Abstract: the Blog so far

Here's an abstract of what you will find in this blog. I'll try to update it with each new post. The latest (at the bottom of this page) is Nov. 8, 2020.

In progress: the story of how our "court system" facilitated the theft of the home I built from a kit in Chester County, PA and lived in for 35 years, how it almost dissolved our marriage and still keeps us (physically) separated, and how I expect to eventually recover the value of the house (and then some).

May '19— Intro: "I was right. Everything I knew was wrong." Covers the primary reason I revived the blog, "a scam of historic and global scale, affecting everyone on the planet," a brief description of same, and how the scam will be ended. As an example, a presentation of the documents I filed (in both text and image formats), declaring my actual political status (and probably, yours): "American State National" (not "US Citizen," a status actually held by less than 20% of us). There is now a single form available which can replace all these documents going forward.

July '19: "Hello, Reddit (and Team Human)." My inspiration for this blog's title, and a very-condensed and oversimplified list of 8 things I was once convinced, or assumed, were correct. (Oy, was I wrong.)

Oct. '19: "My recent court appearance, and what it means for you." Stopped (for a legal but minor reason, "changing lanes without signalling"), by a township patrolman, I was issued a ticket: $180. The officer told me the judge might show lenience if I went to court, and only owe court costs of about $30. I thanked him for the "tip," and took it. The full post reveals how the case was dismissed (without a trial), owing $0. I believe the reason for that result can be found in the first (May'19) post. This should work for you, if you file the paperwork and assert your rights, unless your court case involves actual harm to another living being. 

Dec. '19: "Anna, Steele and Trump (Part 1)." Three current actors on the stage of life, and how I regard them. It seems clay will be found when examining the feet of mortals, whether they present as heroes or villains. (Part 2 was posted on 2/22/20.) See also the first July 3 '20 post.

Feb. 18, 2020: "My Cancer, Part 1." Parts 2 and 3 were posted on Feb. 23 and March 5, followed by "...where did it come from? How about yours?" This last part is the one most important for the general reader worried about their own health. Here, I suggest (although based on a group study of one) that the general US population is at risk of non-Hodgkins lymphoma from 50 years of cumulative environmental contamination by Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

July 3: "Do you believe the Earth is flat? (Here's why I don't.)" A reasoned rebuttal to "flat earth theory," presented only because of the phenomena of otherwise-sane, intelligent and even admirable people who have fallen prey to this error, written without the expectation of changing anyone's mind. As Sam Clemens once wrote, “you can’t reason someone out of a belief that they weren’t reasoned into.”

Sept. 28: "Einstein and GPS: Relativity in our everyday lives." At last, something non-controversial (except to the diehard Newtonians).

Oct. 9: "Not everything I knew was wrong." In four bullet points, with commentary.

Also Oct. 9: "Politics? What politics?" Why I find that most of what's written about, and thought of as, "politics" is as relevant to our daily lives, and the future of our country, as discussions about the bad behavior and intrigues among the characters in Soap Operas. Theatre is not reality. Follow the money, and watch the puppeteers, not the puppets.

Nov. 2: "Finding the truth (in an election year)." An extension of the post above, but more current.

Nov. 6: "On growing old, growing up and being "State-Farmed." Something completely different: on aging, road safety, technology, "freedom" vs. control, testosterone, common sense, Nixon (!),  Barbara Walters, and Star Trek.

Nov. 8: "On ADD, OSA, and the current state of American medicine." Two widespread medical conditions which share identical symptoms—and might be largely one and the same. Seeking how best to spread the word, so others don't suffer. Suggestions are solicited on how to get this message to a wider audience.

