Informed Decisions in Unprecedented Times

Making Ethical Decisions for Your Family, Employees, and Children

We live in a time of misinformation. No one trusts due to political agendas and personal ideologies that pervade many people’s ability, to tell the truth. It is a fact that every person skews information in the direction of their opinion and many do not do it on purpose. There is a real tendency to create maladaptations of information by humans known as cognitive bias.

We all have implicit cognitive biases that cause unintentional and unrecognized logical fallacies in our ideas and beliefs. (If you're interested in learning more about logical pitfalls, I recommend checking out yourlogicalfallacyis.com.)

Understanding this simple psychological concept makes you a more accurate thinker and a better decision-maker. (Interesting fact: This is the human characteristic that is often exploited for manipulation by propaganda.) 

If we know the best ways to choose sources to get factual data, we can then use critical thinking to weigh all the relevant components and derive a logical perspective that fits our character, ethics, and beliefs. 

There are many places we get news and some are more trustworthy than others. Scholarly sources are usually our best bet for real intelligence. "Scholarly sources are those that have been approved by a group with recognized expertise in the field under discussion. Books published by University Presses fall into this category, as do articles published in peer-reviewed journals—journals where the editors send pieces out to be read by experts in the field before deciding to publish them. Scholarly sources are not infallible, but their publication process includes many steps for verifying facts, for reducing political bias, and for identifying conflicts of interest (for instance, for informing readers when a drug company has funded research on its own product)." (Yale University) 

To ensure integrity in compiling factual data I used credible and reliable sources of information. All sources used are cited and linked. Please look at the citation information to make sound judgments and use then use this information to think critically. We should come to educated conclusions that stand to reason rather than following illogical ideology for safety and fairness. It is important to look for conflicting information as it is often presented even within one article. Small nuances in wording make big differences in one's comprehension of the message.

It would be best if you made decisions from the facts based on your values and reasonings. Remember, all sources have a bias. Determining whether the writer's perspective matches your own values is paramount. Do they put most importance on family, truth, life, justice, equality, money, etc.? These understandings factor into the decisions you make about the source.

"By identifying our values, we can begin to design a life that is in better alignment with our true self. Keep in mind that values are different for everyone—you are the only one who can identify your values." (Davis, 2018)

Not sure if you should be working or not? Read the guidelines here: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cutting-through-the-fog-how-to-navigate-72516/

https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CISA-Guidance-on-Essential-Critical-Infrastructure-Workers-1-20-508c.pdf

Important Facts to Consider:

    The coronavirus often infects clusters of family members, friends, and 
work colleagues. Leading experts agree on the steps that must be taken immediately.

1.  Americans must be persuaded to stay home, they said. There should be a system put in place to isolate the infected and care for them outside the home. 
2. Travel restrictions should be extended, they said; productions of masks and ventilators must be accelerated, and testing problems must be resolved.  
3. “The American way is to look for better outcomes through a voluntary system,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, former director of medical and biodefense preparedness for the National Security Council.

·       Experts are united in the opinion that politicians must step aside and let scientists lead the effort to contain the virus and explain to Americans what must be done. (Just as generals take the lead in wartime —medical experts should now explain complex ideas like epidemic curves, social distancing, and potential medications.

·       If all Americans froze in place for 14 days the whole epidemic would sputter to a halt. The virus would die out on every contaminated surface and it would be evident who is infected.

·       If we had enough tests for every American, even those with no symptoms, cases could be found and isolated. The crisis would be over. But we do not have enough tests.

·      The goal of lockdowns and social distancing is to approximate that "freeze."

·      The chief medical adviser to the White House Coronavirus Task Force agrees and advocates restrictive measures all across the country.

·      The weaker the shut-down that we employ, the more people will get sick and potentially die in overburdened hospitals. This extends the time it takes for the economy to restart.  

     This pandemic information's source can be found at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/coronavirus-restrictions-us.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Source reliability information:

https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/writing/using-sources/principles-citing-sources/scholarly-vs-  popular-sources

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times

Facts about coronavirus:

 https://www.factcheck.org/a-guide-to-our-coronavirus-coverage/

·      The virus causes a pneumonia-like respiratory illness that varies in severity but can be deadly. Symptoms include fever, cough, and shortness of breath.

·      In some cases, people are infected but have no symptoms. 

