Dr. Ablow confesses on national TV: His cell phone owns him

“I contend we have already crossed the Rubicon, almost irrevocably incorporating technology into our psyches in a way that makes us part flesh and blood, part hardware,” Dr. Keith Ablow candidly confessed on Fox News this week.

” The fact that the hardware is outside our bodies (for now) does not mean the integration has not occurred. We are psychologically magnetized to our devices. That’s why some people will fight for them, and even die for them, he continued. “This is just the beginning. Cell phones will soon be able to determine whether you are looking at the content on their screens, rather than looking away. They will demand attention. The extent to which we own them versus them owning us will be increasingly in doubt.”

Poor pitiful Dr. Ablow; he’s a doctor of medicine; a scientist; a board certified psychiatrist; a distinguished member of the Fox News Channel medical A team, yet the man suffers from psychotic delusions that “we”--  all of us, including himself, -- are now under the control of the machines modern technology has created. He’s convinced that “our cell phones own us.”

Yes, he actually thinks his cell phone owns him. “What is “in” our cell phones that would lead people to attack others or risk death to keep them?”  “I would argue that the phones absorb and record our thoughts and intentions so dramatically that we become unconsciously convinced they are “parts of us... Why else would so many people hesitate even to leave a room without taking their cell phones with them? Why would they interrupt meetings and family time to check them? Why would young people be opting to spend their money on newer, faster ones, instead of on clothing? Why would there be so much interest in personalizing the sounds they make, the apps they hold and the cases that hold them?”

This hopelessly deluded TV psychiatrist arrived at his crazy idea immediately after witnessing a video depicting a high school student attacking his teacher in the classroom after the teacher confiscated his cell phone.  His reasoning goes like this: Teacher takes away kid’s cell phone. Kid attacks teacher. Ergo, “we” are owned by “our” cell phones.

I suppose from this line of TV psychobabble logic that if the kid was chewing gum in class and attacked his teacher for taking it away from him, Dr. Ablow would conclude that “we” are owned by “our” chewing gum.

To be fair to the good doctor, he does cite a couple other examples which, he claims, support his conclusion that: “we” are owned by “our” cell phones: “Last year, a Houston woman was shot by a mugger when she refused to hand over her cell phone. She survived, and she later asserted that she had done the right thing.” “In 2013, a 22-year-old man was killed by a train when he tried to retrieve the cell phone he had dropped on the tracks.”

Huh? If it were her purse instead of her cell phone would the doctor medically conclude that “we” are owned by “our” purses?  If it were his wallet instead of his cell phone would the doctor conclude that “we” are owned by “our” wallets?

Apparently, when Dr Ablow, the so-called scientist, encounters some individuals doing stupid things with their technological devices, he deludes himself into thinking that “we” all are prone to do the exactly the same thing with “our” technological devices, therefore technology is making “us” all neurotic slaves to our modern gadgets which have come to own “us,” including himself.

Yes, he probably thinks that robots will take over the world and make “us” all slaves to modern technology. This, I think, is concrete proof of the fact that normal people shouldn’t listen to the ravings of today’s TV psychiatrists, or for that matter, any other dubious TV talking head puppet.

Many sane medical experts have openly condemned Ablow for his ongoing cable news psychoanalysis of, for example, President Obama, his wife, and other figures. A staff psychiatrist at the Shepherd Brain Injury Rehabilitation Center in Atlanta, for instance, said that Ablow’s medical analysis "is really just irresponsible and it's embarrassing for physicians in general."

Ouch! I really think they ought to go a little easier on their poor pitiful colleague, Dr Ablow.

After all, he’s crazy, you know?

He just confessed on national TV that his cell phone owns him. 

Here We Go Again

The 2016 Republican Presidential nomination campaign silly season is upon us already and it’s shaping up just as it did the last time when the ultra right wing religious fanatics in the Party forced Mitt Romney, the best moderate candidate way too far to the right and, as a consequence, he lost a general election which should have easily been won to the incompetent socialist, Barack Obama.

Here we go again.

Will the Republicans ever learn? Once again it ought to be an easy contest in 2016. After all, Obama has been a terrible president. His socialist agenda has made him extremely unpopular with the folks.

