Socialism or not, we have a problem

I just watched a film about Stanislaw Burzynski's experimental cancer treatments that have been attacked by the government and privately sponsored Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The attacks began as a reasonable accusation that Burzynski's antineoplastons were not thoroughly examined in clinical trials and should not be administered as a safe and ethical treatment. It wasn't long before the treatments were returning phenomenal results and blowing radiation and chemotherapy procedures out of the water in terms of reducing, even curing cancer symptoms, as well as being non-harmful and non-toxic. (As far as the film would tell, Burzynski's treatment did not have any of the extreme side effects of modern medicine's most common therapies, the majority of which can cause leukemia.)

Antineoplastons, basically, are the results of an extraction process of a particular body that appears in the blood and urine of healthy (non-cancerous) people. This body does not appear in the blood and urine of cancer patients, so it is odd that the connection here was not made sooner. Regardless, Burzynski logically began experiments to transfer this peptide from healthy donors to his patients.

Remarkably, case after case of his patients' cancer began to resolve within two years.

Now, let's consider for a moment the incredibly large sum of money that is funneled into cancer research benefits and institutions. According to the film, these organizations' profits almost triple those of all Fortune 500 companies. Would you doubt that the government has a lot to do with these organizations? "Follow the money," as they say...

After Burzynski's in-house trials started producing miraculous results, the state of Texas (the local law that had jurisdiction) began putting on the pressure. Unsurprisingly, their motive was not clear. Complaint after complaint could not prove that Burzynski's treatments were harmful or that they were ineffective. More importantly, they could not dispute that in manufacturing and distributing antineoplastons in his own facility and to his own patients, he was not breaking any laws. Eventually Dr. Burzynski was indicted (for what, I'm still not sure) and his case was brought to the federal level. His opponents (national cancer research institutions and our very own FDA) began a smear campaign wherein they would encourage past patients of Burzynski to file claims against him. Perhaps to their surprise, many of these patients and their families appeared in court, not to slander the doctor, but to testify that his non-toxic therapy had saved their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

Eventually, after spending millions of tax payer dollars in legal battles against Burzynski, the FDA approved Phase-II trials of the antineoplastons, but did their best to keep Burzynski mysteriously out of them. While a Japanese company was able to conclude that the drug was effective, our national tests proved inconclusive, but were published not too long after anyway. Burzynski was shocked to read the findings, as the levels of the drug used in his own trials far exceeded those in the peer-reviewed study. Astoundingly, the United States Government filed eleven patents for the drug that excluded Dr. Burzynski in ownership of its discovery and development, even after he had already gotten his own patent approved:

How could the U.S. Patent Office be corrupted to the point that they issue patents on medical therapies that have already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? ...All of this was being done by the same government agencies who were spending millions of tax payer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail so that he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery. 

-Julian Whitaker, M.D.

One of the biggest objectives of this film was obvious, and that is to give one pause and wonder. How can a business/corporation/entity as large as the United States government get away with so much and still leave people thinking that they have our best interests at heart in everything they do? I'm amazed at the lengths people (cough liberals cough) are willing to go to justify or defend the very people who rob them of their earnings and their rights simply by existing. The film Burzynski is only one striking example of the atrocities our government commits every day.

I'm a big fan of being non-partisan, but just like with racism and stereotypes, the offended party is often guilty by association. Criticism for the movie involves phrases like "conspiracy theory," and assumes that  Merola, the filmmaker, is accusing everyone of gulping down the Kool-Aid. I can almost guarantee that someone insists that the film is right-wing propaganda poorly strung together with low-budget animations and "clogged with...transcripts" (Jeanette Catsoulis, RottenTomatoes - a great place for finding morons with nothing relevant to say). Notice how this critique does not involve what the transcripts say.

Any time I see political parody on republicans, it's instantly gobbled up. Make fun of a democrat and you're labeled an ignorant redneck who hates babies and colored people. OK, never mind the fact that it takes zero effort to associate George Dubya with "derp" these days, especially when just about everyone will agree with you simply because we've chosen to ignore any of the decent things he did in office, many of which Obama is currently expanding upon. Obama is also expanding on a lot of the negative things that came about with the Bush administration, but if you try to suggest this, you're immediately written off as a know-nothing. While I think Republicans are incredibly foolish for leaning so heavily on their faith and allowing their religious beliefs to poison their political worth, they seem to be the only ones who make any sense sometimes. It's hard to blame Glen Beck for going crazy, for instance; he's in the same boat as Shia LeBouef in Disturbia (a bad movie with OK acting but perfect for my argument). Both of them see something, they know it to be true, but everyone around them insists that they're mental.