·      It’s not yet known how frequently people die from COVID-19. The reported fatality rates have fluctuated, hovering around 2-3% in late January, and around 4% as of March 18. (For comparison, SARS killed around 10% of infected people, if not more, while seasonal influenza typically kills 0.1% or less.)

·      According to a February study by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 14% of cases in mainland China were severe and 5% were critical.

·      People who are infected do not show symptoms until around 4 days later. That time could range from 2 to 14 days. Even though they have no symptoms, people can transmit the virus to others during that period. Because of this, people who have few or no symptoms may be responsible for the bulk of the disease spread.

·      It is possible to contract the disease by touching contaminated surfaces and then touching your face. A study released in mid-March found the virus could be detected for up to 24 hours on cardboard and much longer on hard surfaces including plastic and stainless steel — the virus can live for up to two to three days.

·      It’s unclear exactly how infectious the virus is. Using a variety of methods, figures generally range from 1.5 to 4. This suggests the transmissibility is roughly in line with that of SARS, but below that of the measles virus, which has an R0 of around 12 to 18. Measles are one of the most infectious viruses in the world. https://www.factcheck.org/a-guide-to-our-coronavirus-coverage/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statistics from Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) on infection/death rates are no longer reporting a nation-wide number of deaths. They are now breaking it down by state- or in some cases, counties within a state. They even listed the two separate cruise ships as entities. 

 Adding every county up by hand, the U.S. has 392 deaths as of 10am per this John-Hopkins map. That puts the U.S. in 5th place for # of deaths. Far above Germany and just behind France. We are currently in 3^rd place for confirmed cases of the virus (although that number of cases is extremely low versus the reality because testing is not being done and we must consider that people are contagious before ever showing signs that they are sick.) https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-respiratory-disease-mortality-1980-2015

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/quality/hospital-resources/

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/quality/hospital-resources/

Citations:

Brandeis University. (2020, March 12). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_University

Center for Science. (n.d.). Global Cases at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Davis, T. (2018, July 12). 39 Core Values—and How to Live by Them. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/click-here-happiness/201807/39-core-values-and-how-live-them

Factcheck.org. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from     https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=factcheck.org

Health System Tracker. (n.d.). Hospital beds per capita. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/indicator/quality/hospital-beds-per-capita/

Mcneil, D. G. (2020, March 22). Harsh Steps Are Needed to Stop the Coronavirus, Experts Say. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/health/coronavirus-restrictions-us.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

Media Bias Fact Check: New York Times. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/

Yale University. (n.d.). Scholarly vs. Popular Sources: Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning. Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/writing/using-sources/principles-citing-sources/scholarly-vs-popular-sources

We, The Malevolently Misinformed

What if we could change the world with words?

I believe something as simple as changing the strategy of our communication could improve the way the world relates to one another.

Communication is something most of us take for granted every single day. We speak a lot. Therefore, it would seem we would be pros at it, and that is a presumption that gets us in trouble. Because we know how to talk, we feel effective with our words, but that is not necessarily the case.  It requires far more thought than we may assume and also entails excellent listening skills. Listening is an art, and again, we hardly give it the importance that it deserves. Beyond that, to be sure communication is representative of one's real motive, we must follow up with the comparing of assertations to actions.

Have you ever said something to someone and later found out that they took it in a way you did not mean for them to? Did you think back on your words to find that there were viable reasons to make that wrong assumption? Perhaps you noticed that the way you said it left it open to different interpretations?
Have you ever had a discussion with someone and wondered whether they understand the meaning of the words they are using? Did you feel you could ask for clarification? If not, did you insert your assumption to their purpose?
Have you ever misconstrued someone's meaning and found later that the real thought behind their words was completely different than your understanding?

These are all common communication gaps. They happen all the time, and yet we rarely watch for the discrepancies, and unless we process every conversation thoroughly, we might never even know that they happened. This ineffective correspondence is like the old game 'Telephone' where you sit in a circle and whisper into each other's ear. By the time the last person hears the message, it is so far from the original meaning, it is laughable. Even if we come to understand this amongst the people we speak to daily, we may not realize that everyone is susceptible to wrong interpretations and while most may be innocently happening, it is also quite useful in spreading dissemination of information.

Research tells us that the more emotionally tied we are to a subject, the more we may struggle to listen to opposing views successfully. This is apparent when we watch others try to explain information that differs from their personal value system. Small inaccuracies in wording often begin to create monstrous conclusions that barely leave a fraction of the truth in their summation.

