Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Why You Shouldn’t Have Voted In The 2016 US Presidential Election

Friday, September 15th, 2017

First of all, if you did vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because you thought they’d make a good president (no sense in even suggesting the word “great”) you ought to get your head examined.

The vast majority of Americans recognize there are huge problems facing the United States- from economics to health to the environment to the social services- which require significant reform beyond anything Washington politicians- left or right- have proposed for decades. Yet time after time, and election after election, this vast majority of Americans duly trudge to the polls to deliver their vote- not to the candidate they believe will solve any of the problems, but to the least offensive candidate available to vote for.

And if you are one of the majority of Americans who gave away your vote this way, then you basically have done nothing short of having given your nod of approval, once again, to the very system that you are grossly dissatisfied with.

Put another way, if you disagreed with 70% to80% of a contract, would you still go ahead and sign it anyway, and then expect the contract to end up working in your favor? If you would, you would be nothing short of a fool, which is just about where the American public is today in terms of expecting good things to come from bad political choices.

And both of these political candidates were bad political choices, for their own multitude of reasons which have already been exhaustibly exposed over the last nine months.

What those who are angry that Trump won the election haven’t yet figured out, is that his winning is actually a good thing for an American reform movement, if anyone is willing to get organized and start a real third party organization- permanently housed outside Washington and working to force reform from the outside onto the inside Washington establishment, left or right.

Trump’s win exposed the long overdue, publicly unacknowledged, fact that the U.S. Democratic party is no longer capable of working for the best interests of the American public, and subsequently requires reform from outside the present two party system, which requires real change, and not just another band aid solution like voting for the lesser of two evils.

Currently the public wants and expects change without changing the system, which makes about as much sense as wanting to move forward without lifting up your back foot.

Four or five months ago, those who wanted real reform were rejecting Hillary Clinton, for all the right reasons. While now, in a panic mode, they are doing the same kind of reversal that Bernie Sanders did at the Democratic National Convention, which rings as untrue now as it did back then.

At this point in America’s political evolution it is obviously patently absurd to believe that any one man or woman is going to have all the answers for all the problems facing the nation.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some good suggestions out there being offered up from some individuals, but no one has the capacity to understand the increasing complexity of all the problems facing the nation. And to expect that of them is only to expect failure, which will only lead to apathy and cynicism and perpetuate a pathetic cycle of hoping that the next (nonexistent) “hero” to come along from the opposite side of the political fence (or the same side of the political fence) will this time have all the right answers, and will this time be able to deliver America from its problems and into some magical Disneyland future of bliss and prosperity.

It’s never going happen that way. All that does happen, and will continue to happen, is that the current problems will continue to be dug deeper and deeper, with the same old responses and the same old inept status quo solutions delivered from the same old intractable thinking from the same old status quo thinkers in Washington, who only got to Washington by thinking like those preexisting them in Washington who created the problematic policies in the first place.

Changing the system to allow PUBLIC VOTING on public policy issues

The solutions to America’s serious problems are not going to come from presidential candidate sound bites, but from sound ideas and plans for real reform where they are needed.

And those kinds of real plans and reforms should be voted on in public forums by the public- and not by a few representatives in Washington who allegedly “speak accurately” for millions of their constituents in their respective states, simply because that’s just how the American system works. Implying the American system is basically sound and infallible, despite not having been significantly altered for over 200 years, when it is not.

The American system has good points and bad points, like any system. But to ignore the bad points for fear of destroying the American system altogether is about as ignorant thinking as you can get. Or as the FDR quote that everyone loves to quote, but precious few apparently understand, the only fear you have to fear is fear itself.

Fear of reform- to fix a now thoroughly corrupted U.S. system- is fear of fear itself.

And one thing is certain in all of this. If you don’t significantly alter the significantly flawed aspects of the current, and no longer valid, American system, the problems facing the public are only going to get worse- from the economic, to the health, to the environmental, to the social. That is a certainty.

What the public should vote on are not personalities pledging to work on their behalf, but on the serious issues and policies themselves that are facing the nation. And vote on these issues, directly, at least twice a year.


