Thursday, February 11, 2016


First, the temporary shift in the BV. Believe it or not, people in Brownsville talk about more things than our hopelessly inept leaders and failed policies. People actually take the time to think about the why behind what is happening in our society - and I do not just mean Brownsville.

Endlessly complaining about the same corrupt and inept people changes nothing.  We have to change first, before we change who leads us.


Bernie is a major change in the social construct paradigm.  While it is not only true, and essential to change, the older guard sometimes needs to let go and allow our younger generation to move society forward.  But you see these are not mere words.  What is the reasoning behind these words.  The new generation of feminists are awesome.  They have changed the social construct of the paradigm of feminism and the old guard hates it.  They understand it is no longer about the glass ceiling.  Women who want to arrive at the top have arrived.  They also understand being a stay at home mom managing a family in this complex society is actually a very real and challenging job. They are dealing with their husband - that should get them a national award - they are dealing with schools - they are dealing with those in charge of the extracurricular activities - they are dealing with modern technology taking over their children and learning to find the balance of what they can and cannot have - they are dealing with social change at a rapid pace and how to adapt - and on and on and on.  Being an at home mom gives new meaning to multitasking.  The same goes for the at home dads.


Bernie may not be part of this new generation which it is time to pass the torch to, but he is by mind the same as the younger generation.  He seeks to move the social construct paradigm.  It's time.  We are living in a world where we just keep on repeating the same thing and then complain about the same thing.  It is time for a major shift in our economy and politics if we are to grow.  This is what Bernie brings to the table.


I have been wanting to write this piece for some time.  When I researched it the most laughable thesis against what I am arguing is, rational thought if done right is scientific.  Everything we believe is based on a social construct.  The scientific method while helpful, always contains biases.


For years my gastroenterologist and I argued over colon disease.  As the chief honcho then at the medical school in Dallas he believed his scientific process was infallible.  He conducted a study through the medical school and VA to prove a high fiber diet reduces colon disease.  When asked by the Dallas Morning News why his own findings found no correlation between a high fiber diet and lower colon disease his response was "my analytical model must have been flawed.  Commonsense tells you a high fiber diet has to be good for the colon." paraphrase.

We went at it when during a sigmoidoscopy a Fellow [gastroenterologist in training] found I have diverticulosis.  During a sigmoidoscopy you are awake and can watch the TV as they scope you.  The doctor pointed out endless pouches long the sigmoid colon which proved the diagnosis.  The Chief said "no way - you cannot have ulcerative colitis for 15+ years and develop diverticulosis."  He was insistent and still believes and teaches his students it is caused by a low fiber diet  My entire family were raised on rice and beans, and plantains.  We lived on a very high fiber diet and all 7 of us have diverticulosis. It has to be genetic.

My point is his entire scientific model is based on a myth.  A high fiber diet reduces colon disease.  This is why his study failed. 


Without Faith, belief in God is the most irrational thing anyone can believe.  I fully understand why so many people do not believe in God - if it were not a protected institution the nut job psychiatrists would make Faith a mental health disorder.  Can a merciful God allow innocent children to drown on distant seashores while fleeing war? No.  Can an innocent merciful God allow millions of innocent babies to be torn from their mother's womb?  No. Can a merciful God allow lunatics to use chemical weapons to kill innocent women and children for power?  No again

But Faith - if you have actually thought about it - is a belief there is a reason.  The flip side of the coin is the Garden of Eden.  But that requires we be slaves to God's commands and society.  Does a merciful God enslave his children?  No.  So what is left is Free Will, and mercy comes in our passing.  To avoid all of these things millions say rational questions would then mean we are slaves to God with no free will.  Yes the questions are rational - but are they really irrational because they fail to consider the flip side of the coin?

Are those without faith really just people who do not want to do their part to prevent these tragedies?  Some yes and some no.  I rarely meet a Christian who really cares about these tragedies.  When I give to charities I look for programs which create sustainability. This means helping someone in a way which allows them to grow and be more empowered economically.

Free speech means nothing if you are homeless and hungry and your children are dying from starvation. My charity goes to bringing work to families - like when I buy chicks for a family in Nicaragua and then they are trained in how to raise the chicks for sale as food and eggs, while growing their numbers into a viable business.   Simply giving them a box of food does nothing to change their future.

This is the same reason I give to the UTEP scholarship fund.  Knowledge is power and if my money can help some kids graduate the university then I know I am giving them something which will last more than a few minutes to fill an empty stomach. 

Is my view rational?  Is it irrational to say we need to fill the empty stomachs daily to be merciful?  We can keep on doing that, but then we make them slaves to us.  There must be a balance.  Merely feeding the hungry does nothing to solve the problem. It only deepens it.


A couple of weeks ago a urologist said to me, "oh you are not circumcised."  I said "yes, I just restored the foreskin after realizing how stupid I was to allow a doctor to convince me at age 19, that I would contract all sorts of STD's if I did not have my foreskin removed.  I can tell you, sex is a million times more pleasurable with the foreskin.  You cannot restore the nerve which is cut, but you can restore the hypersensitivity to the head of the penis.

The WHO and South African government told men that if they accepted a free circumcision, they could protect themselves from contracting HIV.  There is no evidence when compared to Europe that uncircumcised men who use condoms have a higher rate of HIV than circumcised men.  The rationale behind circumcision is rational.  Men with tight foreskins are more likely to bleed during intercourse.  Also it is easier for disease to be trapped  and spread through uncleansed foreskin.  But this is a non-issue with a condom.

So after decades of trying to get these men to use condoms they move to circumcision.  Now what we have is a poorly educated population thinking condoms are no longer necessary and STD's are spreading along with HIV and unwanted pregnancies. 


In his book Doors of Perception Huxley quoted William Blake as saying "“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite.' What I love about this is, scholars will debate how Huxley perceived this quote differently than how Blake perceived his own words. But even the scholars debate what Blake meant.

It's all perception my friends without an ounce of true rationality.  All rational thought devolves from irrational precepts created by an ever changing social construct.

No comments: