7 Secret Ways We Are Being Poisoned
O falso objetivismo do método científico foi sequestrado pelas grandes empresas que pagam aos cientistas pelo apoio aos seus produtos, assim como os políticos que circulam pelos setores públicos e privados. Pior é que as agências de fiscalização são cúmplices nesses crimes contra o consumidor.
A confiança depositada pelos consumidores nos estudos científicos e na fiscalização governamental tem sido violentada a serviço do lucro, assim, produtos são disponibilizados nos mercados com reduzidos padrões de segurança. As químicas sintéticas que encontramos diariamente na nossa comida, água, e meio ambiente demonstram cada vez mais serm desastrosas para o nosso bem estar físico e mental.
Volumes podem ser escritos - e tem sido escritos - pelos especialistas de ambos da medicina tradicional e da medicina alternativa que documentam o estratagema para ocultar dos consumidores as ameaças a nossa saúde. Nossa espécie está sendo quimicamente bombardeada e não sabemos até aundo vamos resistir.
segunda-feira, 27 de junho de 2011
domingo, 26 de junho de 2011
Sexo?
Como é que alguém pode ser contra uma pessoa ser desse ou daquele sexo? Se sou pai, e desejo ter um filho desse ou daquele sexo, e o filho não nasce com o sexo que queria, posso ser contra? Da mesma forma se uma pessoa opta por esse ou aquele comportamento sexual, posso ser contra? Tem alquma diferença entre esses dois sentimentos? O sentimento de repulsa é tão nojento e discriminatório quanto o que demonstro quando desprezo uma filha num mundo dominado pelo machismo.
Não se pode usar a religião como justificativa para a discriminação de orientação sexual, nanhuma religião prega o discriminação, nanhuma religião incentiva a violência, pelo contrário, só propagam o amor. Sentimento que deveria estar na origem de um entendimento mais elevado da sorte e agruras da vida.
Não se pode usar a religião como justificativa para a discriminação de orientação sexual, nanhuma religião prega o discriminação, nanhuma religião incentiva a violência, pelo contrário, só propagam o amor. Sentimento que deveria estar na origem de um entendimento mais elevado da sorte e agruras da vida.
quarta-feira, 22 de junho de 2011
Déficit da Previdência?
O orçamento da união, do Brasil, é dividido em 3 partes, orçamento do tesouro, orçamento da seguridade social e orçamento das estatais. O déficit da previdência não existe quando se considera esses orçamentos. O que se chamado de déficit da previdência só aparece quando se compara a despesa da previdência, a despesa como o pagamento de todos os benefícios da previdência com a arrecadação obtida somente com a contribuição dos empregados e dos empregadores. Essa comparação é uma invenção, porque quando se pensou em financiar a seguridade social, incluída nessa a previdência social, foram constitucionalmente definidas as fontes de receita desse financiamento. O financiamento é feito com:
benefícios da previdência, assistência social, transferência de renda como o bolsa família e saúde, todas essas despesas são custeadas pelo orçamento da seguridade social.
No orçamento da seguridade social, as receitas são superiores as despesas ´proporcionando superávits anuais, que é usado na verdade para pagar juros. Ajuda a pagar o rombo da política monetária produzida pelo governo.
O superávit da seguridade social no ano de 2010 foi de R$ 58 bilhões.
Os governos reféns do poder econômico criam um mal estar na sociedade atacando a previdência social pública, afirmando mentirosamente que as despesas da previdência pública são maiores que as receitas que a financiam. Esses políticos indisfarçadamente atacam a previdência pública porque estão presos a ambição de se perpetuarem no poder, assim querem propiciar mais lucros ainda aos bancos, donos dos planos de previdência privada, mesmos bancos que fazem gordas contribuições para as campanhas desses políticos.
Inspirado no Paulo Passarinho no programa Faixa Livre de 20/06/2011.
- receitas dos empregados e empregadores;
- contribuição social sobre o lucro líquido das empresas;
- contribuição para o financiamento da seguridade social COFINS.
benefícios da previdência, assistência social, transferência de renda como o bolsa família e saúde, todas essas despesas são custeadas pelo orçamento da seguridade social.
No orçamento da seguridade social, as receitas são superiores as despesas ´proporcionando superávits anuais, que é usado na verdade para pagar juros. Ajuda a pagar o rombo da política monetária produzida pelo governo.
O superávit da seguridade social no ano de 2010 foi de R$ 58 bilhões.
