Ill Wind

4 Comments

News from Great Britain, as usual, sucks.

 

Now anyone with any knowledge of the kinds of stunts and dirty tricks that are ongoing in GB was most certainly aware that after Prince Charles walked out on that limb to see to it that the citizens of that great nation remained able to choose their method of medical treatment as part of the national health service, those who have rather petulantly made it their business (and one has to wonder why) to see homeopathy not only removed as a medical option, but also ridiculed to the point that it has become rather like an elementary school shunning, would most certainly not simply accept their defeat and go on their way.  They have, of course, most certainly not.  Because theirs is not an idea of a free nation, one in which people have the right to choose all sorts of things like who they marry, what work they undertake and what kind of medical treatment they prefer.  No, theirs is a notion that they know better and that you had damned well listen to them when they tell you how to go about your day and live your life.

 

Well, here they come again, and if they can’t win in the open, they will accept winning by trickery, deceit and secret means.  Take today’s issue, one in which  just a little bit of the legal code can be rewritten in order to say that, while homeopaths can talk about homeopathy all they want to, they can no longer touch or sell homeopathic remedies.  For that, for the actual remedy, you will now have to see an M.D., who will have to write you a prescription.  Now, this dance has been attempted here in these United States in the past and has failed.  Because, thanks to the overly complicated laws of these United States, the states themselves to a large part govern and control medical treatments.  Indeed, the states themselves reserve the right to define just what constitutes medical treatment and what does not, which makes such skullduggery as is being attempted in England a far more difficult thing to do in my beloved land of the free and home of the brave.

 

If you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, then just click here.  The linked article explains it very well.  It is, simply put, a political version of the shell game.

 

So, today’s post is something of a plea.  For those of you reading to take up pen (well, keyboard) and write a letter.  You may have seen one like it on the internet.  It is being daisy chained all over the place.  This letter needs to get off in a hurry to poor besieged Andrea Farmer, who needs to be told in no uncertain terms that you really really really think it is wrong to deprive millions of people of the right to be treated with the medicine of their choice just because they happen to be British.  Now, that may be a good reason to deprive them of a great many other things, but not medicine.  Surely not medicine.

 

So, here’s the information you need.  A letter to be used as a pattern by which you can create one of your own and Andrea Farmer’s contact information.  It’s a snooze or lose time and those come up infrequently, so make sure to not just sit there–do something.  Let your voice be heard.  Even if you are not British, speak to Andrea as the distant cousin you are and let her know what you think of this infringement of basic human rights.

 

Here’s the info:

 

 

Copy and paste into your email server. Personalize your message.

 

Dear Andrea Farmer,

I am writing to you about the MHRA consultation document entitled; Review of

Medicines Act 1968: informal consultation on issues relating to the PLR

regime and homeopathy. As a member of the public who chooses to use

homeopathy and benefits from its application/practicing homeopath (delete as

applicable), I am deeply concerned by the current orchestrated campaign

against homeopathy, which is led by a self appointed pressure group, Sense

About Science, and a number of bloggers.

 

I consider it to be a fundamental right of any citizen living in a country

which purports to be a democracy, to have ready access to the healthcare

option of their choice. This includes homeopathy, which as you know is

included in the original NHS charter.

 

I find your statement below acceptable for the new registration labels, and

can see no reason to change this statement:

 

“A homeopathic medicinal product licensed only on the basis of safety,

quality and use within the homeopathic tradition”

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Your signature here

 

Send to

andrea.farmer@mhra.gsi.gov.uk

 

Andrea Farmer

MHRA, Area 5M

151 Buckingham Palace Road

Victoria, London SW1W 9SZ

 

 

 

Time to put up or shut up.  There are some powerful (and power-hungry) people in England who have targeted homeopathy, as well as some rather loopy and fun folk who have sadly gotten caught up in the cause.  It’s important that politicians all around the world start to hear from other persons with other opinions and that those of you who count on homeopathy stop thinking that it will always be there for you and start doing something to make sure that that’s the case.

 

More later.  Get busy.

 

Advertisements

All Meat

Leave a comment

Like everyone else, I was somewhat taken aback recently over the news of the legal case filed against Taco Bell claiming that only 65% of the substance in TB’s foodstuffs that were identified as being meat were actually comprised of meat.  The other 35% was made up of a vegetable mush that was mixed with the meat to extend the amount of what might jokingly be called food before it was tucked neatly into its happy yellow taco.