Do we pay enough attention to what we hear and weigh its legitimacy on whom we are getting the information? Do we effectively discern strict fact sharing from the spread of personal understanding? Do we research the things we are told before concreting their validity-- especially if it supports our already formed opinion?

I think the answer is a resounding, no.

What if began listening with the hope to fully understand one another before we mentally began our debate? What if speaking to explain our understandings, became the precedent over trying to outsmart one another? What if we thought of speech as the sharing of information rather than use it to spew our opposing beliefs?

I think this simple mind-shift is the key to solving all human differences. To converse to share and compare, rather than being right, we could view issues with more honesty and integrity. We would find it less threatening to research things and enjoy an influx of new information. With new understandings, we might digest our thoughts more thoroughly, test our beliefs, and choose our stances more intelligently. By removing the defensiveness that springs up when we hear conflicting views on matters, we might side-step much of the knee-jerk cognitive dissonances that currently prevent us from understanding one another and also blocks any hope of learning and growing.

Today we argue ineffectively by complicating issues with inaccurate comparisons and even purposely misconstrue one another's view-points to inflame and subjugate. The willful use of hurtful and misconstrued judgment is creating emotional reasoning and distrust, to the point, it is now a cultural habit that sullies legitimate causes and polarizes our ability to solve problems.

We begin villainizing counterintelligence before we implement any cognizant reasoning, and that is destroying our ability to logically process. Some of us cope by forcing our views onto others while others stay quiet to try and avoid confrontation, but these methods have us all walking away from one another with shared powerlessness; Some to defend ourselves against injustice and others with the fear they will lose their liberty. The inability to have a constructive conversation leaves us all with a deep-seated suspiciousness of one another.

We must ask hard questions and demand relevant answers to know the truth of our situation. This situation finds us in the position that we would rather be wrong and win an argument than admit a wrong, and elevate the standard. It's no wonder there is so much hostility between us, at this rate we can never hope to find common ground.

Defensiveness is now the go-to, and questioning is dangerous territory. Who hasn't been blasted with sarcasm or humiliated for a thought? For daring to share an idea or ask a question? This intolerance of differing beliefs and conceptions has us deaf and dumb because we are fearful of questioning or answering anything.

Speak and listen well. The choice of phrase and meaning behind our spoken words are important and necessitate much consideration with attention to detail. When we find ourselves in the same boat but at each other's throats, and in this place where everyone seems unable to come to a meeting of the minds, perhaps it is time to shed light on our failings to listen and communicate honestly with one another. With a little attention to detail, discernment of truth from opinion, and a comparing of words to actions, we just might come to see we are all guilty of some poor communication and with a bit of effort, we could understand each other a whole lot better and maybe even fix our common ship.

An Inner World of Unwritten Rules

When a pro-life person uses their own traits and emotions, to assert what an unborn baby or God wants, we have their unwritten rules of rightness exalting woman's actual decisions. They are using a defense mechanism, projection, to oppress a sentient human being's choice. The understanding of the term sentient and the separation of church and state or religious freedom are pivotal to this debate and so many trying to have the conversation are not well-versed in either the words or their meanings.

An unborn child cannot decide anything for itself or take care of itself, it requires the indentured efforts of another FREE human being's body to survive, and that requirement cannot pass to any other person. We have a situation that conflicts our freedom for all ideal, and despite our ability to reason, we cannot seem to find a place to agree to disagree. So much so, that some feel compelled to implement laws to enforce their will. The word oppression is to control someone else, to enforce your will onto another, not considering their feelings. If your knee-jerk argument is for the unborn child's rights, we must be clear that a person must have an opinion to be oppressed by an opposing one. The law of our land must first protect freedom as it is the basis of our nation and the only moral commitment we all agreed to share. That freedom is permitted to only to law-abiding and sound-of-mind and extends to choices of personal religions and beliefs. 

I am a thinking person, and as such, I admit that I often allow posts on Facebook to bother me far too much and I can not stop thinking about a post I saw yesterday about abortion. Questions haunt me about this person and the many others she must represent out there. 

This post is by a young girl who believes she would have raised the baby of her rapist. She goes on to say that she feels justified to make others do the same, claiming that if they think they could not raise the child, they should simply put it up for adoption. 

