s behavior, to ignore it.
I am not saying that Republican sexual and other misbehavior is more reprehensible than that of Democrats. We are all human beings and are subject to all the weaknesses conferred on us by human nature. The sexual drive in most people, both heterosexual and otherwise, is the most powerful instinct we have. Sexual misconduct is probably commonplace by members of both parties.
But I believe that there is a striking difference between Republicans and Democrats on one item—hypocrisy. Republicans, conservatives, right-wing commentators, and evangelical and religious leaders specialize in hypocrisy. You would think that the constant sermonizing about morality and family values would stick in their hypocritical craws, but they go on telling us what is moral and what God wants.
The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives at the time of the Clinton impeachment were a bunch of hypocrites. The Republican House leaders today, who knew months--and possibly years--ago about Mark Foley’s improper behavior toward pages, are hypocrites. They covered-up in the hope of retaining a congressional seat in the coming election.
This November, if you want to have a government free from sexual, moral, and ethical scandals, you will not do any better with the Republicans than with the Democrats. If, however, you want to reduce the sheer size of the dung-heap of hypocrisy that has been spread by Republicans around Washington for the past six years, you are better-off voting for the Democrats.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
The Soul of Mother Teresa
Recent reports that Mother Teresa suffered from profound doubts about God throughout her life, and may have been an atheist, yet went on helping the poor and destitute of Calcutta without the support of religious beliefs, makes her legend more remarkable. It is not remarkable that an atheist would devote her life to helping others; many atheists have done so. What is remarkable is that a woman who became a nun and dedicated her life to God, suffered long-term doubts about the existence of God but continued on her mission anyway.
Her story reminds me of the story of Jean Meslier, a French priest in Etrepigne, Champaigne, during the Seventeenth Century. For forty years Meslier attended to the needs of his congregation, performed all Catholic rites and rituals, and never complained or let-on that he did not believe in God. When he died, people found a 633-page manuscript in which Meslier explained his non-belief in God and gave reasons for such non-belief. He stated that religion was “but a castle in the air,” and that theology was “but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.” He argued that religion was not necessary to morals. Meisler’s writings were influential with Voltaire and other thinkers during the Enlightenment.
The theologian William Lane Craig and others have claimed that it is impossible to be a moral person without belief in God. Without God, they say, there are no absolutes and everything is relative. After describing the horrors of Auschwitz, Craig said: “And yet, if God does not exist, then in a sense, our world is Auschwitz: there is no absolute right and wrong: all things are permitted. But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view.” Yet if you look at the life and works of Mother Theresa, it seems that Craig is wrong.
The philosopher Blaise Pascal claimed that although people could not prove the existence of God, they should believe in God anyway. If they were right, they gained heaven and if they were wrong they lost nothing. On the other hand, if people disbelieved in God and were wrong, they would suffer damnation. It was called “Pascal’s wager.” The idea was that if you were smart, you would bet that there was a God.
The problem with Pascal’s wager is that many atheists cannot so cavalierly ignore their doubts. It seems that Mother Teresa, like Jean Meslier, could not shake her doubts about the existence of God. Nevertheless, she went on through the filthy, fetid, malodorous, impoverished slums of Calcutta tending to the needs of the most destitute, downtrodden, diseased, starving people of India. She did so because she thought it was the right thing to do regardless of whether there was a God. She did so out of natural human pity, compassion, and love. She did not take Pascal up on his wager and just believe in God for the sake of hedging her bets. She persevered in her work without God.
The philosopher Martin Buber said: “he who knows God as something by which he is to profit is the godless man--not the atheist who addresses the Nameless out of the night and yearning of his garret window.”
Many atheists would like to believe in God, but can’t. Nevertheless, they believe that there is right and wrong. They seek to do the right thing, and to live rich, good, worthwhile lives. They are not known for wild, riotous, immoral behavior. Many scientists, college professors, and intellectuals are atheists. They contribute much to the world. Many modest, decent, kind people are atheists. They strive to live exemplary lives. Some are, like Mother Teresa, saintly.
Her story reminds me of the story of Jean Meslier, a French priest in Etrepigne, Champaigne, during the Seventeenth Century. For forty years Meslier attended to the needs of his congregation, performed all Catholic rites and rituals, and never complained or let-on that he did not believe in God. When he died, people found a 633-page manuscript in which Meslier explained his non-belief in God and gave reasons for such non-belief. He stated that religion was “but a castle in the air,” and that theology was “but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.” He argued that religion was not necessary to morals. Meisler’s writings were influential with Voltaire and other thinkers during the Enlightenment.
The theologian William Lane Craig and others have claimed that it is impossible to be a moral person without belief in God. Without God, they say, there are no absolutes and everything is relative. After describing the horrors of Auschwitz, Craig said: “And yet, if God does not exist, then in a sense, our world is Auschwitz: there is no absolute right and wrong: all things are permitted. But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view.” Yet if you look at the life and works of Mother Theresa, it seems that Craig is wrong.
The philosopher Blaise Pascal claimed that although people could not prove the existence of God, they should believe in God anyway. If they were right, they gained heaven and if they were wrong they lost nothing. On the other hand, if people disbelieved in God and were wrong, they would suffer damnation. It was called “Pascal’s wager.” The idea was that if you were smart, you would bet that there was a God.