 

Now, my first response in reading this was the somewhat ironic feeling that perhaps Taco Bell isn’t as bad for you as I thought it was and that perhaps some cruel vegan, who had infiltrated the hierarchy of the Taco Bell empire had managed to work some actual vegetable matter (other than the lettuce and tomato) into TB’s meals.

 

But then I read another article somewhere.  And how I hate that–the somewhere of it all.  I usually reserve my tirades for things that I can at least link to from here at Psora, Psora, Psora, if not present for you right here.  But this time it is the vague “I read it somewhere” that will have to do.  And, at least I have the Taco Bell case itself to fall back on if I have to.  (For those of you who are not up to date on the Taco Bell case, try looking at this link here for an article posted this month from the Los Angeles Times,  or this link here for a statement from Taco Bell headquarters (while watching the video statement, please note just how healthy Taco Bell’s president looks–he’s obviously been eating the tacos himself), or, finally, this link, which I thought addressed the issue rather well.

 

Back to my original point, which had more to do with the bastardization of language and our resultant distrust of nearly everyone and everything, than with Taco Bell and its bastardization of its taco “meat.”  (Although, as someone who attempts to avoid wheat, I find it outrageous that taco bell can legally be allowed to use wheat as an “extender” in what is traditionally thought of as a gluten-free product, a taco.)

 

And my original point had to do specifically with the term “All Meat.”  In the mystery article I read and then misplaced, it was stated that, when the term “all meat” is used in any restaurant’s advertising, such as McDonald’s famous “two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun,”  that only 70% of the meat-containing substance needs to be actual meat.  Which certainly wrinkles up my aged forehead as I ponder the nu-speak meaning of “all.”

 

As I learned it, the word “all” meant:  “used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing,” as the word is defined in the dictionary that is embedded in my Mac’s Snow-Leopard-addled brain.  In other words, all used to mean “every bit of,” that no part or subset of something was put aside, but the entirety of an object or group was included.

 

But in this new world of austerity and downsizing, “all” now seems to mean “around 70%.”  In other words, when considering what we mean with we refer to “all” of something, about three quarters is good enough for government work.  And in using the term “government work,” I am indeed pointing fingers.  Because it is our government that those wise men and women who make it up, who are allowing for these strange and subtle changes in our language that is shifting our day-to-day speech from English to nu-speak whether we like it or not.

 

And the biggest trouble with this switch is that nu-speak does not come with a dictionary built in, as my computer did.  No, we are left to discover for ourselves what the restaurant world means when it says, “all meat.”  And in the same way, we are left to wonder over the meaning of our credit card statements (Want to leave that in the dust?  Publish a few books and then try to figure out the royalty statements that your publisher sends you.), our tax forms, and every single advertisement on television, in print, on radio or on the internet that has small print or quickly spoken words incorporated.  In other words, when they are using simple words spoken in English to tell you something, or, especially, to sell you something, it is up to you to figure out why and how they are lying…

 

How did we get this way?  How did we let the “all” fall out of all, the way air slips out of a tire?  Don’t even try to tell me that it was Bill Clinton’s fault for asking what the meaning of “is” is.  It goes so much deeper than that…

 

Let’s look to the lobbyists, those fine folk whose job it is to represent the viewpoint of one paying customer to your representatives in government, whether that customer represents your point of view or not (and, in cases such as the misrepresentation of the contents of a simple meal, it is highly likely that they are not), and I think we will find the creators of nu-speak.  The water carriers for these lobbyists are, of course, our representatives themselves, who all too often sell your human rights and mine to the highest bidder.  In this case, they have literally sold our language out from under us so that a term as simple as “all” has taken on a new legal meaning.

 

It Taco Bell wins its case, something more than all beef tacos at low, low prices will be lost.  Our language will be lost.  And with it will be our ability to communicate, to understand and be understood.  Language only works is can all agree on the meaning of the words.  If your version of the meaning of the word “left” is what I consider to be “right” then we are going to have trouble driving on the same road.  And if businesses are continued to be allowed to change the meaning of a word as simple as “all” in order to make a few cents more profit on each of their products, then how far away are we from the day when we have all been so manipulated so often by the misuse and bastardization of our language that we can no longer believe anything that anyone is saying.  There’s more at stake than meat here, boys, there’s a deep and profound course correction that is needed for the sake of us all.  And, by “all” I mean more than 70%.