I keep asking myself questions. Did she choose this for herself, or was she coerced to believe it was her duty? Perhaps a noble sacrifice? Does she understand that her perspective and circumstances are not universal? Psychology would say that her decision, whether her own or coerced, obviously brings her some satisfaction. She is proud to assert her intention and opinion though she did not experience the consequences of that choice. Is her conviction even valid as little more than a fantasized-reality? After all, experiences often turn out to be a far cry from the idea we carry in our mind. I wonder if it is a religious thing-- and if so does she understand that a person outside of her belief system would not have that self-abdicating ego boost to help bolster their happiness with that same determination? And isn't there an undermining to the virtue when she seeks to force that imagined altruism onto others?

The science of making decisions could explain much about her assertation. We, as humans, all stack facts to support the choices we make. We do it to justify ourselves, which helps us feel effective in our lives. Knowing that about myself, however, has helped me to see it and sometimes laugh at my reaching. I think if we all had that understanding, we might come to see ourselves more clearly. 

It's not that I want her to change her decision or feel ignorant. Rather, I want her to free herself. To be confident, she chose from her heart and not ideas that society may have staunchly implanted. To see clearly the things she might use to convince herself to do something, not in her best interest and not matching her values in assuring her that liberty, she automatically begins to allow others more freedom too.

I am interested to understand her judgment of women, unable to live up to her standard, as she calls them murderers. It seems she is holding others to a set of rules and standards and we often feel merited to enforce our ideals onto others when we feel subjugated-- a sort of "if I can do it then so can you." This is especially true when humans think they are upholding a greater good or higher moral standard, though it is also true when we feel powerless. Rather than try to elevate the standard of deliverance, we often try to constrain others.

These are simple errors in thinking that we all make. They are natural and normal but not always healthy. Where do they come from? Why are we prone to missing the trees in the forest? 


From the moment we breathe our first breath, we begin the lessons of rightness. We are told what to believe, how to think, and we learn quickly the punishments for varying from these creeds. Those guidelines become the laws of our existence. They carve the path that we walk and are the navigators of our conscience. These orders even dictate our self-worth within our family. Evaluations of will and ability to follow the rules win us the labeling of good kids and bad kids. We, people, found a simple way to decide who is acceptable and who is not, and though it is sometimes hurtful and unfair, it is accepted.

While the laws of our land may be universal, those familial and religious personal axioms are as diverse as our population. In our quest to live up to the expectations, some decide they are failures and others excel so much that they become deeply-seated in them. These people often seek to enforce. Their beliefs are like the rulings of a court, and they find pleasure in enforcing them on everyone around them. How often do we fix labels determining people good or bad, all based on some obscure law our parent taught us was nice or acceptable? These are cultural thoughts, passed from generation to generation but written nowhere. They exist only in our heads. Imagine trying to play a game where different rules dictate everyone's actions, and no one knows why anyone is doing anything. The problem is compounded when our perception of one another is based on how well we follow those unknown rules. 

In this confusion, even when we want to fix the problems of our worl,d we can end up causing more issues. We try to apply our understandings, to decipher other's behaviors, and we completely misconstrue others intentions. Further, we rarely think to consider each individual's experiences. It's not a perfect science, but if we can catch ourselves getting caught up in our programmed thinking, we can consider it. Soon we find ourselves listening for the ideas that vary from the ones already seeded in our minds and comparing them to our own. This opens us up to hearing with our hearts and helps us to understand one another better. It also presents opportunities to learn and grow. We may find a treasure in another point of view or still end up dismissing their opinion, but we logically processed it and base our judgments on realness rather than jumping to conclusions. 


It is difficult to stand down from your platform of rightness. Trust me, I know. When you begin to notice it, you will look around and see that we are all entrenched in our own understandings. It is much easier to allow our illusions of superiority to reign supreme and overthrow our compassion and even scarier, our logic. Atrocities happen when we lose our humanity, and historically, we see that is most prevalent when we believe we are doing whats 'right.' A great deal of self-reflection, respect for others, and selflessness are required to allow our fellow woman to live by her conviction.  

I write this in hopes of softening judgments and opening conversations. Why not offer a door to understanding ourselves so that we may see a way to peace with others? Wouldn't it be a world-changer to soften peoples prejudices and bridge people and belief systems so that we might live together- and not just tolerate, but protect each other's rights and differences? 

I would love to speak to this girl so I might understand her better. I believe there is much to revere in her. It appears that she is of good conscience and wants to be a kind human. There is a blind spot in her assumption and I can truly believe that she knows not what she does to others with her beliefs. The concept that people who do not believe as she does-- also do not act as she does, nor hold in esteem all the same virtues that she does, probably never crossed her mind. Yet, these are the things that make carrying a rapists child achievable for her. While her family and friends might find her actions enviable and saintly, the people around another girl could belittle her for that same decision and think her ignorant. It is all in the way we see the world.

