This Year’s Family Christmas Gift

A Book Recommendation From Bob Freelove

Recently I came upon a couple of interviews on YouTube that featured a brilliant young surgeon who wrote her first book which became a #1 New York Time Bestseller. 

GOOD ENERGY

The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health

By: Casey Means, MD

After just watch the first 5 minutes of her interview with Tucker Carlson I was amazed by some of the things she said.  So much so that I stopped the video and invited my wife to watch it with me.  At the end of the interview my wife and agreed to order her book immediately.

When the book arrived I jumped right into the book.  Then by the time I completed the introduction and part one, I decided to order copies of the book for each of our children...it was that good.

Here are just a few things that really got my attention regarding the current state of our health care system:

In Chapter 3 titled Trust Yourself, Not Your Doctor

Every institution that impacts your health makes more money when you are sick and less when you are healthy—-from hospitals to pharma to medical schools, and even insurance companies.

 

Most health care books give recommendations and end with a disclaimer to “consult your doctor.”

 

I have a different conclusion: when it comes to preventing and managing chronic disease, you should Not trust the medical system.  This might sound pessimistic or even frightening, but understanding the incentives of our medical system and why it does not deserve our benefit of the doubt is the first step to becoming an empowered patient.

 

The truth: we should consider listening to the medical system if we have an acute issue like a life-threatening infection or broken bone.  But when it comes to the chronic conditions that plague our lives, we should question almost every institution regarding nutrition or chronic disease advice.  All you need to do is follow the money and incentives.

 

U.S. hospitals today are filled with some of the world’s most dedicated, intelligent, and hardworking professionals.  But they are operating in a system that has lost its way, one that now makes money when patients are sick and loses money when they are healthy.

 

My recommendation:

Provided you are concerned about your health and the health of your family this is one book you need to read. 

Links:

To order the book on Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/s?k=good+energy+casey+means

Interview with Tucker Carlson:

President Trump's team is tasked with reducing the size of the Federal Government and returning Power back to "We The People!"  Part of that process has to include re-establishing the rights that were taking away from each state by the 17th. Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct election by the people. While this change was made to address corruption and increase democratic participation, it has unintentionally weakened the original structure of federalism and upset the balance of power between the states and the federal government.

Repealing the 17th Amendment could help restore the role of states in federal governance and bring government closer to the people. Here’s why repealing it makes sense:

1. Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Federalism

The “Founding Fathers” deliberately designed the Constitution to balance power between the federal government and the states. The original system had Senators elected by state legislatures, which ensured that the interests of individual states were directly represented in Washington. This was a crucial part of the "Great Compromise" that shaped the bicameral legislature, with the House representing the people directly and the Senate representing the states.

By making Senators accountable to state governments, the original structure ensured that states had a strong voice in federal policy. This helped maintain a healthy tension between state and federal power, preventing overreach by the national government.

The 17th Amendment broke that balance by making Senators accountable to the broader electorate, resulting in Senators who often prioritize national interests or the interests of powerful special interests over the needs of their states.

2. Strengthening State Sovereignty

Repealing the 17th Amendment would return power to the states, empowering state legislatures to elect Senators who reflect their specific needs and priorities. Today, many policies decided at the federal level ignore the diverse needs of different states. A state like Montana, with a small population and unique rural concerns, may have very different priorities from a state like California or New York. Without direct influence over Senate elections, state governments have a weaker voice in crafting policies that affect them.
 
 By repealing the 17th Amendment, state legislatures could once again choose Senators who will directly represent their interests in Washington, ensuring that federal laws are more attuned to the diverse needs of different regions.

3. Reducing the Influence of Special Interests

Direct elections have opened the door for money and special interests to play an out-sized role in Senate campaigns. Modern Senate races often involve enormous sums of money, with candidates relying on donations from national political action committees (PACs) and wealthy donors to win elections. This can result in Senators being more responsive to donors than to the people or the states they represent.

Under the pre-17th Amendment system, Senators were chosen by state legislatures, reducing the influence of special interest groups and national political machines. Repealing the 17th Amendment could help diminish the role of money in politics by shifting the focus back to the concerns of state governments, rather than the demands of campaign donors.

4. Enhancing Accountability

Direct elections have not always led to greater accountability. Senators, with six-year terms, can easily become disconnected from their constituents and more focused on national political trends than local concerns. If state legislatures had the power to select Senators again, they would be able to hold Senators more directly accountable. Senators would need to answer to their state governments and reflect the will of the state’s people through their elected representatives.