But the GOP extremists are dead set this time around on sabotaging the chances of any well qualified Republican moderate who has a chance of winning a general election from getting the nomination and beating the next and already crowned incompetent socialist in line, Hillary Clinton.

As I expected, archetypal right wing extremist, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, predicted last week that Democrats would keep the White House in 2016 if Republicans selected a moderate nominee next year. This guy actually believes that only if his Party selects an extremist, like himself for the nomination, will the GOP have a chance to win back the White House.

"If we nominate another candidate in the mold of Bob Dole or John McCain or Mitt Romney," Cruz explained, "the same people who stayed home in 2008 and 2012 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will win again. There is a better way."

If Sen. Cruz is right, perhaps his Party ought to simply select Sarah Palin right now and forget about any contest to pick a winner from the moderate field. Clinton would make mince meat out of Palin or any other right wing religious nut.

There are more than 20 Republican presidential hopefuls who will be running this year. It’s going to be like a pack of rabid wild dogs ripping each other apart, thus guaranteeing that the last man standing, probably a moderate like Mitt Romney, Scott Walker or Chris Christie, will be going into the general election severely wounded and at a substantial disadvantage compared to the socialist Clinton who will no doubt breeze through the Democrat nomination process unscathed.

I sure hope I’m wrong but it looks a lot like...

Here we go again.

It’s Not Color; It’s Culture

Let me make myself perfectly clear: Al Sharpton is a racist.

He makes his considerable living and derives his undeserved social status by going around the country and causing trouble complaining about white people being racists when it is he and his ilk who are the racists. He’s a relic of the past who judges human character and prejudges people solely upon the color of their skin.

Well I have some breaking news for Brother Al: It’s not about color; it’s about culture.

Racism, for the most part is dead in America. Most Americans, with the notable exception of Al Sharpton and his small cadre of race baiters, no longer categorize people on the basis of skin color.  Today most of us judge others on the basis of their culture, i.e., the ideas they accept; the philosophy they live by. Black and white has nothing to do with it.

There are millions of people in America who embrace the philosophy of satism and the culture of sloth. They’re intellectually lazy, envious, dishonest, unreliable, irresponsible and ignorant. They lie, cheat, steal and often violently victimize society. Yet they see themselves as victims and like to blame others for their problems.

As opposed to producers they’re takers. They believe they’re entitled to status, money and power simply by virtue of being born but without making any honest effort to succeed. The recent case of Michael Brown from Ferguson Missouri is a perfect example of that kind. There are plenty of them, black, white and every color in-between. Al Sharpton is one of them; he represents them.

Last week Sharpton claimed that the “lily-white” Oscar nominations are “appallingly insulting.” He called for an "emergency meeting next week in Hollywood to discuss possible action around the Academy Awards."  No black skinned actors or actresses were nominated this year. "In the time of Staten Island and Ferguson, to have one of the most shutout Oscar nights in recent memory is something that is incongruous," he whined.

Now he’s threatening to meet in Hollywood this week with a group of his fellow race baiters to discuss “potential actions.” He’s going to do what he does best: use his weapon of racism as a club to shakedown businesses for money and other concessions in order to have his dishonest way with them.  

Al Sharpton is a racist. His time has passed in America. Today...

It’s not color; it’s culture.

Enemy of Liberty

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith... There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity... In freedom of expression, there are limits," declared Pope Francis this week in reference to last week’s Islamic fundamentalist terror attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.

“If my good friend... says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Pope Francis explained. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others... anyone who hurls insults should expect retaliation.”

I totally agree with the Pope that deliberately provoking other people with insults against their faith solely for the sake of making fun of it is pointless, in bad form, and poor taste. Free speech should be voluntarily tempered with intellectual responsibility and respect for the sensibilities of others.

Pointing out the facts, the truth and the reality of a matter is the essence of responsible free speech. “Each person not only has the freedom but also the obligation to say what he thinks in the name of the common good,” Pope Francis admitted. “No one can kill in the name of God... This is an aberration.”