We must, for the sake of individuality, humanity, and freedom, use our unbiased logic to understand our fellow woman and out of our own humility come the wisdom to grant her the right to have an abortion. 

She Should Have: A Letter to The Good Ole Boys.

 Hey men. Yeah, you. Especially you, badass, southern, white men... care to test yourself on whether you are fairly evaluating the Kavanaugh debacle? I am bowled over at how many men in my life cannot understand this issue.

Let's create a simulation of what a girl goes through that you can actually feel so that you can better understand the subtle emotions behind such an act.

You have gone out to dinner with a fellow businessman, and the two of you are having burgers and beers and then heading over to his place to watch a game with other fellow workers. You arrive at his house a little early so while waiting for the other fellas you begin talking about his awesome new pistol with tons of bells and whistles. You like guns and would love to feast your eyes on this masterpiece so when he asks if you want to see it, you follow him eagerly.

He winds you through his strange house and back into a room where there is a king size bed, but you barely notice it. He closes the door, and you find it odd but assume he did it out of habit or didn't want anyone to know where he hides his gun. He is a respected man of the community and a "ladies man." You think he is a healthy, decent human being, so you continue along with only the slightest reservation.

Sure enough, he opens the nightstand drawer and pulls out the pistol...You are excited to get a better look but instead of handing it to you, he points it in your face and demands you perform oral sex on him.

Now let's assume this guy is the size of The Rock and you are, well-- you. To be clear, Dwayne Johnson is 6'4 and weighs 260lbs. of pure muscle. He was a football player, a WWE wrestler, and today he has a gun pointed at your head. Again, you are just you. You refuse his demand, and he laughs, pistol whips you, and forcibly puts his member into your mouth.
You are in shock, beat senseless, and already sexually assaulted. Even if it ends right here, you had an unwelcome penis in your mouth.

This is the world of forced submission.

Unimpressed with your oral skill, this huge, angry, bully belittles you for begging him to stop like a whining girl. Then he threatens to take pictures of his member in your mouth and post it to a gay dating site unless you remove your clothes.

He rapes you numerous times.

You are battered, threatened with public humiliation, shocked, traumatized and in desperate fear for your life.

You are relieved but also mortified when the first men arrive to watch the game. He leaves you to answer the door, and you struggle to put your clothes back on, thankful for the end of your torture. In a fog of upset and pain, you try to get yourself together before the other men see you in this compromised, humiliating position.

When you finally emerge, you try not to walk funny. You have some facial wounds that the other guys are curious about, and you listen, furious when your abuser laughingly explains them away as a bar fight you were both in earlier.  He even elaborates, spinning a tale of, you should see the other guy.

Do you tell the other men what happened? Do you run to the police? Maybe. But he will post the picture of his penis in your mouth and say you are lying to cover up your gay activity. He and all his friends will scoff at the ridiculousness of your claim. It is also going to mean you explain exactly what he did to you numerous times and to more and more people. Reliving every awful moment and furthering your torment by publically announcing every embarrassing detail. Everyone from that moment on will know the degradation you suffered.

You must consider that you will never be looked upon the same again and that telling will never give you back your dignity, but it just might take away more of it. You are sickened when you realize women too will know you were victimized. How will they perceive you? Will you ever feel manly again?

In this scenario, your man card is laying in ruin just like a woman's chastity after such an incidence. 

Women are often thought of as loose, whores, fast, or sluts for having sex, and likewise, you will be shamed rather than supported. Namely, you will be called gay, fag, "catcher" and the size of your anal entrance will be discussed, called into question, laughed about and commented on--publically, often, and without compassion or even a nod to the fact that you were an unwilling participant.

People, even your family, will speculate and ask why you went to his house. Why did you go into his bedroom? They will conclude that you wanted it, asked for it even. You had dinner, drinks and then willingly went into his bedroom, surely you must have known this would happen to you.

Now, think about it. With real implications attached, would you tell?

        Further, imagine you do tell and you are called a liar. You're told it didn't happen or you deserved it.

For more understanding go watch the movies: Deliverance (Burt Reynolds), and The Accused (Jodi Foster).  

