The problem is identifying and accepting the problem


Idea


I keep coming back to this idea. It isn't because it is simply my idea, it because everybody thinks it true to some degree at least or it has some truth in it.


Excuse me for the length but problems of this size cannot be laid out in a sentence or two.


The Groundwork

Take; for example, a forest fire. It would be pretty ridiculous for someone to stand on the edge of a forest fire and point to a burning tree and say, "That tree is on fire, that is our problem, let's put it out." Nobody can deny the tree is on fire and putting it out would help but it would hardly fix the problem. Now consider if you were in your cabin and all you could see through the window was 'that' tree? Then you might really agree, 'that tree' is is the problem. You might have a tendency to overlook the fact that there is far more smoke than a single tree on fire warrants, especially if the fire was threatening home & property. Now one more little twist to this scenario. What if whoever was putting out the fire had an agenda of their own? What if it was to this person's advantage the tree was destroyed? If the tree were cut down under the pretext of saving your house, are you going to complain? What if unbeknown to you, this is the person that started the fire?




The Difficulties

It is difficult to see a new concept especially when we are comfortable with the old. Admit that not only are you are wrong but your whole line of thinking is in error is incredibly difficult. Throughout time people have backed evil dictators, etc. even after they found out the truth; in part because they didn't want to say they were wrong or they couldn't or didn't know how to turn back.


Sometimes too, we just don't want to see the problem. It is easier to ignore a problem than to fix a problem, epecially if fixing a problem means admitting you were wrong about something in the first place.


The Perpetrators

Here is where it starts to get difficult, the finger pointing, the naming names, the assigning of blame.


There are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to 'fix' things and they want to 'make things right,' at least that is the way it is in the beginning. There are also a lot of people who get into politics for personal gain. I'm pretty sure the Continental Congress got together with the idea of making a nation first, everything else was secondary and nary a thought given to personal gain. Congressmen today must rely on lawyer's, indeed; often they are one. Laws are so complex nobody and I mean nobody can begin to understand them all and their interactions. In fact, it is to the lawyers advantage that they don't. So lawyers must write the laws the politician requests and the politician signs off on what was written if it meets with their satisfaction.


Have I said anything wrong yet?


So if you are a lawyer writing one of these laws, are you going to put something in there that makes your life harder in any way? I don't think so, quite the opposite is true. Now take this one step further. Do you think the politician is going to write a law that is going to make life difficult for himself or other politicians? (Like campaign reform) Absolutely not! Would you also say then, that they just might write some rules giving advantages to themselves?


You're damn right! Politicians have even written or tried to write laws exempting themselves from everything short of murder and some have gotten away with both. Politicians have been caught in the most blatant of infractions yet rarely is anything done. If it were you or I would be a prison term; but it is so common, so expected (of congress) that nobody seems to really take notice. (Apathy)


This has been going on for almost 200 years, I'm going to make an assumption that the first few guys really had the country at heart. Would you agree? Then, if that be true, would you say that the ones in office now really don't have the country at heart, or maybe as much as it should be? Actually, and this is my opinion; I think they have a real sweet deal and they know it. They will do almost anything to stay in office and in fact have this mental attitude that if they get re-elected, what ever it is they are doing must be what the people wanted or else they wouldn't have gotten re-elected. So it is a self feeding, self redeeming situation. If they do something that works towards keeping them in office, no matter what it is, legal or ethical or what, it must be right.


Remember, this didn't happen overnight, it has been creeping up for 200 years. The trouble is while the true goals of politicians have become self rewarding, they still think of themselves as the original Continental Congress with lofty goals and ideals.






The Problem

Their problem? Greed & Arrogance


Our problem? Apathy



The GAY Connection


This is my theory although I find it hard to believe with all the available evidence I am the only one to see it. The first thing people like to say debunking my (or any) theory is point to specific examples that might say otherwise. Well no shit! Let's put out the forest fire before we start pointing at individual trees. A single tree is not the problem. We don't condemn all man because we find one guilty nor do we let all go free because another is innocent.


To start with, as I said earlier, politicians will do virtually anything to stay in office. Taking money from big business is just a necessary thing to do in their eyes. Of course this makes them 'friends' with the big business. e.g. look at the sugar industry. They have a monopoly in the United States and they give heavily to both parties. We are supposed to have this free market system but there are certain things you cannot touch like the sugar industry, the peanut industry, the drug industry to name a few. Why? Because they give heavily to the politicians. So the point I want to make here is, you can get away with almost anything if you give enough to congress. That is true, isn't it!

Back to my point.

The Proof

Residue from birth control pills can be found in our sewer water after treatment especially from older treatment plants, the outflow is dumped back into our water supply and is feminizing the male fish. Science News Aug 2, 03 pg 67 But it doesn't bother people, right? sic. Hold on to that thought. http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=35066&catname=Local+News.htm


A Confluence of Contaminants: Streams' organic mix may pose environmental risk


Science News March 23, 2002 pg 181 http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/3_21_98/bob1.htm


DDT treatment turns male fish into mothers Science News Week of Feb. 5, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 6 pg.87


Male animals are being born with femminized reproductive organs. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/journalists/raloff.htm


Estrogen-mimicking pollutants can trigger gender-bending effects in wildlife. We are talking parts per trillion here! Science News 8/5/00 p.94


Estrogen's Emerging Manly Alter Ego Science News December 6, 1997


There are enormous barriers to obtaining human evidence linking pollutants to health problems.


http://www.watoxics.org/Poisons/poisons3.htm


Put down that "Plastic" milk bottle.

Ingredients of common plastics, may harm boys as they develop. S/N Vol 158 #10 (Oops, it does harm humans?)


The ignored estrogen in soy. Science News Volume 155, Number 20 (May 15, 1999) Soy, often simply labeled 'hydrogenated oil' can be found in at least %70 of our food.


This is just a tip of the problem, but I know most of us simply refuse to acknowledge it could be true, it is just too damn much trouble to do anything about it, it is too easy at least right now.


Here is another twist. I don't know why nobody else seems to see. If the government ("For the people") put a stop to big business practice of "femminizing" the 'male' populace, (it actually screws up females too but I'm trying to focus on one problem here) they probably wouldn't get any more donations which means they probably wouldn't get reelected which means they (in their mind set) wouldn't be doing their job.


Let me give you another example. In the 1950's farmers grew soy bean because it fixes nitrogen in the soil not because it was a good crop, on the contrary, soy is virtually in-edible, it actually was a poor substitute for cattle feed. You cannot eat soy without it being processed into something else. It is only consumable today due to the wonders of modern science. You can make crude oil edible if you process it enough e.g. Miracle Whip, Velveeta Cheese.  Did you realize that soy is actually a waste product that industry has dressed up as a wonderful food? How ingenious, get the public to eat your garbage, and pay to eat it! You better believe they don't want that story to get out. See why it is almost impossible to get an incumbent out of office? They have so much financial backing from so many that have so much to lose it is to their advantage that the keep people already on their payroll (who won't blow the whistle on them) in office.


But we wouldn't want to change anything, would we? (sic) Re-elect the incumbents simply because their name is mentioned most. Forget the fact that everything they proposed to do was a lie or turns out to be a fraud. Ignore the fact that the politician's donors are fleecing you out your hard earned cash, poisoning the environment, femminizing your sons, masculinizing your daughters and slowly turning this from a free society to one of social class.