The Pope is candidly acknowledging in this instance the reality that the jihadist fundamentalist Islamic religion espoused by followers of Al Queada and the Islamic State is an enemy of liberty. When any religion is employed for the purpose of murder and/or stifling basic human freedoms that religion becomes an enemy of liberty.

When governments like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and many others use religion to restrict the rights of women, forbid free thought and expression, or otherwise oppress the people with absurd, unreasonable draconian laws, that religion becomes an enemy of liberty.  

When statist governments embrace religion and proclaim a government God it is done for the purpose of providing an imaginary foundation to support its statist practices and therefore that religion, that government God, becomes an enemy of liberty.

When religious statists across the world point to free thinkers and atheists like me to characterize them as terrorists, as I discussed in my last post, it amounts to a deliberate provocation against my personal freedom, dignity and humanity. It is a threat to my very existence, and as such I must regard their religion as an enemy of liberty.  

They should expect retaliation from me of the kind Pope Francis approves. If some of that retaliation comes in the form of satire, scorn or ridicule against the religion they would employ to oppress me, it is perfectly justified in the name of responsible free speech.

It is not deliberate provocation; it is retaliation; it is pointing out the facts, the truth and the reality of the matter in the tradition of Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and many of the other great free thinkers in history.

The reality as they pointed out so eloquently in their writings is that religion is often the enemy of liberty.

Timothy Taylor: Terrorist?

I’ve made it no secret from the beginning on these pages that I am a lifelong atheist, a non-believer through and through. My book: “Authority!” critiques the entire Holy Bible and thereby makes the case for atheism. As far as I’m concerned all religion is entirely imaginary, an ominous superstitious deception in consciousness; presenting a clear and present danger to civilization and the human condition. I’d like to see all of it laughed out of existence in my lifetime.

Does that make me a terrorist?

Absolutely, according to the many statist governments in this world that embrace religion because religion is the foundation for statism and any expression of outright rejection of religion is perceived a threat to statist governments.

Atheism is a threat to Authority!

Any intellectual logical threat to blind Authority is perceived as terrorism.

Religious belief is declining in the world today. That is why many statist governments are taking steps to portray non-believers and secularists as a danger to society and even as terrorists, according to a report issued recently by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). These governments are initiating "hate campaigns" against atheists.

"The overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers" as set out in U.N. treaties, says the report, adding that 13 states, all of them Muslim, had made apostasy or blasphemy against religion a capital offense.

Imagine that! You can get the death penalty in some courtries simply for not using your imagination to believe the imaginary. Even in Russia today, for example where communist ideology has been replaced by Orthodox Christianity, any public expression of atheist views can be equated with blasphemy and criminalized.

Is that hypocrisy or what? The old Soviet Union persecuted religion as criminal behavior after the communist revolution – it was officially an atheist nation then -- but now they are persecuting atheists.

The "Freedom of Thought Report," which is published annually on International Human Rights Day on Dec. 10, said the past year had been marked by a surge in the number of officials and political leaders agitating against non-religious people "in terms that would normally be associated with hate speech".

A Saudi law on terror enacted in January banned "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion," the report said, and Turkey's president equated atheism with terror. The Malaysian Prime Minister has branded humanism and secularism as "deviant" and a "threat to Islam and the state." In Egypt, the new military-backed government described atheism as "a threat to society."

Even in Britain, where belief in Christianity, the state religion has been declining rapidly in recent years, the Ministry of Education has dropped atheism and humanism from religious studies in state schools; this despite the fact that roughly 13 percent of the world's population is firmly atheist and another 23 percent not religious.

If secularism equates to terror then the United States Constitution is a terrorist manifesto, 36% of the planet’s population constitute a threat to society, and...

Timothy Taylor is a terrorist.

The State Owns Her Body

The concept of liberty at the core means that individuals own themselves body and mind. When the state intrudes upon that fundamental right there is no liberty, only license. Statists don’t believe in the concept of liberty. They believe that the state has the right to control individuals both body and mind. Statists think that they own you.

That’s exactly what the statists in the State of Connecticut think. Right now they’re forcing a 17-year old girl to undergo chemotherapy treatments against her will and against the will of her parent.  The state insists that they have no right to refuse.