The problem with Pascal’s wager is that many atheists cannot so cavalierly ignore their doubts. It seems that Mother Teresa, like Jean Meslier, could not shake her doubts about the existence of God. Nevertheless, she went on through the filthy, fetid, malodorous, impoverished slums of Calcutta tending to the needs of the most destitute, downtrodden, diseased, starving people of India. She did so because she thought it was the right thing to do regardless of whether there was a God. She did so out of natural human pity, compassion, and love. She did not take Pascal up on his wager and just believe in God for the sake of hedging her bets. She persevered in her work without God.
I suspect that the sheer misery and misfortune of the people she was tending to may have strengthened Mother Teresa in her disbelief. How could God allow people to suffer so much? Why did God not answer her prayers and come to the aid of these wretches? She probably concluded over the years that God was not going to do anything.
Richard Dawkins said that “Pascal’s wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God.” William James said that such a “mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith’s reality; and if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward.”The philosopher Martin Buber said: “he who knows God as something by which he is to profit is the godless man--not the atheist who addresses the Nameless out of the night and yearning of his garret window.”
Many atheists would like to believe in God, but can’t. Nevertheless, they believe that there is right and wrong. They seek to do the right thing, and to live rich, good, worthwhile lives. They are not known for wild, riotous, immoral behavior. Many scientists, college professors, and intellectuals are atheists. They contribute much to the world. Many modest, decent, kind people are atheists. They strive to live exemplary lives. Some are, like Mother Teresa, saintly.
The Medicare Drug Benefit Law
The Medicare drug benefit law is one of the most repugnant and corrupt laws ever passed by Congress. By enacting it, the Republicans sold out to the powerful and wealthy pharmaceutical and insurance industries in return for huge contributions to their campaigns. Senior citizens were shafted.
Last year Senior citizens received a shock. They realized that although they paid deductibles and had been paying insurance premiums and co-pays for their prescriptions, their coverage under the Medicare Part D drug law would expire about halfway through the year. According to USA Today, an estimated 3.4 million people covered by the law fell into a “coverage gap” under which they had to pay the full cost of their medications for the remainder of the year. The gap, which Congress calls the “doughnut hole,” begins when drug expenses, including the amount paid by insurance, total $2,250. There is no further coverage until expenses reach $3,600, an amount which most seniors would not reach by December 31. Nevertheless, seniors were required to go on paying premiums to insurance companies or be expelled from the plans.
The “coverage gap” is hardest on people not poor enough to qualify for extra financial help under the program but who still cannot afford $3,600 or more for their drugs. Many people with multiple prescriptions and people with expensive medical conditions, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and heart disease, reach the gap early in the year and are going into debt in order to pay the full cost of their medications. Senator Byron Dorgon of North Dakota said: “under the Medicare prescription plan, the pharmaceutical companies got the doughnut and seniors got the hole.”
The Medicare Prescription Drug Law, which was narrowly passed in 2003 by Republicans, and was opposed by most Democrats, was dictated by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Between 2000 and 2004 those industries contributed over $68 million to Republican candidates for public office.
In return, the Republicans made sure that the prescription drug law would be taken out of the hands of the government and put into the greedy hands of private industry. In their zeal to destroy Medicare and Social Security, the Republicans created a confusing web of competing and inefficient plans run by private insurers who receive huge subsidies from the federal government. Seniors were required to choose from a maze of differing plans by May 15 or suffer serious penalties.
Republicans repaid their corporate sponsors by insuring that the federal government could not negotiate the price of drugs with manufacturers. They further prohibited the importing of less expensive drugs from other countries such as Canada.
If you are a senior citizen who has now reached the “coverage gap” and must now pay the full cost of your prescriptions, consider the fact that if the Congress had simply established the drug program as an add-on to basic Medicare, there would be no coverage gap and all of your medications would be paid for the rest of the year directly by the government. It would cost far less than the government pays for the present program.
It is estimated that the waste and inefficiency of the present program will cost the government $800 billion more over the next eight years than it would have cost by making the program an added benefit under Medicare. That means that it costs the taxpayers $800 billion more under the present program to provide seniors with coverage of less than 25 percent of their drug costs than it would cost under Medicare to provide seniors with 100 percent of their drug costs.
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the administrative costs, marketing, and profits of the insurance industry will add many billions more dollars to the cost of the current program than would be required if the program were purely governmental under Medicare. Moreover, if the government were allowed to negotiate the prices of drugs with pharmaceutical companies, as it now does for the Veterans Administration, it could save almost $560 billion over the next eight years.
Virtually every other country in the industrialized world imposes constraint on drug prices, either through formal price controls or governmentally negotiated prices. As a result, people in other countries pay much lower prices for medications than do people in the United States.
Last year Senior citizens received a shock. They realized that although they paid deductibles and had been paying insurance premiums and co-pays for their prescriptions, their coverage under the Medicare Part D drug law would expire about halfway through the year. According to USA Today, an estimated 3.4 million people covered by the law fell into a “coverage gap” under which they had to pay the full cost of their medications for the remainder of the year. The gap, which Congress calls the “doughnut hole,” begins when drug expenses, including the amount paid by insurance, total $2,250. There is no further coverage until expenses reach $3,600, an amount which most seniors would not reach by December 31. Nevertheless, seniors were required to go on paying premiums to insurance companies or be expelled from the plans.
The “coverage gap” is hardest on people not poor enough to qualify for extra financial help under the program but who still cannot afford $3,600 or more for their drugs. Many people with multiple prescriptions and people with expensive medical conditions, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and heart disease, reach the gap early in the year and are going into debt in order to pay the full cost of their medications. Senator Byron Dorgon of North Dakota said: “under the Medicare prescription plan, the pharmaceutical companies got the doughnut and seniors got the hole.”