 

On ADD, OSA, and the current state of American medicine

I recently shared some of my personal medical history here (see the “My cancer” series), not because my case is special or more important than that of anyone else, but because it could benefit millions of others. Here’s another, earlier personal-health story I’ve shared widely, for the same reason (and especially when my audience includes medical and educational professionals). It concerns two diagnoses, the first of which was made when I was 42, after my wife Debbie heard a show on our local NPR station (WHYY, Philadelphia), an episode of Dr. Dan Gottlieb’s “Voices in the Family,” about children and adults diagnosed with “Attention-Deficit Disorder,” and its hyperactive cousin, ADHD. She said to herself, “Hmmm...they could be talking about my husband.” I was persuaded to get a diagnosis, done at the VA hospital in Coatesville, PA.

Like most maladies which present in the behavioral sphere, the diagnoses are based on collections of symptoms rather than any physical problems, although there are potential physical problems which must be ruled out in the process of diagnosis. The VA was thorough in ruling out any such problems (except for one: that was to be the second diagnosis, two decades later).

I took the usual medicines for ADD (Ritalin, and Prozac for the depression which usually dogs those with ADD), for 20 years, before I got a second diagnosis, again spurred by Debbie, who complained about my snoring. The VA tested me for OSA (Obstructive Sleep Apnea), and gave me a CPAP machine (an acronym for Constant Positive Airway Pressure), with instructions to use it for a month and report back.

When the month was up, I decided to try stopping the ADD medication, to see what differences it might make to my cognition, behavior, and overall well-being. I could tell no differences, and never again took those medicines. Today, thirteen years later, I feel that I’m doing better than I have at any other time of my life.

At no time during my educational “career” was I diagnosed, or treated, for this or any other condition that might have caused my behavior and performance (or lack of it) in school. I must confess to my Swarthmore High School classmates that if I were to represent myself as a “graduate of SHS,” I would be exhibiting as much mendacity as "45," aka "Agent Orange," did when he called himself a “stable genius.”

I did progressively worse between 9th and 10th grades, and finally flunked eleventh grade, primarily from an inability to complete homework and reading assignments (from an inability to focus and concentrate). I repeated the eleventh grade, but failed a second time. I then spent part of the next year getting a GED from a now-defunct Philadelphia diploma mill, Lincoln Prep, after the rest of you graduated. I had the good fortune to have a father who owned a business (John Spencer, Inc., commercial printers in Chester, PA.) who provided me with gainful employment. I had already learned all the mechanical skills of the trade during the summers between the misery of going to school.

This “disorder” had a different name when I was at Swarthmore Elementary, “Minimal Brain Damage.” (A full timeline is at https://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/history.) Since then, a syndrome (collection of symptoms) has been labelled as ADD and/or ADHD. There are health professionals who have built careers on diagnosing, treating and providing talk therapy for those given this diagnosis. Many books have been written on ADHD-related topics, magazines founded, self-help groups established, and even tests devised to produce CT and PET scans to show physical differences between the brains of “normal” and afflicted individuals. 

These scans have been cited as proving the reality of the “disease” as a real physical phenomena, rather than a “mere collection of symptoms.” However, other studies have shown that behavioral change resulting from any cause, physical or not, will show up as brain changes in scans. Billions of dollars have been made by the pharmaceutical industry to treat the symptoms, with no one claiming a cure.

Meanwhile, medical specialists in pulmonary health have settled on a universal cure—the CPAP machine (although there are alternative approaches, usually involving surgery, to keep the airway open during sleep).

I was astonished to learn what few are aware of: the symptoms of ADD and OSA are virtually identical. What happens to those with untreated OSA? Each night, usually while sleeping on their backs, the musculature and tissues at the back of the throat totally relax, blocking off the airway. Breathing, and blood oxygenation, stops; CO2 builds up in the lungs, which triggers the autonomic system to release adrenalin—enough to make the person roll to one side and reopen the airway, but not enough to awaken the OSA victim. The two main consequences of this cycle, which can recur a hundred times per night or more, are the loss of enough quality sleep to restore normal brain function, where short-term memory is processed to sort wheat from chaff and establish long-term memories, while the subconscious can process experience into organized concepts essential for problem-solving. The other main consequence of OSA is the cumulative negative effects of perhaps a hundred surges per night of adrenalin. Those experiencing substantial OSA can get eight hours of sleep without the restorative benefits that “normal” people get, always feeling tired, falling asleep on their feet, unable to concentrate on tasks—in short, all the usual symptoms of ADD. Those with ADHD compensate by daytime adrenalin surges, with accompanying negative consequences.