Sexual Assault in the United States

• One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives (a)
• In the U.S., one in three women and one in six men experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime (o)
• 51.1% of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance (a)
• 52.4% of male victims report being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger (a)
• Almost half (49.5%) of multiracial women and over 45% of American Indian/Alaska Native women were subjected to some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime (o)
• 91% of victims of rape and sexual assault are female, and nine percent are male (m)
• In eight out of 10 cases of rape, the victim knew the perpetrator (j)
• Eight percent of rapes occur while the victim is at work (c)

Fake News, Freedom, and the Ability to do Great Injustice

   

There is a name for fake news that is far more telling of its sinister capabilities. Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view is propaganda-- a foreign word to American's. We are distanced from such things.

      We learned about it in high school. Therefore we could never fall victim to it, right? It is the tactics of corrupt and evil nations. We default to our idea of Nazi's rather than engaging our critical thinking.
    American schools teach the word attached to specific agendas. Then they explain that we are free which lulls us into the belief that we are above this sort of mass manipulation by corrupt leaders. But does that notion hold true under examination?

When Adolf Hitler decided a superior race, what made him believe he was right? Intelligence? A generosity of spirit? Conscious? Fairness? No.

 He was arrogant of race, deluded about victimhood, ignorant of his descent into evil and corrupted within his beliefs, both personal and religious. So much so, that he could carry out atrocities without blinking an eye. He acted on his anger and fear to a degree where he could de-humanize people. An entire race of people. Then he went further to add anyone who sought to help those people.

That one derived ability was built from years of biased information and refusal to acknowledge his own shortcomings. And then those casual attributes created the monster. 

The terrible truth is that his sickness is contagious. We know it spread to an entire country and eventually bore the fruits of his evil on such a scale that all humanity was affected. Is America now falling into the same trap?

Someone told us that people coming into this country was a drain on our wealth and wellbeing. They pointed to instantaneous welfare and job loss. When that wasn't enough they added crime, eeking out stories of illegal immigrants who break our laws, making us believe we are victims of these horrible people on a large scale. American's, out of perceived unfairness and helplessness, misdirect their anger in response.

 Instead of using our intelligent and civilized means of fixing broken laws and righting system failures we built prisons to detain the people and created our own moral rules these people broke to allow apathy to human suffering. People I know to have good hearts and kindness were suddenly tyrannical in their want to punish those people as if they committed some heinous injustice. Hung in the town square without trial or conviction. When good people see themselves as morally superior, they become able to justify grave misdeeds of humanity. (https://www.ethicalsystems.org/content/lucifer-effect)

     There is no doubt that separating parents from children is traumatic and puts children at risk. None of us are so ignorant we believe this is harmless and by justifying our actions, we allow the stripping of their humanness. We have placed a lesser value on their life than ours in overt superiority and failed to see the commonalities between us. We criticized their decision without knowing the aspects of consideration. Whether directly or by inaction, we are all guilty of allowing this now.

American's have proclaimed ourselves the victims of these people rather than see that we are all the suckers of a defective system of government that is being inadequately run, choosing to villainize the easier target.

When American's talk about freedom, they often puff their chests and turn sentimental eyes toward our military. In that misconstrued idea, we lost track of what freedom means.

American freedom is not a commodity to be stolen by thieves in the night and it has not ever been fought for by a man in uniform on foreign land. To fight for American freedom is to demand fairness and dignity to all our citizens, to be governed by a body of people elected by, and put in place, to represent the will of the public.


War, unless declared on or by our own government to fight within our borders or to oppose a regime trying to enter our country and take over, has never been for American freedom. Let that sink in.

     Freedom: 1. the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. 2. absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government. 3. the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

I'll wager that every American freedom ever lost was taken by those governing us, or by our fellow people. 

     Whether by our asking, or our leader's telling, we have allowed the erosion of our freedoms. Consider the misuse of our tax dollars, unwarranted searches, being demonized for taking a knee, and getting mowed down by police on our streets at ever increasing rates, we are sinking into oppression that should be alarming to us all. But many of us are failing to see or acknowledge it. Some of us are even hailing its demise. Why?

  Cognitive Dissonance. In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a belief of a person clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Gradually our declining awareness weakens us as a country and ensures the future degradation of even more of our liberty.

Already we sit by lax while our citizens have their passports revoked (https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/08/30/revoking-passports-us-citizens/) and immigrants and citizens who have broken no laws get thrown into jails and encampments. (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/us/measures-to-capture-illegal-aliens-nab-citizens.html) We turn a blind eye because we believe our system works-- and besides, the people of America are at odds, battling amongst ourselves. A ridiculous waste of time that takes the heat off the ones with the power to change anything. Foolishly, we argue and belittle each other as if any of us can call a shot.