This could easily be accomplished by having open forums of discussion several weeks before a vote on a proposed policy- and forums not controlled and slanted by the liberal media, or by any political party. But open forums discussing the pros and cons of an issue so that both sides of an issue can be fairly presented to the public- just like they do in a courtroom.

Since everyone in positions of power in American loves to remind everyone in this country that this is a country based on laws. Good and fine. So let’s finally let the public in on the rule of law theory, and vote on the issues. Just like they do in a court room, and just like the Constitution intended them to- directly.

Then after a period of a few weeks of discussing the pros and cons of an issue, over the course of the next week or ten days afterwards, the public should be allowed to go to a computer, at home or at a public library, enter their social security number into a protected government polling website and register their vote on the issue. That means any and every U.S. citizen who wants to, will have a real vote on the issues that matter. Not a secondhand vote delivered by them by their state representative who is allegedly speaking the accurate opinion of millions of their constituents’ votes.

This would finally deliver the power back into the hands of the public. And that is exactly the kind of power those in power don’t want in the hands of the public. Not because the outcome would be bad- the outcome would finally represent the true votes of the public- but because in doing so it would diminish the power held by the politicians who do not accurately speak for the public, yet whose votes they desperately seek for continual reelection.

Issues that the public should be able to take direct votes on should include policy issues like: removing globalism and NAFTA and reinstating the priority of rebuilding America’s economy first, from within the country- before allegedly going out to “save” the rest of the world’s.

Issues like having a livable minimum wage. While also proposing creative options that no one is Washington has raised- like enforcing a minimum livable wage for corporations and their franchises, but waiving (or lowering) this elevated minimum wage for small independent businesses to take off pressure from immediate costs and to fuel their competitive edge against larger, established businesses, but requiring, instead, profit sharing options for small business employees to offset the lower base wages earned in comparison to corporate employees.

Issues like having the option to personally have, or not have, medical insurance as an adult- from birth (and through pregnancy) and through 21 or 25 it should be government paid for and free, and from 65 on it should also be government paid for and free, as it is through Medicare- and not be forced into having health insurance to subsidize a corrupted federal regulatory system that covers for the hazards of industry products, and all but guarantees the increasing sickness of the public, and the increasing profits of the healthcare industry, at the expense of the public. As well as being penalized for actually staying healthy, by having no opportunity for real rebates for staying healthy, and only being left with options to access the healthcare system and increase healthcare costs. If people really wanted to reduce healthcare costs, they would start focusing not on the costs of healthcare services, but on the costs saved by preventing illnesses, and regulating the industry products that are causing them, like the cell phone and pharmaceutical industries.

Issues like stopping the planned removal of landline phones by the FCC and forcing everyone to use cell phones, which will drive Alzheimer’s and brain tumors and all other brain disorders to even higher abnormal rates than they already are today. Or stopping and reversing the installment of extremely powerful and hazardous 5G (gigahertz) microwave emissions antenna networks that will likewise lead to even more cancer development among a public that is already suffering under completely abnormal cancer rates associated with already saturated levels of hazardous allowed abnormal manmade EMR emissions from cell phones, computers and wireless devices.

Issues like voting to repeal the 2nd Amendment, or severely limit it, which is no longer valid since we don’t need guns to protect ourselves against the invading British anymore. And that maybe it’s time for Americans to grow up and stop playing with guns, and video games promoting guns, and start doing what responsible adults are designed to do and improve the environment in which they live and not just live to entertain themselves. And those who think that if Americans lose the right to “bear arms” America will turn into a police state, they might want to take a closer look at all the other so-called “police states” around the world that are apparently under siege because of gun bans, such as in: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and on and on.

Issues like voting to remove all political and corporate influences in the U.S. health and environmental regulatory agencies- like the FDA and the EPA, and including the FCC which controls the levels of microwave EMR emissions from all wireless sources, which are probably responsible for the majority of serious diseases and fetal abnormalities now occurring in the population- and allowing only the scientific and medical communities to vote in regulators among their own members to lead these critically important regulatory positions. With these potential regulators being additionally vetted by a special appointed Congressional investigating committee to guard against potential political and/or corporate conflicts of interests, and with seats set aside for public representatives to insure as complete transparency as possible.