Unfortunately, the medical professionals in each specialty are “siloed” and seldom recognize that they are each treating people with the same sets of symptoms. When I’ve had the opportunity to tell my story to these professionals, they’re almost always surprised to hear it. My strong belief is that many, if not most, people diagnosed with ADD/ADHD actually suffer from OSA. 

So far, my efforts to get the attention of these siloed professionals have fallen on deaf ears. Few studies have been done to determine the extent of this symptom-overlap and fewer still done to determine the extent of misdiagnosis. One reason for the opacity of the silos is the financial and psychological disincentives to even recognize the problem, let alone fix it. Few want to admit to an error on which their whole career has been based, or kill the golden goose of their profession, just as most politicians don’t support getting money out of politics.

Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, my high school class reunion was held via Zoom meetings, where I saw a presentation by a classmate, Bill Ryerson, who has made a career of advancing global human welfare, focusing on women’s rights and population control. His most successful venue to pursue these goals? Entertainment. If you watched any of “East Los High” on Hulu, a top-rated, award-winning show, you’ve seen the fruits of some of his best work. Please visit https://www.populationmedia.org/projects/east-los-high/ to see it (and the rest of the work of the organization he founded, the Population Media Center). 

I welcome any suggestions you may have, dear reader, on how to get my ADD/OSA story out to a wider audience. Professional groups (medical and educational) remain siloed. Hulu? TedX? A YouTube channel?

On growing old, growing up and being "State-Farmed."

The young tend to love the adrenalin rush of risk-taking, whether skydiving, bungee-jumping, schussbooming, or driving fast machines. I once ran a motorcycle flat-out, to "see its actual top speed," on an interstate in California (a mere 105; it was a 1976 2-speed Hondamatic 750). 

"We are young, wandering the face of the Earth, wondering what our dreams might be worth, learning that we're only immortal for a limited time..." (from the lyrics of Rush's Dreamline).

I remember when our then-President Nixon, responding to the "oil crisis," instituted a national speed limit of 55. Like most drivers, I ignored it when I thought I could get away with it. Over the years, that limit gradually got inflated by state regulations (on major highways), likely from popular demand.

When the Atlantic City Expressway was built, its posted limit was 70. Typical traffic flow was closer to 80. Now it's 65, and many drivers still cruise it at 80. 

My driving style has always been "typical American," mostly following the rules, but also setting my speed (when safe) by the general flow of traffic, typically 5-10 MPH over the posted limits. By contrast,, there was the "Cannonball Run," a real event later popularized by a Burt Reynolds movie. I have never been tempted to participate in such an event, but there are still those who are (and succumb to the temptation).

Recently, because I became a "ride-share driver" (both Uber and Lyft), I was forced to change my car insurance to a carrier offering a policy rider to cover the "gray area" (the time between accepting a ride and arriving at the pickup location). The driver's own (compulsory) insurance covers the "empty" time, and Uber/Lyft cover the time when a passenger is on board. I chose State Farm, which does have such a rider (my then-insurer, Progressive, does not).

Along with the new policy came a new device to stick on the windshield, next to my EZ-Pass gizmo. It comes with an App, "Drive Safe and Save (TM)," an electronic "Big Brother" that tracks you with GPS and communicates with your phone. Stay within their tolerance for automotive misfeasance, by never speeding, suddenly braking, accelerating or cornering too fast , and you earn a discount on your policy. Currently, it's $87.72 for the six-month billing period. Wow! That's almost $15 a month!