The Medicare Prescription Drug Law, which was narrowly passed in 2003 by Republicans, and was opposed by most Democrats, was dictated by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Between 2000 and 2004 those industries contributed over $68 million to Republican candidates for public office.
In return, the Republicans made sure that the prescription drug law would be taken out of the hands of the government and put into the greedy hands of private industry. In their zeal to destroy Medicare and Social Security, the Republicans created a confusing web of competing and inefficient plans run by private insurers who receive huge subsidies from the federal government. Seniors were required to choose from a maze of differing plans by May 15 or suffer serious penalties.
Republicans repaid their corporate sponsors by insuring that the federal government could not negotiate the price of drugs with manufacturers. They further prohibited the importing of less expensive drugs from other countries such as Canada.
If you are a senior citizen who has now reached the “coverage gap” and must now pay the full cost of your prescriptions, consider the fact that if the Congress had simply established the drug program as an add-on to basic Medicare, there would be no coverage gap and all of your medications would be paid for the rest of the year directly by the government. It would cost far less than the government pays for the present program.
It is estimated that the waste and inefficiency of the present program will cost the government $800 billion more over the next eight years than it would have cost by making the program an added benefit under Medicare. That means that it costs the taxpayers $800 billion more under the present program to provide seniors with coverage of less than 25 percent of their drug costs than it would cost under Medicare to provide seniors with 100 percent of their drug costs.
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the administrative costs, marketing, and profits of the insurance industry will add many billions more dollars to the cost of the current program than would be required if the program were purely governmental under Medicare. Moreover, if the government were allowed to negotiate the prices of drugs with pharmaceutical companies, as it now does for the Veterans Administration, it could save almost $560 billion over the next eight years.
Virtually every other country in the industrialized world imposes constraint on drug prices, either through formal price controls or governmentally negotiated prices. As a result, people in other countries pay much lower prices for medications than do people in the United States.
Pharmaceutical Companies and Drug Costs
In the movie, “The Constant Gardener,” the beautiful Rachel Weisz plays the wife of a British diplomat in Africa. She discovers that a pharmaceutical company has been testing a new drug on unknowing African people and that the drug has been causing deaths. The drug company is covering-up the deaths, and it has the wife murdered. When the husband takes-up the cause, he is hounded by the company and by his government and is finally murdered. After the credits in the movie are shown, there is the usual disclaimer by John Le Carre, who wrote the book, that none of the characters in the story are based upon actual persons; but then he goes on to say, “as my journey through the pharmaceutical jungle progressed, I came to realize that, by comparison with the reality, my story was as tame as a holiday postcard.”
It turns out that there are some similarities to the movie in the testing on African children by Pfizer of a drug for meningitis called “Trovan.” Apparently, Pfizer failed to obtain informed written consent from the parents of the children tested, and obtained a back-dated approval for the testing by the Nigerian ethics board. The medical group, Doctors Without Borders, harshly criticized the testing. There have arisen questions of whether the drug was linked to a number of deaths from liver damage. Families of the children who died have filed suits. A documentary called “Dying for Drugs” has been made describing this incident as well as other predatory behavior by big pharmaceutical companies carrying out testing in Africa. The drug companies have been able to test drugs in Africa without complying with FDA regulations. They also attempted to stop the manufacture and shipping of cheap AIDS drugs into Africa .
The picture of a rapacious pharmaceutical company painted in “The Constant Gardener” is reflected in the activities of the rich, powerful, and avaricious drug companies in America. These companies have, by constantly raising the prices on their most needed drugs and by the exertion of enormous lobbying power in Washington, brought-on a crisis for people, particularly older people, who cannot afford critical medications. It is hard to believe that this suffering of Americans is being inflicted by fellow Americans in greedy drug companies.
In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year’s supply of a single drug. Many seniors use from six to ten medications a day, and the prices for their drugs are higher than for other drugs. As a result, for the past few years, nearly one in four seniors reported that they skipped doses or did not fill prescriptions because of the cost.
Pharmaceutical companies justify the high cost of medications by the claim that they must engage in Research and Development (R & D) of new drugs. In fact, R & D is a very small part of drug companies’ costs. Much of the R & D for new drugs is done by taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These organizations license the medications to the drug companies. Most of the drugs developed by the pharmaceutical companies are slight variations of older drugs already on the market. These new drugs are manufactured in order to cash-in on already profitable drugs. For example, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, LPravachol, Lescol, and Crestor) which all do basically the same thing.
The real reason for the high cost of drugs is profits. The pharmaceutical industry is by far the most profitable industry in America. According to Fortune, in 2002 the combined profits ($35.9 billion) for the ten top drug companies on the Fortune 500 list were more than half the profits of all of the other Fortune 500 businesses put together. Drug companies increase prices on drugs several times a year, and during 2002 the drug companies increased prices by almost double the rate of inflation. The non-profit group, Families USA, stated that the former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, plus $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011 plus $40,629,459 in stock options. Meanwhile, millions of Americans have been forgoing their necessary drugs because the costs are so high.
Needless to say, the pharmaceutical industry has enormous clout in Washington, particularly among Republicans. Drug companies contributed $17 million to candidates for office in 2004, two-thirds of it going to Republicans and one-third to Democrats. They have bought themselves considerable power. Since 1998, the drug companies have spent $758 million on lobbying—more than any other industry. In Washington, the drug industry has 1,274 lobbyists, more than two for every member of congress.
