Some number of years ago some strangers met me in a coffee shop and tried to talk me into joining a Network Marketing pyramid for Amway. I enjoyed the latte they bought me and politely said, "No! No way! Never me!"
At the time I considered Multi-Level Marketing to be nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Now, particularly with the right product(s), I consider it an alternative and perhaps even better way to get the word out. Certainly the Network Marketing commissions are no more expensive than advertising costs, which are also part of the cost of the product, not to mention the retail profit margin.
Now I've found a suite of products that I believe in, primarily because some very respectable people have talked more about the science behind them and their own personal benefit from their use than that Network Marketing means getting rich. Unfortunately, they are available only at something that approaches a reasonable price only if you are in the network. Not that making some money doesn't appeal to me. It does, particularly now with my layoff and the stock market collapse delaying, if not bursting my business or early retirement dreams.
Ever since Marilyn passed away, I've kept my eyes open for anything that improves the immune system. For the last year and a half I have been a vegan. Unfortunately, being a vegan requires a lot of study and planning to get the right quantity and combinations to maximize its benefits. Supplements help, indeed some are required, vitamin B-12, but the supplements also have a best pattern of being taken and it isn't always made explicit. Much of what I know came from the Gerson Therapy that Marilyn was on. For everything but the cancer, and it may have been working slowly on the cancer until she stopped, it was obviously working miracles for the rest of her. They had her taking supplements before, during and after meals (and a lot of juices in between).
Even now there isn't a magic pill but there is a set of products that helps revitalize the immune system without all the juices and coffee enemas. These products are all from Orenda International.
I will be taking O-Tropin, Immune, and possibly the All in One Male. I'm recommending my sisters take at least the Immune and All in One Female. The Oki product helps muscles recover faster, improving the benefits of exercise.
There are other people I know who could benefit from these, and other, of the Orenda products. Hey, that is Network Marketing.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Stimulus Sedation
In my current condition of unemployment coupled with a stock market meltdown, real property collapse, and an inability to refinance a mortgage to a better [for me] cash flow, you'd think I'd be all in favor of a stimulus. I am but ...
With a record debt, continuing budget and trade deficits, and finally a little more rational consumerism, because of all the economic worries, any government stimulus spending will have at best a marginal contribution to improving our economy and only if it is large enough and spent on the right things to overcome the increased debt it causes.
For governmental deficit, stimulus, spending to have a maximum impact, it should be a rather unique event. Instead the U.S. has continually run unneeded deficits because the politicians have been unwilling to live within our means. Historically both Democrats and Republicans have dropped the ball with too much spending on items that are operating costs, not capital investments, and an unwillingness to tax appropriately to cover either, let alone both. (I know you can point to the budget surpluses of the Clinton era, but the Great Society/Vietnam War of the Johnson era trumps that and besides, the surpluses of the Clinton era were mostly a matter of luck rather than the politicians doing anything positive to achieve them.)
Of course, the massive spending and revenue reduction of both the Reagan and Bush eras top everything. Without their $8 trillion addition to the national debt, a stimulus package now would have a much greater effect.
In some ways you can say that our need for a stimulus now is partly driven by the inappropriate stimulus of the unnecessary deficit spending in years past. We've been stimulated so much we are addicts. It is much like a sugar high that is followed by a crash. Our government's massive debt is at least partially responsible for the credit contraction as it has to borrow money from the credit markets to finance its debt. This is exacerbated by a reduced source of cheap money from the Social Security fund as it turns to a net outflow. Further, the artificial exuberance, lack of regulation, and indeed the encouragement of some sectors, say housing, contributed to a bubble that requires correcting. Unfortunately, when everything corrects at the same time, we get a depression.
To keep the stimulus from being a sedative instead, kind of like an Irish Coffee, additional revenue must be found very quickly. This revenue has to come from the people and corporations that have money and can pay. If we are not going to do away with Corporate Income Taxes in favor of a Value Added Tax, or its equivalent, we need to immediately institute a flat tax on all corporate worldwide profits based on the proportion of business they do in the U.S. This will take care of a company's ability to use international transfer pricing to artificially understate their U.S. profits. (We should also eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, not limited to but certainly inclusive of selling off our national resources, such as trees, at below market rates.) If we are not going to do away with a progressive income tax on individuals, then it needs to be dramatically simplified with fewer tiers and much less taxation of the lowest income tier and much more taxation of the highest income tier.
A government that lives within its means and makes appropriate investments for the future would be more than refreshing, it would be--stimulating.
With a record debt, continuing budget and trade deficits, and finally a little more rational consumerism, because of all the economic worries, any government stimulus spending will have at best a marginal contribution to improving our economy and only if it is large enough and spent on the right things to overcome the increased debt it causes.