Os governos reféns do poder econômico criam um mal estar na sociedade atacando a previdência social pública, afirmando mentirosamente que as despesas da previdência pública são maiores que as receitas que a financiam. Esses políticos indisfarçadamente atacam a previdência pública porque estão presos a ambição de se perpetuarem no poder, assim querem propiciar mais lucros ainda aos bancos, donos dos planos de previdência privada, mesmos bancos que fazem gordas contribuições para as campanhas desses políticos.
Inspirado no Paulo Passarinho no programa Faixa Livre de 20/06/2011.
terça-feira, 21 de junho de 2011
Democracia?
Depois de 1964, o nosso processo de restabelecimento das liberdades democráticas prometia melhorias de serviços, do bem estar da população, melhorias da seguridade social, econômica, cultural, e da soberania do país, metas que ficamos muito longe de atingir. Esse fracasso põe em questão essa ideia de democracia representativa ao estilo ocidental baseada em eleições cada vez mais controladas pelo dinheiro onde os políticos que saem dessas eleições como nossos representantes, esmagadoramente, não vão para as casas legislativas ou para o executivo para defender o interesse do povo mas sim para defender os interesse de quem os financia.
Inspirado pelo fala do apresentador Paulo Passarinho do programa Faixa Livre do dia 21/06/2011.
Inspirado pelo fala do apresentador Paulo Passarinho do programa Faixa Livre do dia 21/06/2011.
segunda-feira, 20 de junho de 2011
DOES INSANITY "CAUSE" CRIME?
by Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
--Gilbert K. Chesterton
For three hundred years we have sidestepped confronting the truth about human desperation and depravity, and the horrors the desperate and the depraved can inflict on us and themselves.
In November 1999, Andrew Goldstein, a man with a long history of psychiatric encounters, was tried for murdering a young woman named Kendra Webdale by pushing her under a New York subway train. The defense was insanity. The jury was unable to agree on a unanimous verdict. Goldstein will be retried in the spring of 2000.
Crimes Have Reasons, Not Causes
There was no dispute about the fact that Mr. Goldstein pushed Ms. Webdale to her death. Nor was there dispute about what, regardless of the jury's verdict, was to be Mr. Goldstein's fate for the foreseeable future: he would be deprived of liberty (by being incarcerated in jail, a mental hospital, or a hybrid institution called a "forensic facility").
The problem is that whenever a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime pleads insanity, the jury is asked to answer an intrinsically nonsensical question, namely, what "caused" the defendant to commit his wrongful act: his self or his mental illness? If the former, then he is a guilty victimizer. If the latter, then he is an innocent victim (of insanity). I say the question is nonsensical because, regardless of whether a person is (deemed to be) sane or insane, he has reasons, not causes, for his action. If we regard the actor's reasons as absurd or "crazy," we call him insane or mentally ill. However, that does not prove that an alleged condition ("insanity" or "mental illness") caused him to commit the forbidden act. In short, the insanity defense combines and conflates two problematic elements about "insanity": 1) what is "it" (as a phenomenon or disease)?; 2) does it cause and excuse bad behavior?
Although no one can define insanity, nearly everyone believes that he can recognize it "when he sees it." Still, the question remains: What is "it"? In principle, this question ought to be debatable. In practice, it is not: all socially recognized authorities agree that insanity is a brain disease.
For the sake of clarifying the issue before us, let us admit that (false) claim. In that case, insanity is similar, say, to Parkinsonism or a stroke, brain diseases diagnosed and treated by neurologists. A brain disease may, indeed, be a cause. But a cause of what? Typically, of behavioral a deficit, such as weakness, blindness, paralysis. No brain disease causes complex, coordinated behaviors, such as the crimes committed by Andrew Goldstein or John Hinckley, Jr.
The insane person is, after all, a person, a human being. Only legal tradition and psychiatric-professional self-interest, not facts or logic, compel the law to frame the jury's task as a choice between deciding whether an insane defendant is bad or mad -- guilty (by reason of free will) or not guilty (by reason of insanity). If a "mad killer" is sick, he could -- like an HIV-infected killer or a tubercular killer -- be imprisoned for his crime and "treated" for his illness in prison.
Millions of people are said to be mentally ill or insane. Not all of them commit crimes. Although a mad person such as Mr. Goldstein is regarded as being mad much of the time or even all of the time, he kills only some of the time. When a mad person kills someone -- just as when he petitions a court to be released or eats his dinner -- he does so because he decides to do so. Hence, if the madman commits a crime, justice demands that we take him seriously and punish him for his deed.