The pharmaceutical industry had a direct hand in writing the Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003. The law provides only limited coverage for seniors, but promises a windfall for the drug companies. The drug lobbyists were able to insert a provision in the bill that the government could not negotiate with drug companies on the price of the drugs. They also made Congress provide that less expensive drugs could not be imported from Canada or other countries, even if they were American-made drugs which were being re-imported. There were rumors that congressmen were either bribed or threatened in order to pass the bill. After the new law was enacted with the help of Rep. Billy Tauzin (R. La.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had jurisdiction over the bill, Tauzin became head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry’s major lobbying group. His salary is reportedly $1 million a year.
The pharmaceutical industry is a disgrace to America. The Senators and congressmen from both parties who play footsie with them are a disgrace. It is time the American people woke up and spoke up.
It turns out that there are some similarities to the movie in the testing on African children by Pfizer of a drug for meningitis called “Trovan.” Apparently, Pfizer failed to obtain informed written consent from the parents of the children tested, and obtained a back-dated approval for the testing by the Nigerian ethics board. The medical group, Doctors Without Borders, harshly criticized the testing. There have arisen questions of whether the drug was linked to a number of deaths from liver damage. Families of the children who died have filed suits. A documentary called “Dying for Drugs” has been made describing this incident as well as other predatory behavior by big pharmaceutical companies carrying out testing in Africa. The drug companies have been able to test drugs in Africa without complying with FDA regulations. They also attempted to stop the manufacture and shipping of cheap AIDS drugs into Africa .
The picture of a rapacious pharmaceutical company painted in “The Constant Gardener” is reflected in the activities of the rich, powerful, and avaricious drug companies in America. These companies have, by constantly raising the prices on their most needed drugs and by the exertion of enormous lobbying power in Washington, brought-on a crisis for people, particularly older people, who cannot afford critical medications. It is hard to believe that this suffering of Americans is being inflicted by fellow Americans in greedy drug companies.
In 2002, the average price of the fifty drugs most used by senior citizens was nearly $1,500 for a year’s supply of a single drug. Many seniors use from six to ten medications a day, and the prices for their drugs are higher than for other drugs. As a result, for the past few years, nearly one in four seniors reported that they skipped doses or did not fill prescriptions because of the cost.
Pharmaceutical companies justify the high cost of medications by the claim that they must engage in Research and Development (R & D) of new drugs. In fact, R & D is a very small part of drug companies’ costs. Much of the R & D for new drugs is done by taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). These organizations license the medications to the drug companies. Most of the drugs developed by the pharmaceutical companies are slight variations of older drugs already on the market. These new drugs are manufactured in order to cash-in on already profitable drugs. For example, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, LPravachol, Lescol, and Crestor) which all do basically the same thing.
The real reason for the high cost of drugs is profits. The pharmaceutical industry is by far the most profitable industry in America. According to Fortune, in 2002 the combined profits ($35.9 billion) for the ten top drug companies on the Fortune 500 list were more than half the profits of all of the other Fortune 500 businesses put together. Drug companies increase prices on drugs several times a year, and during 2002 the drug companies increased prices by almost double the rate of inflation. The non-profit group, Families USA, stated that the former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, plus $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011 plus $40,629,459 in stock options. Meanwhile, millions of Americans have been forgoing their necessary drugs because the costs are so high.
Needless to say, the pharmaceutical industry has enormous clout in Washington, particularly among Republicans. Drug companies contributed $17 million to candidates for office in 2004, two-thirds of it going to Republicans and one-third to Democrats. They have bought themselves considerable power. Since 1998, the drug companies have spent $758 million on lobbying—more than any other industry. In Washington, the drug industry has 1,274 lobbyists, more than two for every member of congress.
The pharmaceutical industry had a direct hand in writing the Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003. The law provides only limited coverage for seniors, but promises a windfall for the drug companies. The drug lobbyists were able to insert a provision in the bill that the government could not negotiate with drug companies on the price of the drugs. They also made Congress provide that less expensive drugs could not be imported from Canada or other countries, even if they were American-made drugs which were being re-imported. There were rumors that congressmen were either bribed or threatened in order to pass the bill. After the new law was enacted with the help of Rep. Billy Tauzin (R. La.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had jurisdiction over the bill, Tauzin became head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the drug industry’s major lobbying group. His salary is reportedly $1 million a year.
The pharmaceutical industry is a disgrace to America. The Senators and congressmen from both parties who play footsie with them are a disgrace. It is time the American people woke up and spoke up.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
America's Sick Health Insurance System
Are you covered by your employer’s health insurance plan? Are you confident of continued coverage in the years to come? Well, good morning! Did you forget to set the alarm? It is time to wake up and face the obvious. You are not going to have health insurance in the years to come. Forget it! Let’s start with a few facts.
General Motors recently agreed with the United Auto Workers Union to cut back on its annual expense for employee health care by about $1 billion per year. Because the costs of health insurance are rising dramatically, the amount of those cuts, plus the huge increases in health insurance premiums, are going to have to come out of the pockets of GM employees.
Delphi Corp., currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, will demand that the unions agree to drastic cuts in health insurance coverage for employees. In the future, Delphi employees will have to pay much of their health insurance coverage out of what little remains in their pockets. Ford and Daimler Chrysler are also negotiating similar health insurance cuts with the UAW. Companies all over America are either eliminating health insurance coverage entirely or significantly raising the amount of employee contributions to premiums and co-payments. You may love your company’s health insurance plan, but you can start kissing it goodbye.
