Get notified of each new entry in mt_space, click "Sign up" to be notified via the Bloglines service. You will have to download something and install it. Then new posts will appear in it as they are published.To search topics in this blog use "Search Blog" box at upper left of page
While not intending to disparage veterans, it's hard to honestly thank them for their "service." We've had a volunteer army for many decades now so they know what they're getting into. It's more important to remember that our soldiers haven't really "defended" us from anything in a long, long time. Most of the lives and bodies expended since Vietnam have been in the service of politics, in undeclared wars of occupation in sovereign nations far from our shores.
PS: I do thank them for being willing to defend with their lives in the case of any actual attack.
Comments (0) |
Links to this post |
EMAIL THIS POST=>
My response to LATimes article on spiritual healing and legislation
-Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Thanks for your article "Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments." As a former Christian Science practitioner ("healer") for over 30 years I can vouch for the statements from the critics to which you refer:
But critics say the measure could have a broader effect, conferring new status and medical legitimacy on practices that lie outside the realm of science.
There is no true "spiritual healing." Most of what passes for it are anecdotes where there is no objective diagnosis or controlled testing, from people whose main problems are psychosomatic. Herbert Benson, MD and others have shown that a "relaxation response" accounts for the relief from such problems.
Toward the end of my involvement with Christian Science, and becoming suspicious of the claims I had been taught, I carefully observed if my prayer or lack of it made a difference in my patients. It didn't. People who believe in spiritual healing, and Christian Scientists in particular, are quite defensive about challenges to their faith in this approach to health care and eagerly strive to provide "evidence" for its efficacy. It's also why the Christian Science church in Boston has a large department of people who do nothing but lobby around the world for the kinds of accommodations being advocated in the present health care legislation.
I agree with Dr. Norman Frost, quoted in your article, that more resources need to be devoted to "evidence-based medical practices" and less to long-disproved, and dangerous, systems.
Dan Brown is no William Gibson. He's obviously writing a movie treatment - you can see the shot setups, the key dialogue bits, etc. His language is pedestrian and utilitarian, and strains when it attempts to be dramatic or deep.
Thematically, the book is a kind of cross between “What the Bleep” and “The DaVinci code.” It launches from the kinky field of “noetics,” a pseudo-science that attempts to give verification to the power of the human mind to alter the physical world. It drapes itself in the mantle of human progress, when all the world will be united in benevolence because of the universal power for good that each person can possess. This is, of course, pure BS, though as a former believer I can attest to the attraction of this hypothesis. Brown is playing to the significant segment of the population that disappointingly believes in mystical dimensions. He also pimps the Masons.
The book starts up slowly but eventually gets interesting as the plot action unfolds. Chases, encounters with the villain and various CIA characters, and some historical info provide a modicum of interest, though there is not much that’s surprising in any of this. We know that Robert Langdon, as the central and continuing character of Brown’s previous and certainly future books, will not really die, even though he is encased in a box that fills with water, which he eventually involuntarily inhales (i.e. he drowns). The explanation for his survival depends on the doctrines of noetics, i.e. he doesn’t really die since his soul can exit and enter his body at will. Kinda.
There are puzzles everywhere, but they are ultimately simplistic and subservient to moving the “spiritual” plot along. They are also predictable, if you’re interested in that sort of thing. For example, it’s not hard to guess that the final chapter will be #133 (although an “epilogue” will cue the triumphant big orchestral strains of a glorious new world a-dawning). Even the villain’s true identity is easily guessed - or at least comes as no surprise when it’s revealed. There’s plenty of deus ex machina action.
Brown’s motive for writing this book is also obvious - he has to provide another treatment for a movie that will make much more money than a mere book. My advice is to skip this potboiler and wait for that movie and the more interesting talents of Mr. Hanks and the producers.
Sam Harris worked on a study using fMRI that sought to compare the brain's behavior when it considered two kinds of topics: god and "tables and chairs." In other words, intangible vs. tangible objects. What the study found is that belief in god was functionally the same as NOT believing in god. Both were identified as "facts" by the person being studied. However, either experience was not considered by the brain as being as solid as the "facts" of physical objets. A different part of the brain is engaged when considering "tables and chairs" and the like. The conclusion is that there is room for some degree of doubt about abstract things. So a believer may reserve just a teeny bit of doubt about the existence of god, and the atheist may have a slight suspicion that god exists.
I have been trying to get in touch with the authors of this study to ask a question that pertains to my experience: what is going on when someone turns into an atheist after having been a believer? And vice-versa. What happens when a "fact" becomes seen as an error - and vice-versa. Maybe I'll find a way to ask.
I still feel the religious "twitch" even though I now am so convinced that theology is the study of fantasy, not of anything real. I suppose one doesn't unlearn twitches that were 60+ years in the making. According to Gladwell, I have way more than 100000 hours of repetition of religious concepts, beliefs and practices. And it is the one "skill" I wish I didn't have. I wonder what I might be now if I had put in even half that time into musical study. Maybe just another burnt out junkie. But maybe not.
A relative who works in the health insurance industry confirms that people in a group plan are not subject to the same vulnerabilities as those with individual policies. This means that the health insurance debate is not only about the 46 million Americans who have no health insurance at all, but also those who do have individual policies and therefore can be dropped, excluded for pre-existing conditions or have their rates hiked to the skies. So, granted that most people are covered by group plans, that sill leaves a significant portion of the population at great risk for dying or being bankrupted by a health problem.
That's why it's really a moral issue. Should anyone be allowed to die or be financially devastated just because they get sick? America is the only country in the world where this can happen. Even those of us who are covered by group plans, including Medicare and Medicaid, should not rest easy. We have a moral responsibility to care for the population as a whole. That's the idea behind insurance - those who don't need it are paying for those who do need it.
We have an outrageously costly military because it's deemed important that we protect everybody from any possible enemy. We may not need it at any given moment but we pay for it anyway - just in case. Disease and injury are universal and present enemies. We need to design - re-design - our systems to extend that care to everyone. And we could probably pay for it by diverting some of our tax money away from the military - a few planes ships or missiles should do it - in addition to eliminating waste.
