HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
Sept. 15, 2006 A patient came into my office today. He had weighed 295 pounds when last seen, and today he weighed 301. He had not been seen for several months. "Doc," he said, "I went on the South Beach diet and lost 45 pounds. I was down to 250 and I felt a lot better. Then I started eating the carbs, bread and pasta, again, and I've gained it all back. Doc, I gotta stop going on diets!" "Think of it this way," I replied. "Let's say your blood pressure was 200/100 and you started a blood pressure pill, your blood pressure came down to 120/80 and you stopped having headaches and felt less short of breath better. Then you stopped the blood pressure pill, your blood pressure went back up to 200/100, you got short of breath and your headaches came back. Would you then say, 'Doc, I have to stay off these blood pressure pills?' No, you would think, I better get back on those blood pressure pills. Same with the diet. You lost weight, you felt good, and so you shouldn't have stopped the diet but stayed on it." But many people are irrational in this way. When the New York Times was leaked the information about the terrorist eavesdropping and warned that publishing it would endanger American citizens, Bill Keller, the big editor cheese at the NYT, thought about it and concluded that the Bush administration didn't have much credibility, so they placed their judgement above that of the security agencies of the country and released the story, thus warning terrorists the world over to use other means to communicate. But stop to think about it. The NY Times had spent five years attempting to destroy the credibility of the Bush administration! They had published hundreds of critical stories, many subsequently proven false, concerning the administration: lies that weren't lies, errors in judgement that weren't wrong, the Valerie Plame scandal about a leak which wasn't a leak about a covert agent who wasn't covert, and on and on and on. It is much the same as if a farmer had taken a sledgehammer and broken the legs of his mule and then decided to shoot it because it couldn't pull the plow any more. The NY Times had taken an administration which was and is, demonstrably, the least corrupt and least dishonest in recent memory, and by mercilessly attacking its honesty for four years they drove down its credibility to the point where the NY Times didn't trust it! Is that not the craziest sort of behavior and logic that one could imagine? But give them time. They'll come up with something even crazier. Probably something like this: The terrorists, having been warned by the NYT that Bush was eavesdropping on their cell phone calls, switch to slower but more circuitous commo methods. The terrorists, having learned from the NYT that a particular port's cargo containers aren't checked thoroughly on Thursday afternoons, sneaks a nuclear weapon into Manhattan through a container ship docking on a Thursday afternoon. The bomb is transported to Manhattan and exploded. The next day, Bill Keller, who was vacationing in France at the time of the explosion, sends in an editorial to the Boston Globe wherein he blames the Bush Administration for not closing down the NYT before it could leak the deadly information! Don't bet it won't happen that way. ------------ About the author Brooks A. Mick: Physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre. Email: brooks15@cox.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
