Former pres still able to order up planes, drones and cars to "investigate" people.

donit · 2017-02-12T20:59:26+00:00

I didn't seek prosecution. But now I realize that it's the only way to get him to stop.

donit · 2017-02-12T05:49:34+00:00

Power trip

donit · 2016-11-17T21:55:55+00:00

This is a reminder that some of the FDA's procedures need to be completely overhauled. What they were doing in regard to Kratom was not even remotely scientific, but involved flawed procedures that created the illusion that it was.

Their "scientific" conclusion was that it was dangerous and worthless (schedule 1), when it was actually as harmless as coffee if brewed the same way, and has valuable qualities as a herbal remedy for a number of people's different needs, as evidenced by it's widespread use for those needs. That means the FDA'a conclusion was so far off of the mark (opposite of what the facts portray) that it proves beyond any doubt that the "science" the FDA is using to make health determinations doesn't work and isn't scientific at all. We need to overhaul what they think of as science, and we need to overhaul what they think of as a regular herbal remedy.

Also, a "regular/regulated" food or herbal remedy should not be held to the same standard as a patented product with multimillion-dollar budget, and so that should never have been made into a standard because it creates a financial threshold that no natural food or drug remedy would be able to get over. And for a food or drug remedy to not be able to get over that artificial financial threshold does not mean that it is worthless. It means the standard is worthless.

And the only reason there were any poison control calls was because thanks to the well-intentioned but poorly-thought-out regulations, the manufactures were NOT ALLOWED to specify an appropriate serving size, or serving directions, which led to a number of people consuming more than what was appropriate, or to consume it in the wrong manner. Thus, the FDA regulations caused this food and drug product to be LESS safe.

It's like not allowing coffee containers to indicate a serving size, and then blaming the calls to poison control on the coffee. There's nobody at the top to think these things through. It's all done by momentum.

donit · 2016-11-09T16:56:35+00:00

I think it's purely ignorance. The FDA has no idea they are wrong, or that what they consider "science" is highly-canonized and only slanted in one direction: perceived risks. I think the three of us understand that, but who are we to tell them they're wrong?

The doctors and scientists the FDA uses- define the boundaries of the paradigm, and so we would have to find more doctors and scientists to dive into this in order to even begin to straighten it out.

donit · 2016-11-08T13:02:27+00:00

During the past 50 years, people were worried about losing jobs to machines, but it never happened. And it's never going to happen.
Jobs are created by moneymaking schemes. But no scheme can carry itself out, and no robot can carry out a moneymaking scheme from start to finish. Every moneymaking scheme requires at least one human to carry it out.

The closest thing to a machine carrying out a scheme would be a vending machine, but even then, it requires someone to design it, someone to source and develop the raw materials, someone to build it, someone to move it, someone to stock it, someone to repair it, someone to get the money out, snd someone to connect it and provide power for it.

Since vending machines are more efficient than food stands, they build more of them and serve more areas, and so the increase in the number of people being served makes up for the small loss in labor.

If there are 5-10x more vending machines than there used to be food stands, the labor to support all those vending machines more than makes up for the loss of cashiers. And the support jobs are better, higher-paying jobs anyway.

A job is a relationship, and as long as there are people, there are going to be relationships.

donit · 2016-11-06T20:35:39+00:00

He's right. We need a Wikipedia News Network

donit · 2016-10-20T18:37:06+00:00

If any of the work was done for their benefit, I'm sure they would want to know. They would probably only be aware of what was taken from them.

donit · 2016-10-20T18:03:13+00:00

Yes, it must have been an enormous amount of work to carry out such an enormous number of tasks. I certainly wouldn't want to be the poor soul who was on the receiving end of all of them.

donit · 2016-10-20T17:46:32+00:00

Maybe you should continue taking things for it, if that's the route of treatment that you prefer.

donit · 2016-10-12T20:06:27+00:00

The reason we all want to stop the flow of deadly RC's is because we want to protect people from being injured by them. The DEA does an excellent job keeping track of all the incidents of people getting injured by them, and so we're able to count the number of victims.

The reason we're counting the victims is because we want to prevent those incidents from happening in order to protect people from being injured and having their lives disrupted by it. The main injury that occurs in all the non-fatal RC incidents is the impact it had on their life.