We are playing in a game that divided we are sure to lose, and yet we cannot, or will not take the time to come to an agreement for the betterment of us all.

I hurt for all the many people who feel unheard and uncared for as the balance skews. The more attention these folks try to bring to their suffering and inequality, the more disdain and ridicule they get in our political divide. Thought of like delicate snowflakes, anyone seeking equality, protection, fairness, freedom, and justice are deemed weak and needy while the other side looks more and more like empathy lacking, bullies. Can we not find a place of strength that also allows humanity?


  Much like the Homeowner's Associations that became so popular for a while, stipulations, rules, restrictions, and conformity seem admirable and safe until we begin to find the problems and constraints that go along with them. It starts with the marginalized but before we know it, the discomfort is looking us dead square in the eyes, and we realize, too late, the mistake we made.

I challenge you to acknowledge your transcendence? What, in your mind, makes you right above all others? In a self-assessment, find your justifications. Within this hunt, we can begin to battle back against the nature of our thinking faults-- and we all have them. 

      Are you on a moral high-horse of empathy and altruism? Are you a proponent of the "I did it and so can you," group?  Maybe your superiority springs from a pious place, or perhaps you cannot bear to release your rose-colored, patriotism long enough to think critically about our nation.
    If we want an America that we can be proud of, we have to take a critical thinking standpoint. Logically, we are all correct as much as we are all entirely wrong. Only when the means of our solutions are humane and determined by the specifics of the individual case can we tout freedom. For that to happen, we all have to back off our sureness of possessing the one true right and learn to compromise. Extremism in any direction creates an imbalance; Inequality, unfairness, and injustice are not the standard we hold for America, are they?

I Refuse to get a Mammogram

Sitting in my doctor's office, I await my turn to answer awkward questions and justify myself against having numerous screenings. Though I am in shape and in good health, I must navigate this obstacle course every 4 months for access to my regular medications. I have taken the same dose of Synthroid for 15 years for low thyroid and Vyvanse for 5 years to treat my adult ADHD. Still, they tell me these visits are necessary to continue my prescriptions. For me, this is a costly inconvenience not only to me but also my health insurance company. It also feels like an overseeing of my health, by the government that is both unwarranted and unwanted.

I am choosy with my doctors because I have specific ideas about my healthcare. I also have strong opinions about the medical communities conventional methods of staying healthy. I want someone who invites me to take care of my body naturally and who does not throw a pill at every complaint. She must support my research and work with me to educate myself to best decide my care. I would never go to a provider who is threatened by my want to be educated enough to form my own thoughts and opinions. My doctor listens to my concerns and respectfully takes the time to consider the facts I present while helping me to fill in any information I may need.

 Like most, I am troubled by the number of young people in my life who I have seen get cancer and then subsequently pass because of it. Speaking to my friends who work in the medical industry, I became even more disheartened.  Over and over I heard them say that if they were ever diagnosed, they would seek alternative care- rather than go with conventional cancer treatments.  With that in mind, I began to study. The statistics are alarming, and this is information that everyone should understand in these times.

The first shock that I uncovered was the folly of our promotion of well-care screenings that have become a standard of care in America. We are made to believe these screenings are our best defense against getting sick. I have good health insurance and am health conscious, so it seems a no-brainer that I would run out and get mine- but I don't, and there is a reason.

I quickly found that breast and prostate cancers are the most over-diagnosed and over-treated cancers in America.  

They estimate that screen-detected breast tumors have an overdiagnosis rate of 14.7% to 38.6% (excluding ductal carcinoma in situ). This is the latest of several studies using various methods and data sets to show that the phenomenon of overdiagnosis exists in breast cancer. Estimates of this overdiagnosis rate vary but range up to 54% of screen-detected localized tumors, with most estimates between 15% and 25% (2). http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2597574/accepting-existence-breast-cancer-overdiagnosis.

Anyone who has ever had a health scare knows the stress that the fear produces. Stress alone is a danger to our health and overdiagnosis of cancer at best, means unnecessary worry. Unfortunately, it only gets worse from there. Next comes unneeded, expensive and invasive testing. And sadly, many will go on to have unnecessary cancer treatments that are likely more dangerous than their original condition.