For Shia as Kale in the movie, he sees his neighbor behaving suspiciously until there is no doubt that he's killed a person. Spoiler: there is no surprise ending here, the neighbor actually is a murderer. How exciting. In Glen's case, he has a warehouse full of evidence proving that the government has their hands in everyone's pockets. They are continually reaching into more pockets every second, and if you don't like their hand in your pocket even though you know your money is going to be spent fighting useless wars (literally and figuratively, see above), you are fined, taxed more, imprisoned, or simply disappear. With piece after piece of incriminating evidence, it just piles on until all you can see is a mountain of clarity that everyone else claims is invisible as they ready your straight jacket. It's really no wonder Mr. Beck flies off the handle, which is very unfortunate, because it loses him some credibility.

I once wrote an essay about a time when I was in WDW, surrounded by families and people I'd never know. I was unexpectedly stricken with this overwhelming sense of the known unknowns I could never comprehend. When I think about the scope of any large business, or even a small business, I soon become lost in a cornfield of all that's involved. Nothing can be a simple transaction anymore. Case in point: the Burger King scenario from my second blog entry. Knowing this, how can you expect anything in a business as large as the government to be readily understandable? And do you think that's just the nature of the beast, or do you suppose they want it that way? My money, which in full accordance with the law is being taken from me as I write, is on the latter.

To all parents, including the douchebag in the clouds

Listen up parents. It's time you start to really think about the demands you make of your children, and the things for which you criticize them.

First of all, when was the last time an ovum and a sperm set up a meeting with you and said, "listen, we know you guys are really busy having safe sex and enjoying life to the fullest without children, but we think you'd do really well to lose the rubber and make another person" ?

The problem with thinking your kids owe you something is the very fact that they exist. They never asked to be brought into this world. What favor have you done anyone by creating another human being? More than likely, you've destroyed what little joy you had in life, at least temporarily, for you and your spouse; that helpless infant who cries every other hour and creates so much filth and waste isn't doing anything substantial for anyone, and he probably won't for at least seventeen years. And what guarantee can you possibly have that he'll amount to anything? Why don't you leave the amounting to the other seven billion people on this doomed planet who need jobs to feed the mouths they never asked for (hint: their own)?

I've recently become a "volunteer," which means I've vowed to never rent my womb out to any sort of human parasite. While I'd pretty much made this decision years ago, I found out that there is a group of people out there who agree that it is probably the best thing for the planet if humankind were to disappear. Of course, since we're all relatively intelligent folks (unlike the morons who continue to breed when there isn't enough food to go around), we realize that our movement is a futile one. You simply cannot stop rampaging idiocy. I've tried. Very futile.

So anyway, ambiguous mom and dad - Mr. and Mrs. Anon if you will, if you're still on the lucky side of marriage...What can you really ask of a child who never would have existed if it hadn't been for your own hubris? Really, what selfless reason could you possibly conjure up for your wanting to bring life to yet another human pollutant? You wanted to provide for someone? Try picking up one of the millions of starving children we already have to deal with. You wanted to continue your parents' bloodline? Please, how much more selfish and conceited could you be? You wanted to see what a baby with your combined genes would look like? OK, I take it back. That tops the selfish and conceited charts. I mean...they have Photoshop for that!

Disclaimer: I do not own, nor do I represent Adobe or any of its products. (I'll probably still be thrown in jail for mentioning it if that bloody bill is ever made official. And it will be because no one gives a shit about their rights anymore. The government will take care of us!)

Now say you made a baby because you're a good Kwischun who was just doing what God ordered of all of us in the Old Testament. You know, the one about fruit that doesn't involve one of the first people ever completely fucking it up for everyone before God could put the finishing touches on leg hair. (If that isn't a big enough hint about how dumb people are...well, go ahead and keep reading your Bible, because all of the depressing clues will sail right over your smiling head.) There's a major problem with following God's orders, and that's the fact that you're taking it on another person's word that God actually ordered you to do what you think he ordered you to do. Besides the bullshit excuse that Earth is still turning, what proof do you have that God said anything in the Bible, or that he even exists? And why do you think your assumption that he does exist gives you license to post your propaganda all over [insert social media site here]?

Listen, your prayers are about as useful as a wagon with turds for wheels. If there is a God, why would he suddenly change his (alleged) cosmic plan to do anything for you? The road you are on was predetermined, and the only reason a one-sided conversation might have any affect on the outcome is because you've convinced yourself that there is someone on the other line, which would have been a part of the plan anyway, so really...what was the point of it all in the first place?

And why do good, talented people let God take credit for their merits? Let's say I dedicated nine years to becoming the best young surgeon I could be. Let's say as a surgeon, I save someone's life through an operation that I perform. Should I humbly take the credit for it, or should I chock it up to the good graces of someone I've never even met and who probably wasn't even in the operating room? Why the hell would I? In what world does that make any sense? And if God really is responsible for that person not being dead right now, why do we even have surgeons? Why can't God just make all the disease go away and save us the trouble of thinking we're any use to each other? Why did I spend nine years in medical school and training if my success is based on the will of God? Wouldn't a few weeks have been a bit more suitable?

