Without Critical Thinking; Breath Is Just A Clock, Ticking.

I'm going to talk about three things today, and they're going to seem somewhat unconnected. Rest assured, however, that they in fact are connected. Those three things are the FDA's rejection of another over-the-counter category of drugs; Mr. -- never "President"; I never voted for him -- Bush's vetoing the proposed renewal of SCHIP, a program he supports the existence of; and the current plans by the White House to invade Iran with 'surgical airstrikes'. Just how they're connected is something I'll attempt to explain below.

Some of this seems, to me anyhow, that it should be simple enough to understand -- but obviously I'm wrong there, as this connection doesn't appear to be spoken of anywhere else, really. So forgive me if it seems like I'm talking down to you, my reader. I assure you I wish it were otherwise.

We'll start off with what is likely the least controversial topic: the fact that the FDA has recently declared it recommends no level of dosage for the use of cough medicines for children under the age of two. From ABC News:

They are widely available in drugstores across the country -- over-the-counter cold and cough remedies, with fruity flavors specifically marketed for kids.

But, there's a growing consensus that these medicines may not always be safe — and for young children, aren't worth the risks.
Related Stories

In a report released last week, safety experts within the Food and Drug Administration said they would recommend NO level of dosage for children under the age of two, "due to the lack of evidence of efficacy and safety concerns."

[...]

Even more amazing, the industry itself — while insisting its medicines are safe — now agrees they should not be given to very young children.

"Parents should not use these products for children under 2," says Linda Suydam, president of the Consumers Healthcare Products Association.

Suydam says the real problem is "misuse" and "overdose." The labels on most boxes suggest that parents "consult with a doctor" about the appropriate dosage for children under the age of 2. The FDA review called that warning "confusing," and said it appeared to be contributing to "medication errors, which can result in fatal overdoses."

There are two elements here I find somewhat objectionable: 1) It takes the FDA warning people before it becomes 'newsworthy'. 2) The article clearly makes it seem that without the FDA, parents couldn't figure this out for themselves.

Since when was it acceptable to state that using a manufactured synthetic in a manner other than how it appears on the label, unless a government agency tells us not to? How, exactly, is "consult a physician before using this" confusing? Have we grown so wool-headed now that this is what consists of doing our own research responsibly?

It should come as no surprise, then, that the general public opinion -- and hence the political climate -- supports the massive expansion of the SCHIP program. According to Wikipedia, In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.^[3]. The SCHIP renewal would have the program extended to households of 4 or less earning up to $83,000.00. For larger families, the limit goes higher. If the median income household is now in need of government assistance, then the nation has more serious problems than anyone is willing to admit, and a simple "Children's Health Insurance Program" isn't the solution. But even so, we are faced with events such as this to drive the support for this massive irresponsibility:

USA TODAY's David Jackson reports that President Bush's critics fired more shots this morning at Bush's plans to veto an expansion of a health insurance program for children.

SEIU, the public employees union, sponsored a rally in which children dragged little red wagons to the White House filled with petitions urging Bush to sign the legislation. (Jackson says the event had more reporters than children.)

During a rally at McPherson Square, three blocks from the White House, about 15 children chanted: "care for kids, care for kids."

Really. Children are your political mouthpieces? I'm willing to hear out disagreement on this topic; I will disagree, but differences of opinion can and do exist, and I recognize that. But when the oldest person in your little showpiece is twelve, I'm sorry -- you've just started in on child abuse. It's reprehensible, irresponsible, and disgusting. Nobody would put up with this sort of behavior if it was in support of "The War", now would they? What makes this any different? That it involves the kids? Well, think again: "It's For The Children! ... And Other Lies My Government Told Me." And the media would further have us believe that Bush is against the program at all. While I despise the man, this sort of sloppy journalism does no one any favors. Consider:

President Bush says he will sign emergency legislation to keep the government running past the start of the new fiscal year on Monday, and has criticized Congress for failing to pass spending bills.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush said it is "disappointing" the Democratic Party-led Congress has not passed any of the 12 annual spending bills funding his Cabinet departments.

The emergency legislation will fund the Iraq war and a popular government-run child health insurance program.

The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to add $35 billion to the health insurance program, but President Bush says he will veto the measure.

In his radio address, Mr. Bush accused congressional leaders of putting forth an "irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand the program beyond its original intent."

The truth ought to stand up for itself, and not need manipulation to make itself what it is. Unless, of course, those supporting what he's vetoing are trying to conceal that they want this new extension of the program to extend to almost double the median income of the nation. Curious, that.

Overlooked in all of this, however, is what this furor over SCHIP is concealing: The United States of America is about to begin open military hostilities with Iran. That's called WAR, folks. I'll reiterate:

The United States Of America Is About To Enter Into War With Iran.

You'd think that was simply paranoia, or conspiracy trash talking. But it simply isn't anymore. Final item for you to consider today:

THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.

The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.

"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

Now, if you're still reading this and not thoroughly irate over your pet topic, we might be able to go into why I believe these three topics are, in fact, directly connected. I said I would, right? And here's the truth of it: We have allowed all of this to slip underneath our radar, as it were, for no other reason than that we have come to allow other people to do our thinking and researching for us. Consider: at what level is the average person taught the process of critical thinking, in the public -- or most private -- education systems? What grade were you in when you were taught classical logic, classical rhetorical technique, and the like? If you're like most Americans -- you were never taught them at all. You probably still think, like most people, that 'rhetoric' is a 'dirty word'. It isn't. And that's what all of these things share in common, then: the average joe American doesn't realize that he's being manipulated into the opinions he has by the resources available to him, because he does not question them. That's why the average newsblog or newspaper (let alone televised news broadcast) is targeted to a less-than 9^th-grade audience (or so I've read...). By way of comparison, this article is written at between a tenth and eleventh grade reading level. Now, all elements of rational ignorance aside, we must scrutinize the information we are fed, for such obvious gaps as I have shown above.

Otherwise, none of this will ever change. And given the list of "mainstream" political candidates for the upcoming Presidential election, does anyone think that we're doing well on this front?