Hamas – A Case of Policy Hypocrisy

For years, the United States government has been saying “we need more democracy in this world”. Heeding the call in January, the Palestinian people took to the poles and performed their democratic duty – they voted.

The US government should have been jumping for joy. President Bush should have stood on an over-sized army vessel with the banner “Mission Accomplished” behind him.

The exact opposite happened. Hamas won the legitimate, democratic election. The problem: the Palestinians voted for the wrong guys, or so says the US.

Instead of congratulating the Palestinians and their new government, the US quickly condemned them. They moved to block all revenue to the Palestinian authority – effectively starving them of almost all their income. They can’t pay the police, teachers, doctors, nurses – anybody who works for the government which is Palestine’s largest employer.

On one hand, the US has a point. Hamas has not been friendly to the West and incredibly hates Israel. On the other, much larger hand, the US is sending the wrong message to the non-democratic world and to the Middle East specifically. Basically, message goes something like this: we want you to be democratic, as long as you vote for the guys we like.

Sorry Bush and friends, but the world doesn’t work that way. You can either have democracy OR governments you like. You can’t always have both. It’s the rules of the game and the US government is trying to break them. If you want to democratize the world, you’ll need to put up with some unfriendly governments – if it’s the will of the people.

It leaves many wondering whether the US is truly committed to spreading democracy or not. This isn’t the “good old days” when the US could waltz into a country, take out its government, and install a new, friendlier version. The whole world is watching and their opinion matters. If it doesn’t, then why don’t we just go back to the “good old days” and save ourselves the hypocrisy?

Captain's Book Review: "Natural Cures They Don't Want You to Know About"

"Natural Cures 'They' Don't Want You To Know About" by Kevin Trudeau

From reading other reviews (over 2200 on Amazon.com alone), it seems to me that people either really like the book or really hate it. I fall somewhere in between.

At first, I started reading the book very carefully, word by word. After the first few chapters, though, the information seemed repetetive. I enjoyed reading this book, but it wasn't the greatest book in the world, as some would claim. As a skeptical medical student, I believe that I have the science background to give a decent review of the pros and cons of this book. There is a lot more I could add to this review, but I would need to write a book just to cover everything. Feel free to comment on my thoughts about this book.

What I Like About the Book
There are several things I liked about this book. It helps explain the motivations of big companies - greed. There is no doubt that big companies cut corners to make more money. And I also have no doubt that pharmacutical companies spend millions to protect their own interest at the expense of our health. I knew things were screwed up at the FDA, but I did not realize how bad things were. After reading the book, it made me more skeptical of almost everything. Skepticism is usually a good thing, but you have to be careful not to let it escalate to paranoia and depression.

I agree with the idea that if you take care of your health, you will almost never get sick again. I also agree with most of his reasons for sickness: that nutritional deficiency, toxins, and stress cause health problems. I am not too sure about electromagnetic chaos - though I suppose it's possible. I completely agree that we should work to eliminate these disease causing agents from our system and our environment. I like the fact that he admits we can't get rid of them all, but we can try.

I like that fact that he presents a whole-body approach to disease, instead of what I am going to be trained to do as a medical student. The human body is very complicated and our interactions with our enviornment and disease is very complex. People looking for a quick answer to a problem will not find one in this book. Most of the author's advice is sound and is frankly common sense. But reading this book reminds us to think about health issues from all angles.

I share Mr. Trudeau's philosophy that drugs, prescription or not, cause disease. I believe that drugs have their place and can be useful sometimes, but should not be used over the long term. This is blasphemy coming from a medical student - it's akin to a Catholic who doesn't believe in Jesus. But that's what I have always believed and as more and more evidence is being uncovered about the side-effects of even everyday drugs like asprin, it just convinces me even more. I believe it is almost always possible to treat somebody either without drugs completely, or starting with drugs and then phasing in a natural change - more exercise, supplements, rehabilitation, etc.

What I Do Not Like About the Book
My objections to this book fall in two categories: A)material presented in the book; B) the author. For the sake of time, I will only go into a few.

When it comes to the material, there are several issues I have. First, I find some of his assumptions to be incorrect. For example, he assumes that if eat a diet that nature intended us to, then we would never get sick. That is just not true - look at people who lived even a few decades ago. The population of the Earth only exceeded a billion people in the last 2 hundred years or so - now we are over 6 billion. This growth rate is unheard of for one simple reason: advances in medicine such as antibiotics and vaccines. People used to die of infectious diseases we don't even think about any more - malaria, cholera, influenza, etc... The life expectancy of most of our "natural" living ancestors was no greater than 40 years. Today, if you're 40, you're still young and vital.