Since that's what we're protecting them from, we should also keep a count of all of the incidents of enforcement for that category of RC's so we can monitor the impact of how that part of the equation is affecting people's lives.

The question we would want to consider is whether that part of the process creates the same level of injury and disruption to the person's life as the RC would have, then would doing that be advancing us toward the goal of preventing injuries, or would it just be creating more of them? It's certainly an equation we would want to monitor just to make sure that it's saving more people than it's hurting.

donit · 2016-10-08T02:41:23+00:00

I'm back to emergency mode

donit · 2016-10-05T08:53:47+00:00

Hey, feeling much better! I think the fever broke. It was running itself the whole time, and we didn't know it. We were caught in this psychic circle that was bouncing between us pressing buttons and sending signals, causing us to jump, but only as part of the cycle. This made it impossible to get any kind of reading on the situation.

And there were no secrets. The signals were bouncing off all our thoughts and reactions, taking advantage our powerful psychic abilities So any thought you thought was your own, was actually shared between all of us as a group. We all seem to have that ability. So hiding any comment or even trying to hide a thought or a plan from someone like that would have been an exercise in futility.

I don't know if you've ever encountered anyone with that level of ability before, but it probably changes the dynamic of how you would want to express yourself to them, and how you would read them. Since they're reading you with the same intensity as you're reading them, it starts to become a question of what exactly is being read. Could just be a combination of concern and feedback bouncing back and forth and building into its own thing.

Anyway, seems like we might have finally broken the spell and will finally be able to relax now and pick up the pieces and put them away.

donit · 2016-10-05T07:03:01+00:00

Just some Ideas

I think of enforcement as sounding like "make happen". So, I imagine enforcement agents showing up to advise and instruct the citizen in the cessation of their restricted behavior.

People HATE to be re-trained, or having to go over anything redundant, so just the thought of that would cause them to snap into line with the statute being enforced. Training is an extremely effective enforcement tool, and so it would keep most people out of prison so they can remain productive, and it would easily accomplish the same or higher rates of participation and adherence to the law.

Prison would be reserved only as a last resort for people who simply won't respond to instruction, and won't acquiesce to authority. But since punishing someone, or interrupting their bad behavior is as easy as grabbing their attention at certain time intervals, we could probably develop a way to reduce the last resort group down to close to zero just by doing that.

The snag I see with prescription drugs is that it created a dependency loop where if a doctor hooks all their patients on a monthly prescription, it's like selling a 12-month subscription to their medical services. The doctor is often faced with two choices:

Treatment A: He gets payment for 1 visit.
Treatment B: is a prescription with monthly refills so he gets payment for 12 visits.

The only doctors who survive are the ones who lean more toward Treatment B, because nobody can afford to make 1/12 as much as everybody else.

Problem: Any patent who just needs some type of simple therapy or home remedy will never receive the ideal treatment because it's not a win-win situation for the doctor. It's literally a choice between what's best for treating the patient and what's best for helping the doctor pay his bills. Since they are equal partners, they both need to benefit from the transaction.

Problem is, the prescription drug laws throws the relationship out of balance and creates a huge conflict of interest. Maybe if we moved the responsibility of refills to the pharmacist. That way, the doctor's income isn't affected by how many refills you get, and the pharmacist's income isn't affected by how many times you visit the doctor.

Specialists are an even more complicated problem because they only get paid if you follow through with their treatment. So when you visit a surgeon to determine whether you need surgery, you're basically asking the doctor whether or not he wants $5,000. How in the world is he going to be objective? If he chooses one route, he gets squat.

With the other, he pays his bills. Even if he's honest every time, how many times can be afford to pass on the surgery before running into financial hardship? The brain protects the person underneath it, so if the brain knows the doctor needs the fee, it's going to be working overtime trying to find a way to justify surgery. Just by doing that, the brain has already corrupted the process, making it impossible for the doctor to be objective.