And “revolutionary” issues like removing the power to choose Supreme Court Justices from one man or woman, the President, and confirmed by majority vote of 100 Senators – or by roughly 0.000033% of the current American public- and placing the determination of those critical positions, which will impact the society for potentially decades afterwards, into the hands of the public through public voting. Where it should be, and which would also remove the excuse of voting for an incompetent candidate just so you can secure the election of Supreme Court Justices- whose lifetime appointments should also be reevaluated for logic and practicality for the best interests of the current American public, regardless if this was originally set up this way in the Constitution, 200-plus years ago.

And to accomplish these kinds of real reforms of the American system, which politicians, corporations, the media, and all the others who are benefiting from the current corruptive practices of the present status quo system don’t want, Americans are going to have to organize outside the Washington establishment.

ORGANIZING OUTSIDE WASHINGTON to change policies inside Washington

And the first step is to organize into a national American Reform Movement, similar to that created by Bernie Sanders in his run for the Presidency.

A simple initial plan would be for the public to give around $30 a year for a permanent organization working outside Washington, designed to work to achieve reforms for the public good. A large umbrella group which would incorporate already existing independently set-up smaller organizations that have already been working towards these populist goals- with the independent groups keeping their independence, just joining a larger umbrella group to consolidate their power to change the system at the regulatory level, where it is most urgent.

The current U.S. population is around 300 million, with at least 200 million adults. If the public could tap into only 5% of that population that would be about 10 million members, each donating $30 a year would give such an organization an annual budget of around $300 million, which could be productively spent in a variety of ways.

Part of that money could be spent for funding uncompromised scientific research on the safety of current industry products and practices, not bankrolled, as it currently is, by either U.S. industries or a corporate compromised federal health agency doling out research money to sustain status quo research to protect industry products.

Part could be invested into establishing a likewise, independent, scientific journal in which to publish uncompromised scientific research.

Part could be invested in hiring lawyers to sue against the fraud and corruption that is putting the public’s health at risk from products and environmental abuses.

Part could be invested in extremely needed public service ads on television and radio or on billboards to counteract the endless brainwashing of ads by billion-dollar corporate budgets promoting hazardous products every quarter hour of every day.

Part could be invested in a public awareness website posting stories written by writers connecting the non-corporate controlled scientific research, or other more complex policy issues, to the layperson’s non-scientific, or non-economic, or non-legal slanted mind.

And part could be invested in organizing pubic events or protests to push for the reforms needed- such as issuing sorely needed pubic voting on public policy issues.

While the American system may have worked, in theory, 200 years ago, with a population of three million spread across 13 relatively homogeneous states hugging the eastern seaboard, 200 years later, with a population of over 300 million spread across the entire country, the system of representation created by the founders of the U.S. Constitution is no longer representative of the average American in any state of the Union. And therefore has to be changed to represent the average American- of the people, by the people- in any state of the Union.

THE PUBLIC CAN DETERMINE ITS FUTURE, or allow it to be continued to be determined by the present system

From this point forward, the Presidency should be increasingly relegated to a figurehead position. With the President being involved mainly in diplomatic problems both here and abroad, which will actually serve whoever wants to be President in this modern day and age very nicely, since all they really seem to relish is the power and prestige of the position of the presidency over taking on the job to actually work for the best interests of the American public.

While the business of solving the nation’s problems has to finally be given over to the public, whose problems they really are. And that also means that the ways and means of solving the nation’s problems has to also change, to once again- or for the very first time ever- actually engage Americans directly, and give them an adult sense of purpose in life, beyond that of just being used as consumers to increase corporate profits, for the left or the right.

Do You Believe Research Findings Even When Reported About Wine?