For governmental deficit, stimulus, spending to have a maximum impact, it should be a rather unique event. Instead the U.S. has continually run unneeded deficits because the politicians have been unwilling to live within our means. Historically both Democrats and Republicans have dropped the ball with too much spending on items that are operating costs, not capital investments, and an unwillingness to tax appropriately to cover either, let alone both. (I know you can point to the budget surpluses of the Clinton era, but the Great Society/Vietnam War of the Johnson era trumps that and besides, the surpluses of the Clinton era were mostly a matter of luck rather than the politicians doing anything positive to achieve them.)
Of course, the massive spending and revenue reduction of both the Reagan and Bush eras top everything. Without their $8 trillion addition to the national debt, a stimulus package now would have a much greater effect.
In some ways you can say that our need for a stimulus now is partly driven by the inappropriate stimulus of the unnecessary deficit spending in years past. We've been stimulated so much we are addicts. It is much like a sugar high that is followed by a crash. Our government's massive debt is at least partially responsible for the credit contraction as it has to borrow money from the credit markets to finance its debt. This is exacerbated by a reduced source of cheap money from the Social Security fund as it turns to a net outflow. Further, the artificial exuberance, lack of regulation, and indeed the encouragement of some sectors, say housing, contributed to a bubble that requires correcting. Unfortunately, when everything corrects at the same time, we get a depression.
To keep the stimulus from being a sedative instead, kind of like an Irish Coffee, additional revenue must be found very quickly. This revenue has to come from the people and corporations that have money and can pay. If we are not going to do away with Corporate Income Taxes in favor of a Value Added Tax, or its equivalent, we need to immediately institute a flat tax on all corporate worldwide profits based on the proportion of business they do in the U.S. This will take care of a company's ability to use international transfer pricing to artificially understate their U.S. profits. (We should also eliminate all forms of corporate welfare, not limited to but certainly inclusive of selling off our national resources, such as trees, at below market rates.) If we are not going to do away with a progressive income tax on individuals, then it needs to be dramatically simplified with fewer tiers and much less taxation of the lowest income tier and much more taxation of the highest income tier.
A government that lives within its means and makes appropriate investments for the future would be more than refreshing, it would be--stimulating.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The State Should Get Out of the Marriage Business
Arguments about marriage, married, and all other variants are just semantics. We say married to one's job, marriage made in heaven and use divorce just as frequently in semantically similar constructs.
Since California's Supreme Court ruled similarly to the Massachusetts' Supreme Court, there has been an uproar about legal semantics, with Proposition 8 seeking to make a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between a man and a women. (While statistically there is not a large population of transexuals, I wonder where they fit in this definition.) Already in California a person can be ordained via the Internet in the Universal Church of Life and be authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies.
Both presidential candidates have stated that they support Civil Unions for other than a man and woman but one campaign is against modifying the state constitution and one is actively campaigning for it.
I only mention it because the state should only be in the business of Civil Unions for everyone: gays, straight, men, women. The only reason that the state should be involved at all is to establish the property, access, and progeny rights formally and legally. This service should cost as should the dissolution of the contracts.
And these are contracts. As contracts, Civil Unions should be allowed between any consenting legal entity, or perhaps even entities. What they allow are family rights, (insurance, visitation, ...), and family responsibilities, (debt, support, ...). Entering into these contracts should not be done lightly and exiting should only be possible with agreed to splitting of the responsibilities.
In the final analysis, marriage is just a word. Even if my wife and I were "Civil Unioned" instead of "married," I would still call what we had a "marriage." It was even blessed by a church, well a pastor of a church, Presbyterian I believe.
Since California's Supreme Court ruled similarly to the Massachusetts' Supreme Court, there has been an uproar about legal semantics, with Proposition 8 seeking to make a State Constitutional definition that marriage is between a man and a women. (While statistically there is not a large population of transexuals, I wonder where they fit in this definition.) Already in California a person can be ordained via the Internet in the Universal Church of Life and be authorized to conduct marriage ceremonies.
Both presidential candidates have stated that they support Civil Unions for other than a man and woman but one campaign is against modifying the state constitution and one is actively campaigning for it.
I only mention it because the state should only be in the business of Civil Unions for everyone: gays, straight, men, women. The only reason that the state should be involved at all is to establish the property, access, and progeny rights formally and legally. This service should cost as should the dissolution of the contracts.
And these are contracts. As contracts, Civil Unions should be allowed between any consenting legal entity, or perhaps even entities. What they allow are family rights, (insurance, visitation, ...), and family responsibilities, (debt, support, ...). Entering into these contracts should not be done lightly and exiting should only be possible with agreed to splitting of the responsibilities.