The girl was diagnosed last September with Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer. Doctors at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) recommended she receive chemotherapy. She refused. Her mother supported her decision. The hospital called the cops.  Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) swooped in.

They think that the State of Connecticut owns her body.

This girl is aware that chemotherapy treatment has the potential to cause her as much or more damage than her cancer. “She knows the long-term effects of having chemo, what it does to your organs, what it does to your body. She may not be able to have children after this because it affects everything in your body. It not only kills cancer, it kills everything in your body,” explains her mom.

The side effects of chemotherapy include nausea, hair loss, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Never mind that croaked the statists. They took her into the custody of the state against her will. They forced her to endure a course of treatment against her will. Her mother was ordered by the state to cooperate against her will. The girl ran away from home to escape the torment. The statists rounded her up and removed her from her home where she remains in DCF custody. A judge authorized the statists to make all medical decisions on her behalf against her will.

“It’s a question of fundamental constitutional rights-- the right to have a say over what happens to your body-- and the right to say to the government ‘you can’t control what happens to my body,’” insist her attorneys as they undertake to appeal the statist rulings. “The Supreme Court of the state has never ruled on this issue, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on this issue. So it’s very significant not just for our client, and for the minor child, but for the law in general,” they explain.

If this can happen to her in the United States of America, it can happen to you. We either own ourselves or we’re owned by the state. As of right now ... the state owns her body. 

Affordable Health Care Act: Not Affordable -- Epilogue

Two and a half years ago back in July of 2012, I explained in detail all of the many compelling reasons why President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare would actually not be affordable as claimed by he and his administration. (See: Part 1 and Part 2) It was impossible on its face.

A year later, in August of 2013, I discussed several more unpleasant reasons why ObamaCare was a fast approaching train wreck boondoggle disaster for Americans that simply wouldn’t work.

this was because, in a nutshell, the costs of healthcare and healthcare insurance were about to skyrocket as the nation’s healthy and affluent people, who didn’t need healthcare insurance coverage in the past, would suddenly not only be required to start buying it for themselves, but would also be forced by the law to pay the huge new healthcare costs and insurance coverage premium subsidies for all the millions of sick and low income people who previously couldn’t afford healthcare insurance coverage.

ObamaCare is a giant socialist wealth distribution program designed to force affluent and healthy individuals to subsidize healthcare for the less healthy and affluent individuals in America. It’s like forcing the rich to pay grocery bills for the poor, (which we already do now anyway) except in this instance it happens to be healthcare.

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all those other die hard socialist supporters of the law have, since 2009, repeatedly denied the reality of the matter. They told us a pack of lies. They said, for example, that costs would go down dramatically; that we could keep our doctors and hospitals; that premiums for coverage would be low.

Obviously, however, we’re only now discovering the sickening truth that this law is just another costly social welfare mandate that will bankrupt Americans unless it is repealed by Congress or struck down by the Supreme Court.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is not affordable.

And now we discover that the infamous MIT professor Jonathan Gruber; that chief architect of the disaster who thinks we’re stupid for allowing it to become law; the guy that now admits he participated in a fraud, has known all along that the scheme would not be affordable. He knew it when he was writing the bill and he told the President so

So while Obama was telling Americans all those dirty lies, like the cost of health care would go down, etc., Gruber, his expert, was telling him exactly the opposite. “The problem is it starts to go hand in hand with the mandate; you can’t mandate insurance that’s not affordable. This is going to be a major issue,” he told the President in 2009.

“Why should we hold 48 million uninsured people hostage to the fact that we don’t yet know how to control costs in a politically acceptable way? Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control.” he told the President in 2009.

The only way to control costs is to effectively deny treatment, he told the President in 2009. “The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’”

So now we know from the guy who cooked up the scheme that, not only would the costs of healthcare skyrocket once the law went into effect, but the increased costs of insurance coverage mandated by the law as well would actually offer severely limited benefits to policyholders.  Patients will be denied the treatments they need as prescribed their doctors.

Professor Gruber, the President’s fraudster, is telling us now: the Affordable Health Care Act is not affordable.