And why is it that when something bad happens, God can be given credit for it, but no one can blame him? It's always "God's plan" and "what's best for us." If God does exist, the only plan he has for us is misery. And somehow people still manage to smile and donate to charity once in a while. Why? Is it because God has encouraged them in some way? Maybe the person you watched drop a five into the JDRF bucket has been physically touched by God, and he's doing the work of Jesus. Or maybe that person is an atheist who has faith in humankind, and actually takes initiative in this world instead of waiting for prayer to run its course. I know a kind-hearted atheist is as difficult to imagine as an earth sans Jesus, but I promise they exist, and in far larger quantity than intelligent Christians.

Finger Painting

So my latest I-hate-work story needs a bit of exposition: as a closer for a title company, I have the outstanding privilege of being one of the only people with whom clients actually interact during the whole process of closing on a real estate or mortgage deal. First let me say that it is indeed incredible just how many people are involved with a single transaction these days. Take your local Burger King for instance. Usually the only people you actually speak with are the cashier who takes your order and the expediter who gives you your food. Imagine how many people there are in that restaurant who have their hands in your paper sack. There's the guy on fry duty, the two or three people on the sandwich line, the person who puts all the burgers through that organizing shelf, and the person who actually bags your food, who may or may not be the person who hands you the food. If that's how many people it takes to make a Whopper and fries (that's not even including the drink), just imagine how many people are involved in a real estate transaction.

Even just balancing a single file for me takes me across the paths of a whole handful of people, and rarely is it either real estate agent. It could be a loan officer, their closer (or closers), a termite company, a radon mitigation company, a home warranty provider, an attorney, one or more other banks besides the buyer's lender, my own title company's processing department, other closers, or one or more managers if things get tricky. This is just a small sample of the people you rely on when you're buying or selling a house.

But you as a customer don't realize this, because the only persons you ever speak with are your real estate agent, your loan officer, and the closer from whatever title company is acting fiduciary (excepting whoever performs the necessary inspections on your home; and you don't even have to meet these people usually). So naturally, when something goes wrong, you only have a small number of people in mind when it comes to assigning blame. Because the title company is the one handling all the money, and because people get nervous when it comes to large sums of currency, guess who holds the responsibility for pretty much everything. Oh, but it's not just the title company, it's the person who puts the papers in front of you and tells you where to sign.

Now here is that story I promised you. Let's say you're a homeowner and you purchase a year of hazard insurance as is required by the lender who holds your mortgage. The money for this insurance comes out of your loan, which comes from your lender, who sends the money to the title company who closed the purchase of your home, who finally sends the money to you so that you can pay whomever is providing your insurance. Let's say a year later you realize you never got the check. Since you're a dumbass, your first conclusion is that the title company never sent out the check like they were supposed to. You immediately call the first person you can think of, naturally your closer, and demand that he or she not only reimburse you for the year of hazard insurance for which they ended up paying out of pocket, but also to pay for the next year.

This is a choose-your-own adventure story, so there are a number of ways it could end.

• Scenario 1: The closer tells you, "It says here in the system that the check was printed and mailed out to you but that it was never reconciled. Let me call the person whose job is to verify that each check we send is reconciled and see what they have to say." The closer then does as promised, and said money-manager is associated with the shortage. She will likely tell you that while she did drop the ball on her responsibilities, you should have called about ten months ago and that there's nothing she can do about it at this point.
• Scenario 2: Same as the above, except the money-manager agrees that you should be reimbursed and happily does so. Your outrageous demands for a second year of insurance are not met, however.
• Scenario 3: Same as 1, except the money-manager refuses to take responsibility for this and the closer is associated with the shortage, though you are not reimbursed for your missed year of insurance.
• Scenario 4: Same as above, except the closer's manager decides that since you are the customer, your word is proverbially the correct one, reimburses you, and even pays for another year of insurance.

Would you believe that this story is true, and that the correct ending is the last one? (Rhetorical question. Of course the most asinine conclusion would be the one that actually happened.)

While I don't necessarily fault the borrower for contacting the closer with this issue, it is altogether frustrating when she uses words like "you never sent me my check" and "you must have lost it" or "you need to reimburse me for my stupidity" (/artisticlicense). This happens all the damn time. I am often asked to do closings where I have not once touched the file, so of course the numbers are foreign to me. I usually make a point of disclosing this, but agents and loan officers alike are never shy about telling me that I added something incorrectly, or that I changed a settlement statement without telling anyone, or that I should have collected for second-half taxes. And to think I once relished the idea of having everyone's attention!