Friday, September 15th, 2017

When you read about the results of a new study or research project, do you take it as a proven fact that is indisputable? Or, do you take it in with some degree of skepticism. Because I am interested in wine I enjoy reading research about benefits of wine. But, now I realize not all research is created equal; there seems to be ulterior motives to consumer oriented research. Based upon peoples experiences they are most likely to assess or be judgmental about research findings in areas in which they have some knowledge. Often, findings from research find their way into product claims-will reduce wrinkles, improve your joints, etc. The most ubiquitous industry for making claims is in personal care/cosmetics. Claims that can be subjective and/or are based on superficial studies, are most common.

It is hard to pick up a paper or view the results of some study reported on TV without seeing proclamations of some profound study findings; some new, others negative and some offer hope for a better product. The questions that begs asking therefore: Is all research and reported findings to be taken as fact? Are there biases in research? Is all research based upon scientific protocol? To add perspective to these questions we need to recognize that every interest group uses research/studies/findings/hypothetical results to promote an agenda or cause. This is true in politics, government, healthcare, conservation, environmental, farming, business-where there is something to be gained there will be a study launched with results to justify something.

Obviously, a research or study project has the result of proving or disproving something-beneficial or not. It is important to note, not all research is scientific.

I do not want to belabor the point that not all research findings are information you want to base your life on or that are intrinsically harmful; sometimes findings are just fun to read about as entertainment. Let me give some examples. Many years ago, I decided to get into the anti-aging products business, I established some product concepts and objectives as to how these products were to help consumers. I started out looking at ingredients that were advertised in the trades as accomplishing some of the objectives for each product. I wanted to see the research on these ingredients. That was when I discovered the research was all conducted by the companies selling the ingredient. Bottom-line, the research was not indisputable and none were independently controlled studies. Product benefits, whether vitamins or personal care, have findings that are not solid.

How often have we made a lifestyle change based on lifestyle oriented research initiated by a group with an unreported agenda? For example, 20 years ago there was a great deal of information in the media from medical groups that said consumers should not drink more than 2 cups of coffee per day. Now doctors are saying coffee is a great anti-oxidant and consumers should drink all the coffee they want, if for no other reason than it has health benefits. What changed?

Another quick example, after drinking orange juice daily, doctors are now telling adults to cut down on orange juice consumption because it can cause increases in diabetes.

Also, consumers have been told to change oil in automobiles every 3,000 miles. Now, due to improvements in oil additives, some in the conservation community says we should only change oil every 5,000 miles; all based upon research findings. Whose research, I ask?

So, why are most published research findings false? This is a question, presented and answered by John P. A. Ioannidis of Stanford University. Here are his explanations.

· Small test field. Conversely, larger test samples are more expensive.

· Relationships within a group doing the research.

· Too much flexibility in designing and defining test/research/studies.

· When there are financial and personal biases involved in sponsoring or directing a study.

· If there are too many teams taking individual components of a study.

· Lack of confirmation of studies.

“It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false,”, says Dr. Ioannidis in PLOS, a Peer-Reviewed Journal.

This discussion about research/findings has been interesting to me because I write a lot about wine and the enjoyment of wine. I also like the history of wine and what makes wine-well, wine! And yes, there is also a close relationship of wine to its effect on our bodies. And, as of late, there seems to be a lot of information or findings about the health benefits of wine; occasionally we see negative findings also. Now, the question that begs an answer: What do we believe, if anything about the benefits of wine?

Here are some published claims about wine consumption to think about.


On May 3, 2017, there was an article published about university researchers in Australia and from Harvard University. They talk about the benefits of an anti-oxidant compound found in wine that has anti-aging properties. The article proclaims, researchers have defined an already known naturally occurring compound in the body that can speed DNA repair which, in effect, is about anti-aging and combating disease.

The compound known as NAD+, plays a key role in regulating protein interactions that control DNA repair. There have been articles about NAD+ for about 15 years but connecting it to wine is recent. But the compound is also critical in the winemaking fermentation process. Further, as we age, our body produces less and less of NAD+ and anything that boost that compound is desirable. (NAD+ is found also in resveratrol-an anti-oxidant.)

So, can we assume we should drink more wine? Is this a good example of, more is better? Probably not but this is more supposed research to prove wine is good. Even if this is flawed research I like it.