In the final analysis, marriage is just a word. Even if my wife and I were "Civil Unioned" instead of "married," I would still call what we had a "marriage." It was even blessed by a church, well a pastor of a church, Presbyterian I believe.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
December 23, 2007
My life changed forever on this date as my wife of almost 30 years passed away from her cancer. For the last six months I have been burying myself in my work and crying on my own time. I have started a memorial, The Marilyn Westbrook Garment Fund, with the kind assistance of Saskia Thiadens and her National Lymphedema Network.
http://www.lymphnet.org/patients/westbrookFund.htm
I may never get back to this blog, but will be starting another one with the theme of Memories of Marilyn. It will be for two purposes: document Marilyn's life for the grandchildren who will never meet her in person and to encourage donations to the Marilyn Westbrook Garment Fund.
My personal funds are limited so all I could seed the fund with was a modest life insurance amount I received from my employer. I want this memorial to be a lasting benefit for two reasons: the cause is so worthy and, of course, to keep the memory of Marilyn alive through this good purpose.
Doyle Westbrook
Loving husband of Marilyn Westbrook
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Gerson Therapy Part I
While I am truly a believer in most of the claims for the Gerson Therapy, namely that it enables the body to heal itself from an amazing assortment of diseases, it doesn't do so without an almost obsessive-compulsive adherence to a regimen that is very difficult to sustain. It is mostly difficult due to the obstacles that politicians and AMA have put in its way. It is also very consuming, both for the patient and the care-giver.
Its premise rings true with me: remove all the obstacles to the body healing itself and the body does exactly that. Unfortunately, modern obstacles are many with pollution, flouride, and AMA medical care. Also unfortunately, it may be a slower process than some aggressive cancers. For the aggressive cancers you need surgery but chemotherapy and radiation are strong carcinogens and destroy the body's ability to heal itself. Even the anesthetics used during surgery and the disruption of the surgery itself depresses the immune system.The full therapy is life changing, during and after the treatment phase. The treatment phase is even longer now than when first created due to the greater number of toxins in everyday life. Charlotte Gerson has said that during the treatment, the care-giver may have intervals as much as 20 minutes of freetime, particularly if the patient cannot do much for herself. If the schedule is strictly adhered to, there is a block of time after 7:00 PM that is free, unless night time clay packs, teas, or other treatments are needed. This is to go on for two years, or more.
I would have gladly done this as long as necessary for a cure. Unfortunately, my wife was not as obsessive-compulsive as required and certain actions by our HMO, Kaiser, made it impossible for her to continue.
Its premise rings true with me: remove all the obstacles to the body healing itself and the body does exactly that. Unfortunately, modern obstacles are many with pollution, flouride, and AMA medical care. Also unfortunately, it may be a slower process than some aggressive cancers. For the aggressive cancers you need surgery but chemotherapy and radiation are strong carcinogens and destroy the body's ability to heal itself. Even the anesthetics used during surgery and the disruption of the surgery itself depresses the immune system.The full therapy is life changing, during and after the treatment phase. The treatment phase is even longer now than when first created due to the greater number of toxins in everyday life. Charlotte Gerson has said that during the treatment, the care-giver may have intervals as much as 20 minutes of freetime, particularly if the patient cannot do much for herself. If the schedule is strictly adhered to, there is a block of time after 7:00 PM that is free, unless night time clay packs, teas, or other treatments are needed. This is to go on for two years, or more.
I would have gladly done this as long as necessary for a cure. Unfortunately, my wife was not as obsessive-compulsive as required and certain actions by our HMO, Kaiser, made it impossible for her to continue.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Cancer
Whether you are the one who has it or whether or not a loved one has it, cancer is certainly LIFE CHANGING. The first question is how much is to be sacrificed for life. (While cancer can cause death, it is the "cure" that is truly life changing.) In many cancer cases, there is no amount of sacrifice that will buy life. In some cases there is unnecessary sacrifice when something less would have sufficed. And in far too few cases no sacrifice is necessary as the process for buying life actually enriches it.
There is the American Medical way: slash, burn and poison. Using those terms obviously displays a bias. The whole approach is one intended to kill the cancer before the body is killed. The real problem is that the statistics lie, or rather statistics are used to lie. This is pretty bad when such poor statistics for survival are lies.
The statistics are all about five year survival rates. It should be survival to the actuarial tables of a life without cancer. It also counts only if the specific cancer the patient was originally diagnosed with comes back. Remember that radiation and the chemotherapy chemicals are so carcenogenic that they can only be given in doses with large pauses between them. On top of that, surgery, radiation, and the chemicals used in chemotherapy suppress the immune system. If in the course of treatment the patient dies from some other disease or complication brought on by the lack of immunities, the patient is no longer counted.