PART TWO /a la RedLetterMedia

There is another reason I came here today, and it's not nearly as innocent-sounding as Avenue Q's proclamation that "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist." I will readily admit that I'm racist, but not in the sense that I think one race is above or below another on the evolutionary chain. I try not to let myself stereotype people because of the way they look, but my instincts are often correct when I do.

Last night I went to see the new X-Men movie (yes, it was awesome). There was a family of African-American folks sitting in front of us, and they happened to have a fairly young and useless child who felt the need to make noise throughout the first forty minutes or so of the movie. Neither parent decided to be courteous and take the baby out so as not to disturb the other two-hundred patrons in the theater. Instead, the mother noisily and continuously shshed the baby until my mother - racist that she is - went to get a theater manager to speak with the parents. (At this point I didn't realize that they had three or four other children with them. Hooray for procreation.) The manager took the father outside of the auditorium and had a word with him, likely saying that if the baby continues to disrupt the movie and if the parents continue to do nothing about it, they would be asked to leave. The father returned, and amazingly the baby stopped making noise, as far as I could tell.

Not surprisingly, the mother was informed of what had transpired and proceeded to complain out loud that they were not doing anything wrong. Strike two, lady. Even though the complaining did not last long, my mother was quick to call on assistance again, the manager returned and asked them to leave, and they stomped and knocked their way out of the auditorium. We enjoyed the rest of the film.

At the beginning of the movie, while the baby was crying, I considered asking the mother to kindly take her child out of the theater until it calmed down. My instinct told me that this would only cause more problems, as the mother would likely tell me to mind my own business, or cuss me out, or tell me she has just as much right to be there and blah blah blah. While I would have enjoyed telling her that she and her boyfriend (I hesitate to say husband, which is the racism talking) were very much in the wrong and that the both of them ought to be euthanized, I decided to let it pass and save the other patrons the awkward torture of having to watch such a thing transpire.

This seems like an appropriate time to defend myself. Allow me to digress for a moment in an effort to do so. I recently visited Universal Studios for the first time in many years. While in the Twister attraction, there was a pair of young, white "ladies" who deliberately attempted to agitate people by talking loudly during the movie portion. My friend's mother took the bait and shshed them, which opened the floodgates. The details aren't necessary. I regrettably turned and very politely asked them to please be quiet and let us enjoy the attraction. They eagerly directed their tirade in my direction. I said nothing more to them, as it was clear there was no use in it. As we walked through the attraction, the girls actually followed us, ranting at us the entire way until we were finally able to escape into the crowd. Apparently we weren't the only ones who were irritated by this, because the show was actually put on hold so that the girls could be spoken with and asked to leave. When it was over, we left the attraction and walked around for a while, and lo and behold we saw the girls agitating another hapless visitor to the park. We did our best to avoid them, as we were certain they would follow us again given the opportunity.

The point here is that people of all races are dipshits. I will say, though, when I initially heard these girls talking I correctly figured right away that they were dressed like two-bit strumpets. "White trash" is an amazingly valid classification sometimes.

Back to the movie theater. After the film, my mother was approached by another manager who told her that that particular family had been kicked out of the theater before for being disruptive. They had even needed to call in security (actual police officers mind you) because of their belligerence. Now, I know a great number of decent African-American people who can still behave like black people but without all of the rudeness and lack of concern for the well-being of those around them. I have no problem with the "black" culture. What I have a problem with is the assumption of many black people that it's OK to flaunt their boisterous upbringing in a room-full of people whose expectation is that every other person in the theater intends to be quiet. I don't care where you're from or what you look like; if your behavior is annoying, you need to realize this and stop, especially when someone points it out. That isn't about race or stereotyping. You may say it's just a part of their culture to be frequently rude and angry toward each other. Is this healthy? Is this bettering them as a people? Is a spiteful anger-filled society something to be embraced? If so many black people want to behave like unmannered children, then why should others be faulted for associating them with that bad behavior? It may be racism, but it's hardly anyone's fault but the people who have caused the association.

I only use African-Americans as an example here because this particular memory was fresh in my mind. I have a lot of Japanese friends. I know many Japanese behave in a very stereotypical Japanese manner, because that is the culture with which they've surrounded themselves. All the "yatta" and peace sign crap can get annoying, too, and I'm sure if I were to call a Japanese person out on how annoying they're being, I could expect them to get offended and call me racist. (I'm much more likely, however, to expect a Japanese person to apologize and subdue themselves.)

I could go on and on about this issue, but it wouldn't change the fact that I'm judgmental and, yes, a racist. I only wanted to put it out there that (IN CONCLUSION) racism is most often initiated by the stereotyped party.