Brain Stimulation

Research by a Professor Shepherd believes (not proven, but researched) that flavors, color and aromas of wine stimulate activity in the brain. This in turn influences a wine drinkers emotional state too.

According to Professor Shepherd, “there is evidence that drinking wine engages more of the brain than enjoying music or even solving a challenging math equation.” Now that is some sound research as far as I am concerned!

Cognitive Impairment

According to published findings in Frontiers in Nutrition maybe (maybe? -how’s that for sound research) some of the compounds found in red wine could have a protective effect on the brain? “A team of researchers at the Institute of Food Science Research in Madrid, Spain, have studied the process by which compounds in red wine have an anti-aging effect on the brain.” Note this only says they researched this phenomenon.

The antioxidants in red wine, can be beneficial in delaying the onset of cognitive impairments in aging and neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, researchers report.

Here again resveratrol could help prevent age-related memory loss.

Again, the quality of the research does not mean a statement of fact.

Reduces Arterial Stiffness

On May 8, 2017, Jack Woodfield reported on new research findings that “Red wine compound could reduce arterial stiffness in type 2 diabetes.” Here is another example of findings coming into the public domain that is not based on fact, but the consumer wants to believe the reporting as fact.

Stiff arteries cause the heart to work harder and stiff arteries is a result of diabetes. The article goes on to report that researchers from Boston University has found that resveratrol could reverse stiff arteries. Mind you, this is not fact, but information researchers are dispensing unrelated to sound research.

This research also touches on the research involving NAD+, where resveratrol (containing NAD+) “helps delay aging and development of certain diseases. This effect occurred once resveratrol activated a gene called SIRT1 (which is activated in the body by the NAD+ compound),” according to Dr. Hamburg, M.D.

The article does conclude that more research needs to be conducted. Again, do wine consumers look at “feel-good” type results to justify wine consumption.

Breast Cancer

This is a subject that shows the difference of opinion. I use the word opinion because, like the pointed established earlier, research is more often flawed and is very much influenced by many factors that do not relate to science.

As reported in in 2008, Dr. Edward Geehr reports the following. “Lately, you may have heard a lot about the benefits of moderate amounts of wine. It’s true that a daily glass of wine may reduce heart attack risk. But that protection doesn’t extend to breast cancer; risk increases with more than one drink a day.” Am I the only one who wants to understand where the one glass a day for women and 2 glasses of wine per day for men is the break-point for safe consumption? has a slightly different view on wine consumption relative to breast cancer. Moderate consumption of red wine is believed to lower the risk of breast cancer. However, drinking more than 1 or 2 alcoholic drinks per day appears to increase the risk of breast cancer in women, so moderation is key.

Prostate Cancer

For men, reports that four or more glasses of red wine per week has been shown to reduce men’s overall risk of prostate cancer by 50% and the risk of the most aggressive forms of prostate cancer by 60%. Again, no source of such research is given, but we are willing to accept it because we see it in print.

The consumer is left to extrapolate how to react to the “reported findings”.

The value of drinking wine is in the eye of the beholder. Ask yourself:

· Is there enjoyment in consuming wine?

· Have I explored the risks?

· What are the benefits and how honest and fact based are the reported benefits?

· What for me is excess consumption?

Most research done on wine and wine related compounds that relate to healthful benefits was done by Dr. Jack Masquelier in France. He conducted research on the anti-oxidants in grapes and grape seeds. Most of his work has been substantiated on the impact of wine anti-oxidants over 60 years of research and peer reviews and replicated research. He conducted this research in the 1940′s and died in 2009. The two major benefits of wine and wine related products that his research has proven scientifically is to improve heart and vascular health. Together with the now famous “red wine” Professor Renaud, Masquelier provided great scientific contributions to understanding of the health benefits of red wine.

I wanted to present a summary of the benefits of wine. In this world of “fake news” there is also “fake research/findings”, it is best to employee a degree of skepticism.

My advice is that wine is not a medicine or at best it “could” be a health food. Cheers!