There are a whole lot of lives changing from cancer. More and more people are getting some form of it. It used to be that this was explained that our longer lives were allowing these degenerative diseases to finally show up. If you look around, there are more and more children getting cancer. Certainly they haven't lived long enough to allow their cancers to finally appear.
The person with a cancer diagnosis has their life changed instantly. There is, at a minimum, all of the medical appointments. The problem is that most of the appointments, if not all, are with specialists who generally know only one area. If lucky, they may know who to refer you to for other areas. If unlucky, they may just think they need to refer you because of rote formulas. Of course, once referred, the next specialist applies their specialty, because the patient obviously needs it or they wouldn't have been referred.
The people around the cancer patient have their lives changed as well. During the treatments the patient cannot be the same. Many of the treatments are so debilitating that the patient may be physically worse off. A recent newspaper article said that chemotherapy definitely affects the brain. Even if that doesn't result in mental issues, the whole situation is scary, frustrating, and psychologically draining enough without further complications. It's hard to remain upbeat and supportive when your life is changing every bit as much as the cancer patient's. Often the patient's decision making powers are reduced. This last is particularly frustrating to me.
Then when a cancer returns...
There is the American Medical way: slash, burn and poison. Using those terms obviously displays a bias. The whole approach is one intended to kill the cancer before the body is killed. The real problem is that the statistics lie, or rather statistics are used to lie. This is pretty bad when such poor statistics for survival are lies.
The statistics are all about five year survival rates. It should be survival to the actuarial tables of a life without cancer. It also counts only if the specific cancer the patient was originally diagnosed with comes back. Remember that radiation and the chemotherapy chemicals are so carcenogenic that they can only be given in doses with large pauses between them. On top of that, surgery, radiation, and the chemicals used in chemotherapy suppress the immune system. If in the course of treatment the patient dies from some other disease or complication brought on by the lack of immunities, the patient is no longer counted.
There are a whole lot of lives changing from cancer. More and more people are getting some form of it. It used to be that this was explained that our longer lives were allowing these degenerative diseases to finally show up. If you look around, there are more and more children getting cancer. Certainly they haven't lived long enough to allow their cancers to finally appear.
The person with a cancer diagnosis has their life changed instantly. There is, at a minimum, all of the medical appointments. The problem is that most of the appointments, if not all, are with specialists who generally know only one area. If lucky, they may know who to refer you to for other areas. If unlucky, they may just think they need to refer you because of rote formulas. Of course, once referred, the next specialist applies their specialty, because the patient obviously needs it or they wouldn't have been referred.
The people around the cancer patient have their lives changed as well. During the treatments the patient cannot be the same. Many of the treatments are so debilitating that the patient may be physically worse off. A recent newspaper article said that chemotherapy definitely affects the brain. Even if that doesn't result in mental issues, the whole situation is scary, frustrating, and psychologically draining enough without further complications. It's hard to remain upbeat and supportive when your life is changing every bit as much as the cancer patient's. Often the patient's decision making powers are reduced. This last is particularly frustrating to me.
Then when a cancer returns...
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Thinking through my privacy
I never thought I would be blogging so I haven't given much thought on just what I might say that preserves the privacy of the people I care about more so than even mine. While I consider myself to be a private person, as a manager, I am more a discreet person.
A manager has a lot of responsibilities but the greatest one is getting the most out of the team. Sometimes this means letting the super stars run and sometimes it means holding them close to create the draft that accelerates everyone. This cannot be done if the manager is indiscreet, talks without thinking, or worse appears to hold an offensive position.
Then there is my private life, in which the circumstances for people around me have profoundly affected my life. How can I write about my profound life changing experiences without disclosing more than they would wish me to, even if they or I were not readily identifiable?
How sanitized can this be without restricting the catharsis of the writing? Is having readers and commentors part of that catharsis? I know I'm not interested in reading someone else's angst.
May 30, 2007
A manager has a lot of responsibilities but the greatest one is getting the most out of the team. Sometimes this means letting the super stars run and sometimes it means holding them close to create the draft that accelerates everyone. This cannot be done if the manager is indiscreet, talks without thinking, or worse appears to hold an offensive position.
Then there is my private life, in which the circumstances for people around me have profoundly affected my life. How can I write about my profound life changing experiences without disclosing more than they would wish me to, even if they or I were not readily identifiable?
How sanitized can this be without restricting the catharsis of the writing? Is having readers and commentors part of that catharsis? I know I'm not interested in reading someone else's angst.
May 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
