A nation of rights and responsibilities

What of wisdom?

Posted July 30, 2004 5:30AM PDT

In America, we have rights. Among them, the right to defend ourselves. But if a police officer perceives that we are resisting arrest or a lawful search, or that we are a threat, they have the right to beat us into submission:

(U.S. Department of Homeland Security Officer Robert Rhodes) is accused of throwing the 37‑year-old (Chinese tourist Zhao Yan) against a wall, kneeing her in the head and striking her head on the ground. … After creating some suspicions by her movements, Zhao ran away just as authorities were doing a drug search. Rhodes grabbed Zhao, pepper-sprayed her, and roughed her up and badly bruised her face when she swung her arms at him in a struggle, according to U.S. officials. — Chinese in uproar over attack at U.S.‑Canada border, by John M. Glionna, Los Angeles Times, published in the Seattle Times Friday, July 30, 2004

In this contentious, wildly multi‑cultural nation, we have a myriad of rights, but we also have responsibilities. Officer Rhodes had the responsibility to treat Ms. Zhao with respect, and Ms. Zhao had the responsibility to cooperate with the police. And the Chinese government, always eager to accuse America of hypocrisy, has turned it into an opportunity to wail that America is unjust. Were that really true, however, Ms. Zhao would be unable to sue over the incident in court:

"I have been to many countries in the past for business purposes, and the United States is the most barbarous," Zhao told the state‑run China Daily, which is distributed nationwide. The newspaper reported Zhao has hired a U.S. lawyer and plans to sue, seeking $5 million in damages. — Chinese in uproar over attack at U.S.‑Canada border, by John M. Glionna, Los Angeles Times, published in the Seattle Times Friday, July 30, 2004

Our culture is a little wild, and maybe even a little barbaric, because of our diversity. Consequently, many people don't understand where their rights end and their responsibilities begin. Add to this that the police have to deal with contentious situations day after day, and they're bound to make mistakes. But sometimes, mistakes happen because all those rights prevent police from making wise choices:

Stephanie Willett, a government employee, found out the hard way recently. Finishing a candy bar on her way into a downtown (Washington, D.C.) Metro station, she was arrested, handcuffed and detained for three hours. — Woman handcuffed for eating candy at subway, by Candace Smith, The Associated Press, published in the Seattle Times Friday, July 30, 2004

Ms. Willett was eating a candy bar as she rode an escalator down into the station. A transit policewoman warned her to finish it before entering the station, but she kept on chewing. So the officer, Cherrail Curry‑Hagler, asked for her identification. When Willett failed to comply, Curry‑Hagler took her into custody, then frisked and handcuffed her.

Ridiculous? Absolutely. But allowing officers to make wise choices—such as when to enforce a law and when to let it slide—creates opportunities for serious law‑breakers to complain that they are victims of bias, and the courts treat their complaints seriously.

Wisdom bridges the gap between our rights and responsibilities. The question is, in all the diversity that defines the American culture, is there any room left for wisdom?

Intolerant Right, Spicy Left?

Double standard of the "tolerant" liberals

Posted July 19, 2004 6:30AM PDT

When conservatives speak their minds, liberals/progressives brand them as intolerant misogynists:

Because [of Bush Sr.'s] intolerant misogynist positions, Tanya Melich not only voted for Bill Clinton, she and other pro‑choice Republicans worked for him. — Republican Feminist Insider Analyzes Party's Misogyny, by Polly Rothstein, Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, Spring 1996

Or we're insensitive:

Norton, an ideological conservative, was already under fire from Democrats for her opposition to what she terms "excessive" environmental regulation, but now her opponents say her own words prove she is racially insensitive and out of the political mainstream. — Confirmation Controversy: Norton, Ashcroft Face Racially Tinged Fight, by Carter M. Yang, ABC News, January 11, 2001

But let a liberal speak, and their opinions are commanding, powerful and spicy:

The favorite Seattle restaurant for Teresa Heinz Kerry is Wild Ginger, fittingly given the spiciness that THK brings to the relentlessly bland world of U.S. presidential politics. … Heinz Kerry, 65, speaks her mind. — In The Northwest: Heinz Kerry speaks softly, but words pack a punch, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 19, 2004

What does Mrs. Kerry have to say when she's speaking her mind?