Second, the author's attacks on vaccine are misleading. It is true that vaccines contain materials known to be toxic, such as mercury. Vaccine makers claim that these materials help stabalize the vaccine and make it more effective. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. The fact is that thanks to vaccines, we have eliminated small poxs - a previously deadly disease. We have almost totally eliminated polio - the only parts of the world that suffer outbreaks are parts that do not have strong vaccination programs. Thanks to vaccines, infant mortality rates have plummeted in the last 100 years or so. The author only presents as an alternative to "eat natural" - well it didn't protect our ancestors from getting sick and dying young. Vaccines need to be improves, not eliminated. Maybe vaccines do make us a little less healthy in the long run - at least we are alive to talk about it!

Third, the author blasts our current water treatment facilities. It may be the case that tap water affects our health, but if you look back at the way people used to live "naturally", getting fresh water took a big chunk of their day - and there was no guarantee it was healthy or safe. There are a lot of diseases that can come from untreated water from river and lakes. The author presents absoultely no alternative way to treat water for so many people. The only thing he says is that every household should have some kind of filtration system - which would cost thousands of dollars to purchase and a lot of money to maintain in addition to the rising cost of tap water. The expense who be prohibitive to a vast majority of the world's populaton.

The author also blasts the fluoridation of water. It is not some government conspiracy to make us all sick. If you read the history of fluoridation, you will see that it was stared with the best of intentions. In the early 1909, Dr. Frederick McKay noticed that children in an area of Colorado named Pikes Peak had stained, but otherwise healthier teeth than normal. They found that the area's water supply had naturally accuring fluoride. They scientifically tested adding fuoride to water supplies and it worked - people got fewer cavities. Now we need to find out scientifically if it is causing health problems and reevaluate accordingly.

Fifth, he blasts milk pasteurization and homogenization. Let me start with homogenization - Mr. Trudeau might have a case against it. It could be causing health problems. From what I read, however, the jury is still out. His attacks on pasteurization, on the other hand, do not make sense. The idea of pasteurization is to kill most of the harmful bacteria found in natural cow's milk. The process does not involve "irradiating" the milk. Instead, the milk is heated up quickly, usually with pipes of hot water, and cooled quickly. The author seems to think it changes the natural energy of the milk and makes it poisonous. Granted, the process might destroy some of the enzymes that are naturally occuring in the milk, which may have health benefits - but at least you won't get a terrible disease from drinking milk. Besides, how is this any different than warming milk up on your stove or cooking with it??? And is it really practical for us get our milk hand-delivered?

Lastly, some of his information is conflicting. The author tells us not to trust any professional organization, yet he recommends several alternative health providers. Who is to say that they are not in it for the money? Also, he claims to be banned from mentioning specific products by name, yet he seems to do so where it is convenient for him. His "specific" cures are not at all and have made many, many people angry.

Final Thoughts
Although my cons outnumbered my pros about this book, overall I would recommend this book. Though, as with any health advice (yes, even from your doctor), it is up to every individual to ask questions and do research. This book should not be used as an "ultimate" health guide, but one tool out of many.

It may or may not be true that "they" are suppressing natural cures. But if there were such things, why aren't "they" using the cures themselves and living to be hundreds of years old??

The author claims to be doing this for the sake of our health. And I suppose his intentions could be genuine. Although with all his anti-greed and anti-corruption rhetoric, it leaves me wondering whether or not Mr. Trudeau is "all about the money".

In Mr. Trudeau's defense, his website that is supposed to have all the missing information does have a free trial period. I intend to take advantage of that and do my own investigations. As soon as I am finished with my review of the information on his site, I will blog about it here.

They Stole My Car!!! But I Got It Back.

I am leaving to attend classes on Friday, April 28 – one week ago. I go to where my car was parked the night before – in front of my neighbor’s house. It’s not there!

I walked up and down the block; I even drove around the block with my other car (which I am selling, btw). I still couldn’t find it. I rush in house and call the police. An officer arrives and I start telling him about my car. It was a black 1999 Plymouth Breeze. I had just bought it less than a week earlier. There was an alarm installed on the car when I bought it, but I didn’t have a remote so I had it disabled – planning to get it replaced April 29 or 30. I had bought a Club-like device, but since my father drove and parked the car that day, he didn’t put the Club on, and I was planning to drive it later that day but didn’t.

The police officer was very polite and friendly – one of the perks of living in a suburb. A major city is right across the street. The officer told me that 90% of car thefts in our suburb happen within a few blocks of the city-suburb border – lucky me.

Not two minutes after the office leaves, I get a call on my cell phone: “Hi, was your car stolen last night?” I was stunned, how did he know??? It turns out that this man, Bill, works at a shipping business in the city, only a few miles from my house. Bill came to work in the morning to find two cars sitting on blocks outside the main gate – my car, and another car that was also stolen not too far from where I live and also near the city-suburb border.

According to Bill, only my tires and rims had been taken. He also advised that I came soon before the car was vandalized. So now I had to go claim my car back. I called AAA for towing service, but they told me that I needed at least two tires for them to tow it.