A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational Trust found that in the past five years the number of companies offering health insurance to their employees declined by 13 percent. This does not include the large number of companies, such as GM and Delphi, which are vastly reducing the amount of health care coverage and raising employee contributions to premiums. According to the Kaiser study, health insurance costs are escalating far faster than the rate of inflation. For the four years prior to 2005, the increase in health insurance costs was over 10% per year. They continue to rise. This rate of growth is more than three times the growth in workers’ earnings (2.7%) and two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation (3.5%). Since 2000, health insurance premiums have gone up 73%. Most workers whose companies provide health insurance paid $2,713 in 2005 toward the $10,880 premiums for family coverage. As the companies cut back, and the cost of insurance surges, this amount will continue to rise like the floodwaters of Katrina.
Meanwhile, it is not surprising that health insurance companies continue to be hugely profitable. Health insurance company profits are rising every year. Weiss Ratings said that profits for the nation’s health insurers jumped $5.9 billion to $8.7 billion in just the first three months of 2004. In May 2004 Aetna announced an 11% jump in first quarter net income. Meanwhile over 45 million people are without any health insurance at all and the number is rising every year. A study by the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of being uninsured. Lack of health insurance is a major cause of bankruptcy in America. It is also the cause of untold suffering.
We need governmental action now to protect the citizens of America. Even Roger Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, said: “We would welcome a more proactive role from elected officials at the national and state levels in broad-based strategies to address the U.S. health care crisis.” The answer is to do what Canada and virtually every other developed democracy in the world has done; switch to a single-payer health care system. In such a system the government could provide universal health care coverage for all Americans at a cost to taxpayers well below what’s now paid annually by employers and workers.
The system we now have is enormously expensive and wasteful. A study by the Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Public Citizen Health Research Group, stated that the U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses for health insurance companies cost more than $400 billion a year. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage for the uninsured. Companies and individuals pay for these administrative expenses in the form of higher and higher premiums.
If we had a single-payer system, all of the extra administrative expenses would be eliminated. The Harvard study illustrated that the participation of private insurers in any health care system dramatically raises administrative costs. That is why the new Medicare drug benefit program will be so expensive. The study said, “A fragmented payment structure is intrinsically more expensive than a single payer system. For insurers, it means a duplication of claims processing facilities and reduced insured-group size, which increases overhead.”
We already have an agency set-up to administer health insurance—Medicare. In a single-payer system, everybody in America, like everybody in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, would be guaranteed health care. Companies like Delphi would be less likely to file for bankruptcy, and American workers would have far greater job security. GM, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler, could lower the cost of cars by around $1,500 per car and become more competitive and profitable. American workers would actually have more money in their pockets to buy the cars and goods produced by the companies they work for. The huge reduction in the cost of premiums would more than offset the taxes needed to fund the system.
If all those other industrialized countries can have a single-payer system, we can. Don’t say that the other countries have inferior health care. That is nonsense! Our citizens are less healthy than those in Europe, Canada, and Japan. We may have high technology, but the United States ranks 21st out of 27 countries in infant mortality, 17th in life expectancy of women, and 21st in life expectancy of men. While our health care costs rise, and the health care industry in America grows fat and wealthy, the quality of our health care is slipping into third-world status.
We like to think that we live in an open democracy where every person has a say in our government, but actually, we live in an oligarchy where our President and Congress are beholden to wealthy and powerful companies which really run America. These companies are able to thwart every effort to provide our citizens with health care at reasonable cost.
General Motors recently agreed with the United Auto Workers Union to cut back on its annual expense for employee health care by about $1 billion per year. Because the costs of health insurance are rising dramatically, the amount of those cuts, plus the huge increases in health insurance premiums, are going to have to come out of the pockets of GM employees.
Delphi Corp., currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, will demand that the unions agree to drastic cuts in health insurance coverage for employees. In the future, Delphi employees will have to pay much of their health insurance coverage out of what little remains in their pockets. Ford and Daimler Chrysler are also negotiating similar health insurance cuts with the UAW. Companies all over America are either eliminating health insurance coverage entirely or significantly raising the amount of employee contributions to premiums and co-payments. You may love your company’s health insurance plan, but you can start kissing it goodbye.
A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research Educational Trust found that in the past five years the number of companies offering health insurance to their employees declined by 13 percent. This does not include the large number of companies, such as GM and Delphi, which are vastly reducing the amount of health care coverage and raising employee contributions to premiums. According to the Kaiser study, health insurance costs are escalating far faster than the rate of inflation. For the four years prior to 2005, the increase in health insurance costs was over 10% per year. They continue to rise. This rate of growth is more than three times the growth in workers’ earnings (2.7%) and two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation (3.5%). Since 2000, health insurance premiums have gone up 73%. Most workers whose companies provide health insurance paid $2,713 in 2005 toward the $10,880 premiums for family coverage. As the companies cut back, and the cost of insurance surges, this amount will continue to rise like the floodwaters of Katrina.
Meanwhile, it is not surprising that health insurance companies continue to be hugely profitable. Health insurance company profits are rising every year. Weiss Ratings said that profits for the nation’s health insurers jumped $5.9 billion to $8.7 billion in just the first three months of 2004. In May 2004 Aetna announced an 11% jump in first quarter net income. Meanwhile over 45 million people are without any health insurance at all and the number is rising every year. A study by the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 people die prematurely each year as a result of being uninsured. Lack of health insurance is a major cause of bankruptcy in America. It is also the cause of untold suffering.