The Insanity Defense: From Solution to Problem
The insanity defense, as we know it, is a relatively new cultural invention. I believe it is not possible to understand the problems it causes unless we understand the problems it solved in the past and solves today.
The "crime" that led to the creation of the insanity defense was not murder, but a deed long considered even more heinous, namely, self-murder or suicide, punished by both ecclesiastic and secular penalties: the suicide was denied religious burial and his estate was forfeited to the Crown's Almoner.
Because punishing suicide required doing grave harm to innocent parties -- that is, to the suicide's children and spouse -- men sitting on coroner's juries eventually found the task to be a burden they were unwilling to bear. However, prevailing religious beliefs precluded repealing the laws punishing the crime. The law now came to the rescue of the would-be punishers, offering them the option of finding the self-killer non compos mentis and hence not responsible for his deed. In the eighteenth century, it became a matter of routine for juries to arrive at the posthumous diagnosis that the suicide was insane at the moment he killed himself. (The criminal law against suicide was repealed only in the nineteenth century, by which time it had been replaced by mental health laws.)
The celebrated English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780) recognized the subterfuge and warned against it: "But this excuse [of finding the offender to be non compos mentis] ought not to be strained to the length to which our coroner's juries are apt to carry it, viz., that every act of suicide is an evidence of insanity; as if every man who acts contrary to reason had no reason at all; for the same argument would prove every other criminal non compos, as well as the self-murderer." It was too late. By validating the fiction that suicides could, post facto, be found to have been non compos mentis, the law had crafted a mechanism for rejecting responsibility -- the criminal's for his deed, the jury's for its duty -- and, aided by the medical profession, wrapped the deception and self-deception in the mantle of healing and science.
We must keep in mind that the impetus for excusing self-murder did not come from its ostensible beneficiaries, the victims of the law against suicide. Clearly, it could not have come from them: the self-killer was dead; his family, bereft of means and reputation, was powerless. Instead, the impetus for the insanity defense came from those who needed it and had the political clout to make law and medicine embrace it -- that is, judges and lawyers, coroners and mad-doctors. Coroner's juries and judges could thus evade the burden of having to impose harsh penalties on the corpses of suicides and the widows and orphans they left behind; and physician's could pride themselves for saving innocent persons from suffering for the sin-crimes of "insane" self-killers.
The result of the practice of routinely excusing suicides of their sin-crimes by viewing them as insane was that persons suspected of being suicidal began to be incarcerated in insane asylums. Soon that, too, became a routine practice and reinforced the belief that persons who kill themselves or others are insane, and that the insane are likely to kill themselves or others.
Copyright 2001, by The Foundation for Economic Education
Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility:
Copyright © 1998-2001 by the author of each page, except where noted. All rights reserved.
This page was last modified on 05/23/2007 17:08:37 GMT
"The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
--Gilbert K. Chesterton
For three hundred years we have sidestepped confronting the truth about human desperation and depravity, and the horrors the desperate and the depraved can inflict on us and themselves.
In November 1999, Andrew Goldstein, a man with a long history of psychiatric encounters, was tried for murdering a young woman named Kendra Webdale by pushing her under a New York subway train. The defense was insanity. The jury was unable to agree on a unanimous verdict. Goldstein will be retried in the spring of 2000.
Crimes Have Reasons, Not Causes
There was no dispute about the fact that Mr. Goldstein pushed Ms. Webdale to her death. Nor was there dispute about what, regardless of the jury's verdict, was to be Mr. Goldstein's fate for the foreseeable future: he would be deprived of liberty (by being incarcerated in jail, a mental hospital, or a hybrid institution called a "forensic facility").
The problem is that whenever a person factually guilty of committing a serious crime pleads insanity, the jury is asked to answer an intrinsically nonsensical question, namely, what "caused" the defendant to commit his wrongful act: his self or his mental illness? If the former, then he is a guilty victimizer. If the latter, then he is an innocent victim (of insanity). I say the question is nonsensical because, regardless of whether a person is (deemed to be) sane or insane, he has reasons, not causes, for his action. If we regard the actor's reasons as absurd or "crazy," we call him insane or mentally ill. However, that does not prove that an alleged condition ("insanity" or "mental illness") caused him to commit the forbidden act. In short, the insanity defense combines and conflates two problematic elements about "insanity": 1) what is "it" (as a phenomenon or disease)?; 2) does it cause and excuse bad behavior?