So far, I'm playing along, using my speed control, watching roadside limit-signs along with GPS-posted limits on my dash (which sometimes conflict). I've observed that most vehicles of al sorts whiz by at a good clip (as expected). Surprisingly, few tailgate me when I can't pull over for them or when they can't pass. I get where I'm going in about the same time as before, my driving is more relaxed, and my mileage has gone from around 19 to around 23. After a few months of being "State-Farmed," I've become well-adjusted to the new driving style. No paranoid glances in the rear-view mirror, no scanning ahead for the hiding places of state and local revenue-collectors, and no regrets. I'm actually grateful to State Farm for giving me an incentive to drive in a safer, more relaxing and more economical manner. 

To those (like the "anti-maskers") who might tell me that I am "giving up freedoms," I would just say, "grow up." Consideration of the safety of others (and perhaps saving lives) is always a good idea; getting "paid" to do so is a bonus. Driving within these parameters is definitely safer, and the requirement to avoid "too-rapid" braking forces me to do what I was already doing: avoiding the common, and by far the most dangerous, habit of far too many drivers: following too closely. The rule I learned in high school is still an excellent rule of thumb: maintain one car length behind the car ahead of you for each 10 MPH of your speed. Anything less, and you run the risk of back-ending that car if they stop quickly. I too often see accidents waiting to happen when a car going 65 or more is only one car length away from the next car. The laws of physics (and reaction time) guarantee a wreck in the case of sudden braking by that car. There have been many "pile-ups" of cars involving 70-100 cars, without adverse weather involved.

Many new cars now come equipped with radar distance-sensors and automatic braking systems which could make this kind of disaster a thing of the past. By percentage, they add little to a car's cost and might even be paid for by reductions in insurance premiums. Statistics would show whether the technology or human drivers were better at accident-avoidance.

If I join Barbara Walters in living to 120 or so, I expect to see technology like self-driving cars and pilotless air taxis become commonplace, then made obsolete by vehicles which use gravity/inertial control, perhaps enabling retail space travel and making Star Trek technology as common as smartphones.

Finding the truth (in an election year)

This year in "American Politics" can only be understood by rational folks as what it actually is, political theater. Nothing is as it appears to be in our corporate media; a group of international conglomerates (now reduced from six to five) control 90% of what we see, hear and read. Many Americans are unaware of "Operation Mockingbird," a program of the OSS (now CIA) instituted to "support the war effort" in WWII and extended into "peacetime" (the "cold war" era). (Note: Wikipedia terms this program "alleged." Of course they do.) All five "news" conglomerates have their CIA handlers censoring or spinning news stories to protect "our National Security" (actually the security of our "permanent government," aka the "Deep State." The late George Herbert Walker Bush, who began his government career in the CIA before the killing of JFK, acknowledged this program, but sought to soft-pedal it by pointing out that the CIA handlers were no longer paid by the CIA, but by the media conglomerates themselves, as though that changed the nature of the control.

That was then (President #41), this is now (#45). According to 45, the only news that's not fake is his own tweets. Others differ; the current number of his lies, per day, as reported by that radical left-wing rag Forbes Magazine, is averaging at about 23.8 (since the onset of the Covid-19 "Chinese hoax"). The US has become the world champ in total number of Covid-19 cases and deaths. 45 is a recent victim (he's "fine," though), and continues his campaign to deny any responsibility for over 220,000 dead Americans, a number which is predicted to double by the end of the year.

Is there any objective means to separate facts from fiction, truth from lies? Of course. Problem: many self-interested groups and their agents spend inordinate amounts of money and time promoting self-serving fictions, and many Americans (and others) accept these fictions uncritically as truth, for reasons having no connection to reason and logic (while sometimes producing rationalizations of them as "cover"). 45 is a master of brazen emotional manipulations of his "base." What amazes me is reading such rationalizations (and acceptance of fiction as fact) echoed by otherwise-rational people I respect (when they are in their "normal," rational states). See this post, for example.