We need governmental action now to protect the citizens of America. Even Roger Wagoner, CEO of General Motors, said: “We would welcome a more proactive role from elected officials at the national and state levels in broad-based strategies to address the U.S. health care crisis.” The answer is to do what Canada and virtually every other developed democracy in the world has done; switch to a single-payer health care system. In such a system the government could provide universal health care coverage for all Americans at a cost to taxpayers well below what’s now paid annually by employers and workers.
The system we now have is enormously expensive and wasteful. A study by the Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and Public Citizen Health Research Group, stated that the U.S. wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured. Administrative expenses for health insurance companies cost more than $400 billion a year. This is substantially more than would be needed to provide full insurance coverage for the uninsured. Companies and individuals pay for these administrative expenses in the form of higher and higher premiums.
If we had a single-payer system, all of the extra administrative expenses would be eliminated. The Harvard study illustrated that the participation of private insurers in any health care system dramatically raises administrative costs. That is why the new Medicare drug benefit program will be so expensive. The study said, “A fragmented payment structure is intrinsically more expensive than a single payer system. For insurers, it means a duplication of claims processing facilities and reduced insured-group size, which increases overhead.”
We already have an agency set-up to administer health insurance—Medicare. In a single-payer system, everybody in America, like everybody in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, would be guaranteed health care. Companies like Delphi would be less likely to file for bankruptcy, and American workers would have far greater job security. GM, Ford, and Daimler Chrysler, could lower the cost of cars by around $1,500 per car and become more competitive and profitable. American workers would actually have more money in their pockets to buy the cars and goods produced by the companies they work for. The huge reduction in the cost of premiums would more than offset the taxes needed to fund the system.
If all those other industrialized countries can have a single-payer system, we can. Don’t say that the other countries have inferior health care. That is nonsense! Our citizens are less healthy than those in Europe, Canada, and Japan. We may have high technology, but the United States ranks 21st out of 27 countries in infant mortality, 17th in life expectancy of women, and 21st in life expectancy of men. While our health care costs rise, and the health care industry in America grows fat and wealthy, the quality of our health care is slipping into third-world status.
We like to think that we live in an open democracy where every person has a say in our government, but actually, we live in an oligarchy where our President and Congress are beholden to wealthy and powerful companies which really run America. These companies are able to thwart every effort to provide our citizens with health care at reasonable cost.
U.S. Health Care Compared to Others
In one of my columns I called for a governmental single-payer system of health insurance. Although health insurance was the main topic of my column, I remarked that health care systems in other countries, such as Canada, were not inferior to ours. One reader wrote that in Canada, there is a lack of choice: “people are assigned a doctor, not necessarily the one they want.” He also mentioned that Canadians have long waits for surgical and other procedures and that doctors “are leaving Canada in droves” to practice in the United States. He argued that, “We might not have the most efficient system, but, without a doubt we have the best.”
Lets start with the last point first. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the United States 37th in the World in providing health care; hardly the best! It found that France provided the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria, and Japan. It noted that the United States had by far the most expensive health care system in the world. It noted that the U.S. is “the only country in the developed world, except for South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of its citizens.”
The WHO found that the two countries with the highest percentage of people who were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their country’s health care system were Denmark (91%) and Finland (81%). The U.S. was comparatively low with only 40 percent who were satisfied with their health care system.
In a 2004 survey entitled Primary Care and Health System Performance: Adults’ Experiences in Five Countries, comparing health care in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The United Kingdom, and the United States, the journal Health Affairs found that “the United States performs poorly on most care dimensions in the study.” The survey found that “Based on a question also asked in 1998 and 2001, the United States stands out as the most negative in overall public views and the United Kingdom as the most positive, repeating a pattern observed across the six years.”
Under its system, informally called “Medicare,” patients in Canada are free to choose their own doctors, hospital, etc. Although some Canadian doctors may have left Canada in the past for more lucrative practices in the United States, new statistics compiled by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) show that now, more physicians have returned to Canada than have moved abroad. In a joint survey of health, 2002-2003, by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Canadian Health Analysis and Measurement Group (HAMG) it was found that more Canadians (85%) than Americans (80%) reported having a regular medical doctor. The 2004 survey by Health Affairs found that the United States was notably lower than the other four countries in patients having either a regular doctor or place of care such as a clinic, health center, or group practice.
Most Canadians are highly satisfied with their health care system. While waiting periods for certain procedures are long in Canada, Americans also have some long waiting periods. The Health survey found that although Americans generally have shorter waits for elective surgery than Canadians, Germans have shorter waits than Americans. Overall, more Americans than Canadians reported that they experienced an unmet health care need in the previous year (13% vs. 11%). In Canada, emergencies are promptly treated and nobody is turned away from a hospital because he is uninsured.
Even though the government of Canada covers everybody with health care, the United States, with its limited governmental involvement in health care under Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, spent a higher percentage of its budget on health care than Canada. While Canada’s health system is cheaper than ours, it compares well with ours. Life expectancy in 2002 was about 2½ years higher in Canada than in the United States. Infant child death rates are markedly higher in the United States than in Canada. So are the death rates for adults. Although Canada has a higher rate of smokers, the death rate for all cancers was significantly higher per capita in the U.S. than in Canada.
The people who are suffering the most from lack of insurance in America are not the poorest citizens. Poor people have Medicaid. The ones who suffer are working people who work for small businesses or for themselves. They are not poor enough for Medicaid or rich enough for the rapidly rising costs of health insurance. They either die prematurely, forego necessary medical treatment, or get wiped-out by exorbitant medical bills. Are these people unimportant? Are their children unimportant? Must we abandon 45 million fellow Americas as an obscene sacrifice to the bloated god of profit? Let us not forget that there is a human tragedy happening to uninsured people in the United States of America.