Although no one can define insanity, nearly everyone believes that he can recognize it "when he sees it." Still, the question remains: What is "it"? In principle, this question ought to be debatable. In practice, it is not: all socially recognized authorities agree that insanity is a brain disease.
For the sake of clarifying the issue before us, let us admit that (false) claim. In that case, insanity is similar, say, to Parkinsonism or a stroke, brain diseases diagnosed and treated by neurologists. A brain disease may, indeed, be a cause. But a cause of what? Typically, of behavioral a deficit, such as weakness, blindness, paralysis. No brain disease causes complex, coordinated behaviors, such as the crimes committed by Andrew Goldstein or John Hinckley, Jr.
The insane person is, after all, a person, a human being. Only legal tradition and psychiatric-professional self-interest, not facts or logic, compel the law to frame the jury's task as a choice between deciding whether an insane defendant is bad or mad -- guilty (by reason of free will) or not guilty (by reason of insanity). If a "mad killer" is sick, he could -- like an HIV-infected killer or a tubercular killer -- be imprisoned for his crime and "treated" for his illness in prison.
Millions of people are said to be mentally ill or insane. Not all of them commit crimes. Although a mad person such as Mr. Goldstein is regarded as being mad much of the time or even all of the time, he kills only some of the time. When a mad person kills someone -- just as when he petitions a court to be released or eats his dinner -- he does so because he decides to do so. Hence, if the madman commits a crime, justice demands that we take him seriously and punish him for his deed.
The Insanity Defense: From Solution to Problem
The insanity defense, as we know it, is a relatively new cultural invention. I believe it is not possible to understand the problems it causes unless we understand the problems it solved in the past and solves today.
The "crime" that led to the creation of the insanity defense was not murder, but a deed long considered even more heinous, namely, self-murder or suicide, punished by both ecclesiastic and secular penalties: the suicide was denied religious burial and his estate was forfeited to the Crown's Almoner.
Because punishing suicide required doing grave harm to innocent parties -- that is, to the suicide's children and spouse -- men sitting on coroner's juries eventually found the task to be a burden they were unwilling to bear. However, prevailing religious beliefs precluded repealing the laws punishing the crime. The law now came to the rescue of the would-be punishers, offering them the option of finding the self-killer non compos mentis and hence not responsible for his deed. In the eighteenth century, it became a matter of routine for juries to arrive at the posthumous diagnosis that the suicide was insane at the moment he killed himself. (The criminal law against suicide was repealed only in the nineteenth century, by which time it had been replaced by mental health laws.)
The celebrated English jurist William Blackstone (1723-1780) recognized the subterfuge and warned against it: "But this excuse [of finding the offender to be non compos mentis] ought not to be strained to the length to which our coroner's juries are apt to carry it, viz., that every act of suicide is an evidence of insanity; as if every man who acts contrary to reason had no reason at all; for the same argument would prove every other criminal non compos, as well as the self-murderer." It was too late. By validating the fiction that suicides could, post facto, be found to have been non compos mentis, the law had crafted a mechanism for rejecting responsibility -- the criminal's for his deed, the jury's for its duty -- and, aided by the medical profession, wrapped the deception and self-deception in the mantle of healing and science.
We must keep in mind that the impetus for excusing self-murder did not come from its ostensible beneficiaries, the victims of the law against suicide. Clearly, it could not have come from them: the self-killer was dead; his family, bereft of means and reputation, was powerless. Instead, the impetus for the insanity defense came from those who needed it and had the political clout to make law and medicine embrace it -- that is, judges and lawyers, coroners and mad-doctors. Coroner's juries and judges could thus evade the burden of having to impose harsh penalties on the corpses of suicides and the widows and orphans they left behind; and physician's could pride themselves for saving innocent persons from suffering for the sin-crimes of "insane" self-killers.
The result of the practice of routinely excusing suicides of their sin-crimes by viewing them as insane was that persons suspected of being suicidal began to be incarcerated in insane asylums. Soon that, too, became a routine practice and reinforced the belief that persons who kill themselves or others are insane, and that the insane are likely to kill themselves or others.
Copyright 2001, by The Foundation for Economic Education
Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility:
Copyright © 1998-2001 by the author of each page, except where noted. All rights reserved.