This system would allow states to recall or replace Senators more easily if they fail to represent state interests, making Senators more responsive to the needs of their states.

5. Promoting Deliberative Governance

The original design of the Senate was to create a body that was more deliberative and insulated from popular pressures, unlike the House of Representatives, which is subject to the immediate whims of public opinion. By having Senators elected by state legislatures, the Founders ensured that the Senate would be a more stable and thoughtful chamber focused on long-term policy goals rather than short-term political gains.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would help restore the Senate as a more deliberative body, focused on thoughtful governance and the careful balance of federal and state interests.

6. Improved Representation for Rural Areas

By allowing state legislatures to appoint Senators, rural areas would have a greater voice in government, as these representatives are more likely to understand the unique challenges facing rural communities and prioritize their needs.

7. Increased Partisanship 

The direct election of Senators has contributed to an increase in partisanship, as candidates are now more focused on appealing to national party bases rather than working across the aisle with colleagues from other states. This polarization has hindered the Senate's ability to function effectively and pass meaningful legislation.

8.  Lack of Representation for Smaller States 

The 17th Amendment has created an imbalance in representation, as Senators from smaller states are often at a disadvantage when competing against those from larger states with more populous districts. Repealing this amendment would allow state legislatures to ensure that each state's interests are represented proportionally.

9. Reduced Checks and Balances 

The direct election of Senators has diminished the checks and balances intended by the Founding Fathers, as Senators are now beholden to national party leaders rather than their constituents or state governments. This shift has eroded the Senate's ability to serve as a co-equal branch of government.

10. Increased Campaign Spending 

The 17th Amendment has contributed to an increase in campaign spending and special interest influence, as candidates must rely on donations from wealthy donors and PACs to finance their campaigns. Repealing this amendment could help reduce the corrupting influence of money in politics.

Conclusion: Repealing the 17th Amendment to Revive Federalism

Repealing the 17th Amendment would restore the balance of federalism, strengthen state sovereignty, reduce the influence of special interests, and create a more accountable and deliberative Senate. While direct election of Senators may have been well-intentioned, it has shifted power away from the states and weakened the original purpose of the Senate as a voice for state governments. To better reflect the diverse needs of America and to reinvigorate our federal system, it's time to consider repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the election of Senators to state legislatures.

Share your thoughts on why (or why not) you think the 17th Amendment should be repealed!

Exposure and disclosure are terms often used interchangeably, but they represent distinct concepts, especially in the context of information sharing, privacy, and trust.

Exposure: Unintentional or Forced Revelation

Exposure occurs when information is revealed unintentionally or without consent. It can be the result of an accident, breach, or external force—like being caught in a compromising situation or having private data leaked. In exposure, the person or entity has little to no control over what is revealed or how it’s presented. This can lead to misunderstandings, misrepresentation, or loss of trust, as the information was not shared voluntarily or with proper context.

Examples of exposure include:

- A data breach exposing personal information.

- A photo posted online without someone's consent.

- Being overheard in a private conversation.

In such cases, exposure feels invasive because the subject didn't choose when or how to reveal the information.

Disclosure: Intentional Sharing of Information

Disclosure, on the other hand, is the deliberate, controlled release of information. When someone discloses something, they are intentionally revealing it, often in a way that provides context, explanation, or meaning. Disclosure implies choice and control over the information being shared, creating a foundation of trust. In relationships, business, or legal contexts, disclosure allows for transparency, fostering openness and communication.

Examples of disclosure include:

- A company announcing a product flaw and recalling it.

- A person voluntarily sharing personal experiences in a conversation.

- An individual disclosing a medical condition to a healthcare provider.

With disclosure, the subject has agency, and the information is provided in a manner that allows for understanding and clarity.

Key Differences:

- Control: Exposure is often beyond one's control, while disclosure is a conscious decision.

- Context: Disclosure usually comes with explanation or context, while exposure lacks that framework, potentially leading to confusion or harm.

- Trust: Disclosure builds trust by showing openness, whereas exposure can damage trust by making someone feel vulnerable or violated.

In conclusion, while exposure often leads to unintended consequences and vulnerability, disclosure reflects transparency, choice, and the empowerment of individuals in how they share their information. Understanding this distinction is crucial.