Today, I listened to an episode of an excellent podcast series ("Hidden Brain"), "The Logic of Rage," which examined the way the human brain can and does "switch gears" from the rational mode to an emotional mode, which is (to use a phrase from Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers) "unencumbered by the thought process." This mode short-circuits our otherwise-logical behavior into fight-or-flight mode, a mode made necessary in our evolutionary development to ensure our survival, but deadly for the long-term survival of any civilization. This podcast episode is a good example of how logic and reason can go out the window in circumstances such as we currently face.

Up until now (in this post), I have not mentioned the "new paradigm" under which I now operate, which requires an entirely new attitude towards, and view of, American elections as presently constituted. I covered this new paradigm here, so I won't repeat myself. The focus of this post is intended to be "how to determine the truth;" to be rigorous, one must first define "truth." Is it relative, subjective, absolute? Sometimes one, sometimes another? Do the dictates of (actual) National Security ever require that our employees in the civil service, elected officials, or even judges on the bench, lie to us as a matter of policy? Here is a mostly-excellent essay on the topic of truth in politics.

In summary: the worst decision you can make, in determining how you will vote, is to allow externalities (like the views and interests of the "tribes" to which we all belong), opinions of "thought leaders" in media, or anything but your own well-considered judgments, based on your own unbiased research, enlightened self-interest and the general welfare of our nation, determine your choice. Think for yourself, while also considering others. My choice was based on these factors, in the context of what can be accomplished by our body politic before November 3. My actions in the four years to follow will be focused on the new paradigm.

When looking at that new paradigm, bear in mind that the main author and advocate of that paradigm (Anna von Reitz, annavonreitz.com) is not infallible, and has posted many articles which are of questionable provenance and feature flawed logic or just plain incorrect information. That said, I judge the core of her program (the unfinished job of "post-Civil-War Reconstruction" of our actual government, as distinguished from the government-services corporations which the Founders established and which have since usurped that actual, sovereign government) to be sound and essential to complete—if you agree with me that self-government by We the People, each of whom enjoys the status of a sovereign-without-subjects, a status the Founders established when we rejected the foreign rule of King George III, is preferable to the defacto status we now suffer as a people controlled, through fraud and semantic deceit, by our employees, in a system of corporate feudalism. 

(I tried to write this last paragraph in rigorous prose for clarity, because the subject demands rigorous treatment. After all, I'm advocating a new paradigm here, and no common assumptions can be made. I wish to avoid any attempt to restate or condense the valid and essential information Anna has provided to support the New Paradigm; she has done a good job in this endeavor. However, reading over this last paragraph, it's neither accessible nor entertaining. Anna has, if anything, erred on the side of being very accessible in many of her posts; for example, this one. It's an accessible allegory of the process our government-services employees have used for over a century to rob us blind. Maybe I'll post a list of more of her posts of this nature, the gist of which I agree with. Anna has written in many formats and styles, for different audiences: the highbrow, the lowbrow, the religious, the agnostic, the thoughtful, the tribal ideologues, even specifically for Trump, who is unlikely to read much of anything. Perhaps she should commission a pretty, faux blonde Fox News anchor to produce special shows just for The Donald, to deliver appropriate parables. Sadly, expecting to influence 45's thought process, let alone his behavior, seems—to any rational observer—an exercise in futility.)

Determining "the truth" in our current pre-election environment is frustratingly complex. No single source of information can be trusted without rigorous examination. With 45 (or, adopting Greg Palast's appellation, "Agent Orange"), "truth" is whatever he says it is; anyone or anything disagreeing with his assertions is, by definition, "fake news." Unfortunately, "real news" is exceedingly difficult to discern. Operation Mockingbird is still very much with us, and is not under the control of the current administration. As noted above, our "mass media" is owned by only five multinational conglomerates, and the "news" divisions of these huge corporate enterprises have been neglected as their profitability pales beside their sister divisions in entertainment. In fact, "Fox News" is not even officially recognized by many nations (outside the US) as a "news organization;" it's considered to be either entertainment, government propaganda, or some combination of the two. Even a reporter for "The Gray Lady" (the NYT) was caught fabricating stories. So, when passengers on the "Trump Train"hear their hero decry "fake news," they could claim they had actual reasons to believe him (other than tribal loyalty), although they would be unlikely to look for actual reasons; their loyalty implies faith, but does not demand reason (or reasons).