This page was last modified on 05/23/2007 17:08:37 GMT
Thomas Szasz entrevistado sobre a psiquiatria
Thomas Szasz entrevistado sobre a psiquiatria
"O site australiano All in the Mind realizou este mês uma extensa (e muito interessante) entrevista com o Dr. Thomas Szasz. Ele pode não ser tão conhecido entre as pessoas fora da psiquiatria, mas já escreveu 33 livros como "O Mito da Doença Mental", "A Fabricação da Loucura" e "Esquizofrenia: O Símbolo Sagrado da Psiquiatria", é considerado por muitos um dos "cabeças" do movimento da reforma psiquiátrica nos Estados Unidos e é, além de tudo, psiquiatra e professor na State University of New York!"
Thomas Szasz speaks Parte 1 (mp3) e Parte 2 (mp3)
Somos o que somos por acaso, a idéia que que temos de nós mesmos é fruto de constatação isenta, da nossa desinteressada percepção, somos neutros e ecreditamos na neutraliadade da ciência?
Construímos a realidade com o nosso discurso, fazemos o mundo com aquilo que acreditamos e sabemos, somos fruto dos nossos interesses, somos egoístas. Por isso é fundamental que apareça alguém como o Thomas Szasz, que já foi lá e não deixa de reconhecer o quanto ainda falhamos.
"O site australiano All in the Mind realizou este mês uma extensa (e muito interessante) entrevista com o Dr. Thomas Szasz. Ele pode não ser tão conhecido entre as pessoas fora da psiquiatria, mas já escreveu 33 livros como "O Mito da Doença Mental", "A Fabricação da Loucura" e "Esquizofrenia: O Símbolo Sagrado da Psiquiatria", é considerado por muitos um dos "cabeças" do movimento da reforma psiquiátrica nos Estados Unidos e é, além de tudo, psiquiatra e professor na State University of New York!"
Thomas Szasz speaks Parte 1 (mp3) e Parte 2 (mp3)
Somos o que somos por acaso, a idéia que que temos de nós mesmos é fruto de constatação isenta, da nossa desinteressada percepção, somos neutros e ecreditamos na neutraliadade da ciência?
Construímos a realidade com o nosso discurso, fazemos o mundo com aquilo que acreditamos e sabemos, somos fruto dos nossos interesses, somos egoístas. Por isso é fundamental que apareça alguém como o Thomas Szasz, que já foi lá e não deixa de reconhecer o quanto ainda falhamos.
sexta-feira, 17 de junho de 2011
Face à dívida, vem a vontade de auditar!
Livro publicado na Grécia
...
O primeiro objectivo de uma auditoria é esclarecer o passado, desfazer a teia da dívida, fio por fio, para reconstruir as sequências que levaram ao impasse actual. O que aconteceu com o dinheiro de tal empréstimo, em que condições o empréstimo foi concedido? Que juros foram pagos, a que taxa e que parte foi já reembolsada? Como é que a dívida cresceu, sem benefícios para o povo? Que caminhos seguiram os capitais? Para que foram usados? Quanto foi desviado, por quem e como?
E ainda: Quem tomou emprestado e em nome de quem? Quem recebeu e qual foi o seu papel? Como se envolveu o Estado, quem decidiu, e a que titulo? Como as dívidas privadas se tornaram "públicas"? Quem iniciou projectos inadequados, quem pressionou nesse sentido, quem beneficiou? Foram cometidos delitos, mesmo crimes, com esse dinheiro? Por que não se estabelecem responsabilidades civis, penais e administrativas?
...
Auditoria Cidadã da Dívida Face à dívida, vem a vontade de auditar!
...
O primeiro objectivo de uma auditoria é esclarecer o passado, desfazer a teia da dívida, fio por fio, para reconstruir as sequências que levaram ao impasse actual. O que aconteceu com o dinheiro de tal empréstimo, em que condições o empréstimo foi concedido? Que juros foram pagos, a que taxa e que parte foi já reembolsada? Como é que a dívida cresceu, sem benefícios para o povo? Que caminhos seguiram os capitais? Para que foram usados? Quanto foi desviado, por quem e como?
E ainda: Quem tomou emprestado e em nome de quem? Quem recebeu e qual foi o seu papel? Como se envolveu o Estado, quem decidiu, e a que titulo? Como as dívidas privadas se tornaram "públicas"? Quem iniciou projectos inadequados, quem pressionou nesse sentido, quem beneficiou? Foram cometidos delitos, mesmo crimes, com esse dinheiro? Por que não se estabelecem responsabilidades civis, penais e administrativas?
...
Auditoria Cidadã da Dívida Face à dívida, vem a vontade de auditar!
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)