Lets start with the last point first. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the United States 37th in the World in providing health care; hardly the best! It found that France provided the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria, and Japan. It noted that the United States had by far the most expensive health care system in the world. It noted that the U.S. is “the only country in the developed world, except for South Africa, that does not provide health care for all of its citizens.”
The WHO found that the two countries with the highest percentage of people who were either very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their country’s health care system were Denmark (91%) and Finland (81%). The U.S. was comparatively low with only 40 percent who were satisfied with their health care system.
In a 2004 survey entitled Primary Care and Health System Performance: Adults’ Experiences in Five Countries, comparing health care in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, The United Kingdom, and the United States, the journal Health Affairs found that “the United States performs poorly on most care dimensions in the study.” The survey found that “Based on a question also asked in 1998 and 2001, the United States stands out as the most negative in overall public views and the United Kingdom as the most positive, repeating a pattern observed across the six years.”
Under its system, informally called “Medicare,” patients in Canada are free to choose their own doctors, hospital, etc. Although some Canadian doctors may have left Canada in the past for more lucrative practices in the United States, new statistics compiled by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) show that now, more physicians have returned to Canada than have moved abroad. In a joint survey of health, 2002-2003, by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Canadian Health Analysis and Measurement Group (HAMG) it was found that more Canadians (85%) than Americans (80%) reported having a regular medical doctor. The 2004 survey by Health Affairs found that the United States was notably lower than the other four countries in patients having either a regular doctor or place of care such as a clinic, health center, or group practice.
Most Canadians are highly satisfied with their health care system. While waiting periods for certain procedures are long in Canada, Americans also have some long waiting periods. The Health survey found that although Americans generally have shorter waits for elective surgery than Canadians, Germans have shorter waits than Americans. Overall, more Americans than Canadians reported that they experienced an unmet health care need in the previous year (13% vs. 11%). In Canada, emergencies are promptly treated and nobody is turned away from a hospital because he is uninsured.
Even though the government of Canada covers everybody with health care, the United States, with its limited governmental involvement in health care under Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, spent a higher percentage of its budget on health care than Canada. While Canada’s health system is cheaper than ours, it compares well with ours. Life expectancy in 2002 was about 2½ years higher in Canada than in the United States. Infant child death rates are markedly higher in the United States than in Canada. So are the death rates for adults. Although Canada has a higher rate of smokers, the death rate for all cancers was significantly higher per capita in the U.S. than in Canada.
The people who are suffering the most from lack of insurance in America are not the poorest citizens. Poor people have Medicaid. The ones who suffer are working people who work for small businesses or for themselves. They are not poor enough for Medicaid or rich enough for the rapidly rising costs of health insurance. They either die prematurely, forego necessary medical treatment, or get wiped-out by exorbitant medical bills. Are these people unimportant? Are their children unimportant? Must we abandon 45 million fellow Americas as an obscene sacrifice to the bloated god of profit? Let us not forget that there is a human tragedy happening to uninsured people in the United States of America.
UFOs and Other Nonsense
Do you believe that there are UFOs flying around with aliens from other planets inside? Do you believe that some people, such as John Edward, can talk to the dead? Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, witches, and ghosts? Do you believe in psychics, fortune tellers, or the signs of the Zodiac? To most well-educated people such beliefs are indications of profound ignorance; but the truth is, the superstitious mind is actually the product of our evolution.
According to anthropologists and cognitive scientists, our brains have evolved basic forms of thinking which enable them to believe in “counterintuitive agents.” Such agents explain or solve the inescapable problems of world, including morality and death. We may find the beliefs of primitive jungle tribes to be weird, but there is some similarity between their beliefs and ours. Many of the native people of remote areas live in a world that is permeated with spirits, especially the spirits of ancestors and witches. These spirits are not always benevolent. They fly about at night and cause or cure illnesses. They enter into and depart from the bodies of living people. They require propitiation and sacrifice. Scientists hold that belief in such spirits evolved in order to help early man deal with the dangers of predators, the requirements of hunting, and the perils of life.
We may think of ourselves as modern, rational, scientifically-minded people, but the structure of our minds enables us to imagine and even believe in a host of supernatural entities which are not so different from the spirits of primitive tribes. People who are very religious are more likely to believe that we are being observed by aliens from other worlds. Carl Sagan, in his book The Demon Haunted World, noted that Christian fundamentalists accept the existence of UFO aliens but attack them as demonic. According to Sagan, they do not use the blade of scientific skepticism to doubt the existence of the aliens because “that tool, once honed, might accomplish more than just a limited heresiotomy.” In other words, skepticism about UFO aliens could encourage skepticism about other beliefs.
The credulous mind wants to believe in ETs, ghosts, Bigfoot, psychics, mediums, and fortune tellers. Such beliefs bring satisfaction that we do not live in a world governed by purely scientific principles. To the uneducated mind, a world without goblins, monsters, spirits, and demons seems cold, harsh, brutal, and without comfort.
There are, however, many shrewd people willing to take advantage of gullible people. John Edward is a con artist who uses an old magician's technique called “cold reading” to convince people that he is speaking with the dead. He starts by having his assistants mingle anonymously with the audience before the show in order to gather information. Edward then uses the information to throw out words. If the words attract the attention of someone in the audience, he uses the cold-hot approach. An affirmative or “warm” answer to a question leads to other questions likely to elicit warm responses. As the warmth of responses grows, Edward is able to sound like he has actually established connection with the dearly departed.