 Mammographically detected breast cancers are much more likely to have low-risk biology than symptomatic tumors found between screenings (interval cancers) or that present as clinical masses.  Importantly, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, or what have been called stage I cancers, in and of themselves are not life-threatening. [Yet] situ lesions have been treated in a manner similar to that of invasive cancer, but there is little evidence to support that this practice has improved mortality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24451829

This means the "cancers" that mammography most often detects are only non-cancerous lesions that may go away on their own and even if they stay, may never go on to become cancerous. It also means that women are being given potentially fatal treatments for conditions that are not a mortal threat.

 One in three women with breast cancer detected by a mammogram is treated unnecessarily, because screening tests found tumors that are so slow-growing that they're mostly harmless, according to a Danish study published Monday in Annals of Internal Medicine, which has renewed debate over the value of early detection. https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/health/breast-cancer-unnecessary-treatment-study-partner/index.html

If your doctor, like mine, began to advise you to have mammograms at the age of 40 you have a 50-60% chance of getting a false positive by the time you are 50 years old.

The chance of a false positive result is higher among younger women and women with dense breasts [28]. (Most women younger than 50 have dense breasts, so there's overlap among these groups.) https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/AccuracyofMammograms.html

Overdiagnosis becomes even more problematic when it requires more mammograms which means further exposure to radiation which then raises your chances of developing all forms of cancer.

The report, "Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach," concluded that about 2,800 breast-cancer cases a year among U.S. women stem from medical radiation.

So what are the repercussions of the treatments these patients receive? Statistics show that cancer treatments are often deadly. A large percentage of patients will not survive the first 30 days after their first chemotherapy treatment.
Around 8 percent of cancer patients are dying within 15 days of starting treatment, a startling new study has discovered. https://www.wddty.com/magazine/2017/january/chemos-early-victims.html

For these women who have slow-growing cancers or benign lesions, the risk does not justify the high stakes of the cancer treatment. Many do not understand that surviving 5 years after cancer treatments is considered a success in the survival statistics they are provided. The dangers of future consequences are dismissed, and most patients are not told about the damage that will have been done to their body during those treatments, should they survive.

 There's insufficient evidence that earlier screening does more good than harm. Research showed that for some women with Stages 1 and 2 breast cancer, the absolute survival benefit from preventive double mastectomies is less than 1% after 20 years and no matter how a woman is treated for DCIS, the mortality risk is 3%--similar to the average for the general population. And some women with early-stage breast cancer don't benefit from chemo and can skip it. http://time.com/4057310/breast-cancer-overtreatment/


The truth is, our doctors have become such advocates of screening and early detection that they are ignoring the problems as they are discovered with those screenings. Perhaps our want to believe there are benefits of early detection is so strong that it prompts us to go on with the useless tests even when science knows they are not of value.

It is concluded that we have reached the point of negligible benefit from mammography screening for breast cancer in women at average risk, and that we should concentrate on early diagnosis of breast cancer and the application of modern therapy according to clearly defined sub-types of breast cancer. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13697137.2017.1392503

Naturally, people are frightened of being sick. It seems because of that anxiety we often make decisions to act aggressively even when the effect may be worse than the condition itself. We assume that any cancer leads to death, and that thought overshadows the fact that screenings or early diagnosis might be creating some of the problems.
Harm is occurring because of misinformation and misunderstanding. We have even seen such panic over a cancerous occurrence or possible recurrence that women have decided to seek treatment with no diagnoses at all. If people were better informed about the risks of the remedy perhaps over-treatment and the subsequent deadly side-effects would decrease.

Rather than push tests that stir up fear and panic even though they have little value, let us help people understand their bodies. I believe preventative care should teach how diet and lifestyle are our best ways to promote good health. Instead of testing people lets test the products that are poisoning us and causing cancer.
To save lives, we have to inform people and give them the tools they need to make decisions that help rather than harm them.

For my research, I used these links:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322920/

http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2596394/breast-cancer-screening-denmark-cohort-study-tumor-size-overdiagnosis

https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/AccuracyofMammograms.html

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2011/10/10778/high-rate-false-positives-annual-mammogram

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24451829

http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2597574/accepting-existence-breast-cancer-overdiagnosis

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/health/breast-cancer-unnecessary-treatment-study-partner/index.html

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1853165

http://time.com/4057310/breast-cancer-overtreatment/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322920/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-64310-6_13

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673606698346

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/69/2/349/880428

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002961017315635

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13697137.2017.1392503