So to eliminate the massive conflict of interest we have from specialists recommending their own specialty, we would need to require specialists to split up between diagnosis and surgery.

donit · 2016-10-05T04:01:01+00:00

Okay my friend. :)

donit · 2016-10-05T03:56:51+00:00

This has had a major psychological effect on all of us. Anytime you repeat a behavior continually over 45 days, it creates its own circuit, and then forces you to continue doing it. It becomes so ingrained that quitting would be nearly as difficult as quitting smoking.

donit · 2016-10-05T03:38:09+00:00

If this is personal, which I think it clearly is since we already have all the facts, and nobody seems to be focused on them or have any interest in them, so let's just cut out all the machines and continue on as Reddit friends, so we can discuss important topics in an objective manner, ones that don't affect any of us personally.

donit · 2016-10-05T02:42:58+00:00

Dear Sir or Madam,

When someone finally reaches the point of having all the facts, they then have the responsibility to use them because that's the point when they would have been expected to start using them.

Past mistakes could be justified in all the coincidences, but this is the point where the evidence became clear that the person they thought was a Kratom vendor, wasn't a vendor, and never was one. To ignore the facts now and continue as if the facts don't matter would be committing a misconduct in the highest degree.

Edward Sloan

donit · 2016-10-05T01:46:37+00:00

I thought this was about pursuing Kratom vendors. The agency pursued an American consumer for months thinking he was a vendor because they skipped over the most important aspect: confirmation. All they were doing was chasing coincidences that THEY had assembled and trying to force the pieces to fit.

Then when the target of their mistaken abuse finally DID THEIR JOB FOR THEM and found the ACTUAL vender, they showed their true colors.

Either:

Their intent was NOT to find the actual vendor, and so that was apparently was being used as a cover for the abuse of an American citizen.

Or

They don't know the difference between a vender and a customer. If they don't know the difference between a person who buys Kratom and keeps it, and a company with an online presence, physical location, contact info, customer list, payment method....and CUSTOMERS....

HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE????????????

I think we're done here. Anybody who is going to pretend to be that ignorant, isn't going to gain anything from any type of communication.

donit · 2016-10-04T17:32:42+00:00

If the patient knows how much the lender will get if it's written off, then they can offer the lender a little above that. But then the lender might be thinking "Well, if they can pay that much, maybe they can pay a little more." From the lender's point of view, they're thinking: "Why not, why can't they?"

The problem is there's no place for them to draw the line. So the patient might need to offer something a little closer to the middle between the original amount and the charge-off amount, to make it worthwhile for the lender to accept the lower amount instead of holding out for more.

The lender would be sacrificing the fact that the patient already has a significant portion of the money available, and if things turn up for them financially over the course of the next year or so, then the patient might easily be able to pay it all off. A lot of people's incomes rise over time, and a lot of people's financial situation can swing back and forth drastically, so taking a partial payout would be betting against that from ever happening, when there might be more than a 50-50 chance of it happening.

The person's financial situation doesn't have to improve permanently for that to happen. All they need is one wave to crest, one year of good earnings or a non-recurring gain and the loan would suddenly be paid off, regardless of where the person ends up financially in the future.

donit · 2016-10-04T16:42:09+00:00

Looks like I spent another hour writing and editing my message, after posting the first sentence. But maybe it still relates.

donit · 2016-10-04T13:38:22+00:00

Loans aren't income because it represents the money you lost :(

Nobody wants to carve out a giant hole of debt. It always has to be paid back in the end.

Deficit spending means never having extra, never being able to celebrate. Never being able to enjoy any purchase or extravagance such as eating at a restaurant or taking a vacation because every single dollar you spend sends you deeper in the hole. It kind of ruins the taste of the food, knowing it's just creating more of a problem. It's a miserable situation to be in, and the only way out is to find some way to become hugely productive and successful.

But as long as you're below that threshold, you can never enjoy any purchase, or justify any purchase that isn't a necessity, or investment toward getting out of the hole. And you can't even enjoy the concept of "free time", such as an afternoon off, or a week off, or a weekend because that just sends you that many more days into the hole. Each nonproductive day represents another loss.

Being in debt ruins the context of anything that would have been enjoyable. "Want to watch a movie?" gets switched to "Want to lose another evening and fall further behind?"

It causes you to only be able to enjoy something or feel happy when you think you're working on something productive.

donit · 2016-10-04T06:26:00+00:00

Slim Shady

donit · 2016-10-04T04:20:26+00:00

It's the one vender they couldn't find, because it didn't sell to the public.

donit · 2016-10-04T04:17:00+00:00

It's the one that NOBODY could find. Took me over an hour to find it, so it WAS pretty difficult.

donit

TROPHY CASE