If the "mainstream media" is unreliable as a source of truth and verifiable facts, where is there left to look? I recommend finding sources independent of that media, and checking them against each other. (Greg Palast, a real investigative reporter at a time when that category is nearly extinct, is a great example—and he's entertaining, as well.) Other examples: Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodward, Glenn Greenwald... a search for "contemporary investigative reporters" just now yielded these links: the UK-based, worldwide "Positive News" where you will find the London-based media organization The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Follow these links to Forensic News, Global Witness, The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, The Intercept, Tomgram, and Fighting back against fake news: meet the factcheckers. Also of note, from Northeastern University, in Boston, MA, this article on journalism. Try your own search and see what you find. (Unfortunately, you may find pyrite along with the gold, like "Snopes," a site which reliably "debunks" any source not approved by the corporate and government establishments. Buyer beware.)

These are extraordinary times. Today is Nov.2, 2020, and tomorrow national elections are held. As of last May, according to Forbes, the incumbent President has averaged over twenty lies per day. That number now stands at 50, according to an October 22nd Washington Post article: "As President Trump entered the final stretch of the election season, he began making more than 50 false or misleading claims a day. It’s only gotten worse — so much so that the Fact Checker team cannot keep up."

In light of these numbers, it seems unwise to take any White House statements at face value. Trump has endlessly repeated unsubstantiated or false statements about "election fraud" in an apparent attempt to invalidate the results if he loses. Voting by mail has long been a tradition in many states, the only means in some states; a trend that's been accelerated by the pandemic crisis. (New Jersey last month sent every registered voter a mail-in ballot.) Over half of all votes may have already been cast through early voting and mail-in ballots; "conservative" Breitbart reports, "A majority of Joe Biden (D) supporters say they have already cast their ballots, while just a quarter of President Trump supporters have done the same, a Change Research/CNBC Poll released this week found."

The Trump team saw this trend coming, and recognized it as a threat. As the demographics of mail-in voters tend to favor Democrats, efforts to sabotage mail-in voting have included crippling the Post Office by removing sorting machines, prohibiting overtime, sending mail trucks out "on schedule" but empty, and more. On Greg Palast's site, you'll find a plethora of means by which Republicans have, for years, tipped the scales in their favor through fraudulent means, including purging voter rolls with "Operation Crosscheck" and making voting more difficult for the Democrat demographic, like limiting ballot drop boxes to one per county in states like Texas where counties are huge. With publicity about these issues, and courts striking down various vote-suppression schemes, the Trump Team is near panic as poll numbers run against them. For weeks, Trump has been claiming that voting must stop on election day and, if he is ahead, he must be declared the winner, setting up a rationale for claiming that if he's ahead on election day, and subsequent votes swing the count to Biden (as may happen, since early and mail-in ballots take longer to count), this will "prove" election fraud by Democrats. Only rabid Trump partisans are likely to believe this, and they've been urged to participate in "poll watching" while armed. Nothing good can come of this. 

I hope tomorrow's contest will be decided in the weeks to come, without violence. (The chance of the incumbent conceding tomorrow, if he loses, is small but not vanishingly so, if there's a landslide or a number of "battleground" states where the count is overwhelmingly for Biden.) However, "the truth about politics" can't be found by looking at the current contest. As I laid out in a previous post, that's a new paradigm, folks. Looking for the truth in politics by analyzing current political theater makes as much sense as trying to gauge reality by analyzing the actions of characters in a daytime soap opera. We will fix nothing by getting better writers for the opera: we need to recognize the nature of our reality and replace the current fantasy world with the new reality that we deserve. We start that recognition, and work to replace fantasy with that new reality, at The American States Assembly.