Subject:  Re  Campaign Finance Reform (Anon)(Gordon)..
Date:     Mon, 1 May 2000 135508 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" 
To:       emfguru 
--------------------------------------------------


.......Response from EMF-L......



.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
                    NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
...................People are more important than profits.................
                            Missed opportunity...
          $$$$$ We could have changed the corrupted system!! $$$$$
                                  McCain !!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 22:16:43 -0400
From: Jeff Gordon 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: (jg) (emf) Campaign Finance Reform (Anon)..

Hi, Roy --

On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 11:37:57AM -0500, Roy L. Beavers forwarded:

> 	*****	Only natural persons eligible to vote may provide contributions
> to candidates for public office or those holding public office and any
> such contibutions may derive solely from the natural persons personal
> assets or wealth.*****
> 
> 	I'm confident that there are flaws in this naive proposal. 

(Nevertheless, as naive proposals go, I kinda like that one, and the
fact that someone cared enough to put it forward. :-)

According to periodic, well-thought-out writings in "Rachel's
Newsletter", corporations were originally chartered for particular
purposes, and only for as long as it took to accomplish them.

I'm told subsequent legislative "massaging" is how we've come to the
state of affairs we have with us today; and that literally, today,
corporations enjoy a somewhat -higher- status in law than do natural
Persons.  Specifically, the movers-and-shakers inside the corporate
structure are held safe from certain liabilities/reponsibilities --
whereas a natural Person, of course, has no such protected status.  

Et cetera.

My own naive proposal, then, is that we tackle the reversing of that
legislation that has made corporations into "super persons" at all. It
appears it was clearly wrong-headed to make such a change in the first
place; and one suspects the "massagers" of that legislation knew
precisely what effect they were achieving at the time.

There's a similar change, made to FDA's mandate, that we're still
living with today.  The original mandate was to watch over the "safety"
of products; this was changed to "safety...and effectiveness" at some
point, leading to the situation in which a product is unlikely to
receive "FDA approval" without first coming up with the millions of
dollars required for the studies needed for that approval.  "Little
guys" entering the pharmaceutical business, and non-pharmaceutical
guys, are thereby squeezed out economically.

One has to ask, "Who is it that defines 'effectiveness'?"  We have an
orthodox medical paradigm that is built around the idea of "reversing
symptoms", so that's likely to be the yardstick, here.  The alternative
paradigm, though, isn't focused on symptoms; it's focused on health and
wholeness.  Its methods are therefore arguably "ineffective" in most
situations, by that particular yardstick.  A medical drug that
"controls" hypertension would be deemed effective in addressing the
symptom of elevated blood pressure.  A non-drug approach that
eventually eliminates hypertension entirely, would not be, or at least
would not be able to afford to provide the 'proof of effectiveness' now
required for that approval to be bestowed.

Add the above to the "no evidence of harm" mantra concerning EMFs,
and one begins to sense a theme....

-- 

 -- Jeff --   

 "There's nothing left in the world to prove.  All that's worth doing
  is to love one another, using whatever means are available to serve."



Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com