So now I gotta get tires. I call my uncle, who is a mechanic and who I bought the car from. He felt so bad. He managed to find a set of tires I could borrow from a junk yard guy he knows. Before picking up the tires, I decided to check out my car first. I found where my car was supposed to be – but it wasn’t there!

All that was there were a set of cement blocks thrown on the grass and a bunch of tire nuts. Where could it have gone? Was it really possible that the crooks got to it? Or was it the legendarily slow police?

I tried to call Bill, but he could not be reached. So I stopped a truck driver who had just left the Bill’s business. He said there was a police car and then a tow truck, but had not further information. I was relieved – at least there was hope that my car was in the hands of the law. I spent the next hour or two trying to find out where they took my car, but the city police department was clueless. They kept referring me to some number where I was put on hold forever.

I got frustrated and headed home. I figured that some impound yard somewhere has my car. I looked up a few on the internet. I called the first one. They didn’t have my car, but the lady gave me a list of other towing companies that might have it. One by one, I called – one by one, they didn’t have my car. I was down to the last number – running out of hope. I called the last number and success! – they have my car!

It was not going to be cheap. They wanted $80 in impound fees. And they wanted $30 to install a set of tires that I am providing. So I pick up the tires from the junk yard, take it to the impound yard, and have them install it. Now, how to get it out of there? They guy at the impound yard told me that I should be able to just drive it out. I find a screwdriver, turn the ignition and viola! It starts – it’s alive, alive!

I drove it right to my uncle’s mechanic shop. The initial assessment: $200 for a new ignition column and over $300 for a set of tires and rims. I had only bought the car for $3000. I was bummed.

Things started to look up, however, when I found the ignition column on the floor. My uncle was able to reinstall it in less than a day. And the tires? One of the mechanics at the shop had a car that didn’t run anymore and would sell me tires and rims for $150 – not bad.

So far, this was all on done on Friday. On Saturday, I got my car back, picked up and installed the new set of tires, and returned the borrowed set. I bought a new Club-like device then drove my car directly to a car accessory store to get a car alarm installed (I paid a little extra for keyless entry and remote start).

Even if I had insurance coverage for theft (I only have one-way liability), the cost to repair would have been less than the deductible – another reason why I really hate insurance. Oh, and they would have raised my premiums.

All in all, it was a bad weekend, but it could have been much, much worst.

Captain’s Book Review: “Culture and Prosperity”

“Culture and Prosperity: The Truth About Markets - Why Some Nations Are Rich but Most Remain Poor” by John Kay

I learned about this book through an interview with the author on NPR’s Diane Rehm show. A few points the author made caught my attention and I wanted to learn more.

In his interview, Dr. Kay talked about some basic ideas of why some nations are rich but many are still poor (just like the title of his). I wanted to know what the reasons were. Is it because rich nations keep poor nations poor on purpose? Is it because the rich nations suck all the wealth out of poor countries? Or is it because poor countries just don’t have what it takes to become prosperous?

I wanted to know the answers because I was hoping to get an insight into what was in store for the financial future of Iraq – the country where I was born. I also wanted to know whether or not (as an American) to feel terribly guilty when I see people starving to death in Africa and other areas. Whether guilty or not, I wanted to know what can be done to raise these people up to at least decent standards of living.

To be honest, I was a bit disappointed with the answers Dr. Kay gave. According to him, rich states are not rich because they suck the world dry. Nor are poor states poor because of oppression by rich states. Instead, it is a complex interaction between culture and economic systems that determine a nation’s status. In fact, through trade, rich states help poor states become a little less poor.

I was also disappointed to read that there is really nothing that a country can do to pick itself up from out of poverty. Prosperity must evolve over time and a system that works in one country does not usually work in another. Dr. Kay argues that a country must develop the social scaffolding of prosperity before it becomes rich. Changing an entire nation’s attitudes and morals is very difficult, if not impossible. Government corruption is a viscous cycle that seems to never end. Countries with excellent natural resources, like much of Africa, seem to be magnets for corrupt government officials – though I am not sure which causes which.

It’s too bad, though. It would be nice if a country could just follow a certain set of rules and regulations and become prosperous. I often fantasize about being ruler of a fictitious state and how I would run the state wisely and open-minded, learning from the mistakes of others. I guess that’s why I like games like SimCity and Caesar.

It was also disheartening to read that even the most well thought-out course of action can end up being wrong – or worst, disastrous. Dr. Kay give several examples of both governments and companies that tried their best to lead their nation/company in the right direction but failed. It makes you think of your own life. Right now, you might think that going into engineering (for example) is the best career choice later to find out that it was a terrible mistake. And if it does work out, then it was just luck – or so Dr. Kay made it sound in his book.

Overall Impression
I thought the first few chapters and the last few chapters are definitely worth reading. They contained the information that I was looking for when I checked the book out. The middle chapters of the book were not very interesting to me. It seemed that Dr. Kay went into “economic geek” mode. For a while, I felt like I was reading an economics textbook. If I were an economist, then I might have understood and even liked reading those middle chapters.