There are similar techniques used by clairvoyants. The Amazing Randi has exposed these hoaxes many times. Once, while he was in Russia, he showed a couple of Russian psychics a picture of a well-known handsome young American man and asked their opinion of the man. The psychics made a number of bland assertions about him, but did not identify the one essential fact about him that most Americans know. The man was Ted Bundy, the serial killer. When Randi told them who the man was, they claimed they had been tricked.
One characteristic of beliefs in aliens, demons, witches, seers, and monsters etc. is that even after they are exposed as hoaxes, people want to go on believing in them. No one has ever located the Loch Ness Monster, and one local man has admitted to faking the picture which was for so long used to claim its existence. Nevertheless, people go on believing that the monster bathes in the Loch. Similarly, even after some local farmers admitted to creating crop circles in England, people went on believing that the circles were created by UFO aliens!
What is this need to believe in the unbelievable? It stems from the same mental architecture that makes people want to believe in God. So we may ask why, if the structure of our minds leads to superstitious beliefs, doesn’t everyone share such beliefs? The answer, I surmise, is education. It is mental Ajax. Education is as useful for what it erases from as for what it adds to our knowledge. Education naturally leads to skepticism. As we learn more, we doubt more. Our parents tell us that there is a Santa Claus, but soon we learn that it is not true. We also learn that there is no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, no Superman, and no talking animals. We gradually give up the superstitions of youth. If we pursue education, we learn to doubt many other old-wives-tales. Eventually, we become skeptics who demand proof to support unreliable assertions. I am not sure that this is a good thing, but without education, we would be like primitive tribes in a demon haunted world.
According to anthropologists and cognitive scientists, our brains have evolved basic forms of thinking which enable them to believe in “counterintuitive agents.” Such agents explain or solve the inescapable problems of world, including morality and death. We may find the beliefs of primitive jungle tribes to be weird, but there is some similarity between their beliefs and ours. Many of the native people of remote areas live in a world that is permeated with spirits, especially the spirits of ancestors and witches. These spirits are not always benevolent. They fly about at night and cause or cure illnesses. They enter into and depart from the bodies of living people. They require propitiation and sacrifice. Scientists hold that belief in such spirits evolved in order to help early man deal with the dangers of predators, the requirements of hunting, and the perils of life.
We may think of ourselves as modern, rational, scientifically-minded people, but the structure of our minds enables us to imagine and even believe in a host of supernatural entities which are not so different from the spirits of primitive tribes. People who are very religious are more likely to believe that we are being observed by aliens from other worlds. Carl Sagan, in his book The Demon Haunted World, noted that Christian fundamentalists accept the existence of UFO aliens but attack them as demonic. According to Sagan, they do not use the blade of scientific skepticism to doubt the existence of the aliens because “that tool, once honed, might accomplish more than just a limited heresiotomy.” In other words, skepticism about UFO aliens could encourage skepticism about other beliefs.
The credulous mind wants to believe in ETs, ghosts, Bigfoot, psychics, mediums, and fortune tellers. Such beliefs bring satisfaction that we do not live in a world governed by purely scientific principles. To the uneducated mind, a world without goblins, monsters, spirits, and demons seems cold, harsh, brutal, and without comfort.
There are, however, many shrewd people willing to take advantage of gullible people. John Edward is a con artist who uses an old magician's technique called “cold reading” to convince people that he is speaking with the dead. He starts by having his assistants mingle anonymously with the audience before the show in order to gather information. Edward then uses the information to throw out words. If the words attract the attention of someone in the audience, he uses the cold-hot approach. An affirmative or “warm” answer to a question leads to other questions likely to elicit warm responses. As the warmth of responses grows, Edward is able to sound like he has actually established connection with the dearly departed.
There are similar techniques used by clairvoyants. The Amazing Randi has exposed these hoaxes many times. Once, while he was in Russia, he showed a couple of Russian psychics a picture of a well-known handsome young American man and asked their opinion of the man. The psychics made a number of bland assertions about him, but did not identify the one essential fact about him that most Americans know. The man was Ted Bundy, the serial killer. When Randi told them who the man was, they claimed they had been tricked.
One characteristic of beliefs in aliens, demons, witches, seers, and monsters etc. is that even after they are exposed as hoaxes, people want to go on believing in them. No one has ever located the Loch Ness Monster, and one local man has admitted to faking the picture which was for so long used to claim its existence. Nevertheless, people go on believing that the monster bathes in the Loch. Similarly, even after some local farmers admitted to creating crop circles in England, people went on believing that the circles were created by UFO aliens!
What is this need to believe in the unbelievable? It stems from the same mental architecture that makes people want to believe in God. So we may ask why, if the structure of our minds leads to superstitious beliefs, doesn’t everyone share such beliefs? The answer, I surmise, is education. It is mental Ajax. Education is as useful for what it erases from as for what it adds to our knowledge. Education naturally leads to skepticism. As we learn more, we doubt more. Our parents tell us that there is a Santa Claus, but soon we learn that it is not true. We also learn that there is no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, no Superman, and no talking animals. We gradually give up the superstitions of youth. If we pursue education, we learn to doubt many other old-wives-tales. Eventually, we become skeptics who demand proof to support unreliable assertions. I am not sure that this is a good thing, but without education, we would be like primitive tribes in a demon haunted world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