In an interview during last week's Seattle visit, she decried the Bush administration for "cynical manipulation," "narrowness of thinking" and "terrifying ignorance" in its failure to address global warming.

"You are an idiot if you don't do anything," she argued. — In The Northwest: Heinz Kerry speaks softly, but words pack a punch, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 19, 2004

Ouch! Take that, evil Republicans! I wonder if she's ever called anybody a "girlie man." No! She's too refined and too sensitive for that. But she is fearless:

It's fascinating stuff, fearlessly delivered. … Despite the soft tones, Teresa Heinz Kerry makes Hillary Clinton look like a shrinking violet. — In The Northwest: Heinz Kerry speaks softly, but words pack a punch, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 19, 2004

Of course, in Seattle, a town where taking a conservative stand can get you fired from your job, taunted by your neighbors, and make you the target of epithets at parades and marches, it takes little courage to assume a liberal stand. But liberals, such as Connelly, do apply a double standard. In previous columns, for example, Connelly called Bush "brazen" for speaking his mind:

Neither the Bush administration nor GOP leaders in Congress have votes to pass the [marriage] amendment. … Why, then, would Bush push such a divisive measure when he was the guy who promised to create a "new climate" of comity in the U.S. Capitol? … Simply put, the president was preaching to the choir—and seeking its votes come November. … The amendment is a brazen political device to pump up the "ground game" phase of the Bush-Cheney campaign. — In the Northwest: Bush's anti-gay stance is a brazen political ploy, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 14, 2004

And, of course, when Vice President Dick Cheney spoke his mind, responding to a taunt from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., by telling him, "F‑ ‑ yourself!", Connelly was furious over the invective, and blamed the loss of civility on the right:

What has caused today's relentlessly rancid political climate? A pair of factors stand out. … The first was the go-for-the-groin politics of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. … The second cause of America's civility loss is the rise of right-wing media, and concurrently cable TV. … The National Review Web site is an example of bratty invective, lately matched on the left. … When a Fox commentator—Bill O'Reilly comes to mind—attacks a person or group, the target is inundated by obscene hate e-mail. … Cheney is at home in this environment. … He exercises authority in secret, inhabits a closed realm of the rich and powerful, and couldn't give a damn about appearances. — In The Northwest: Politicians' expletives aren't words to the wise, by Joel Connelly, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, June 28, 2004

In an interview on Michael Medved, Connelly insisted that Kerry's use of the term many times during an interview wasn't nearly as bad, because Cheney used the word in Congress' upper chamber, and that makes it much worse. Oh, please!

While Cheney's use of the f‑word isn't worthy of praise, in an environment in which to be conservative is to be the target of invectives and insults of every kind, and in which left‑wing groups are publicly planning to engage in illegal acts to disrupt the Republican National Convention in New York City, to blame incivility on conservatives is like blaming rape on the victim.

But then, when the mainstream media is dominated by liberals/progressives, harsh experience has taught us to expect that kind of a double standard from them.

Pharmaceutical monopolies undermine Medicare cards

Will drug companies compromise the Bush Administration's attempt to help seniors?

Posted July 1, 2004 6:00AM PDT

Corporations are pragmatic, unprincipled beasts, that do what it takes to maintain and increase profits. So it is no surprise that when the Bush Administration's Medicare‑Approved Prescription Drug Discount Card Program was implemented, drug makers had already increased prices:

WASHINGTON -- Drug makers raised prescription prices by nearly triple the rate of inflation in the first three months of this year—just before Medicare began its pharmacy discount card program—negating much of the savings the government promised to seniors, according to an AARP survey released yesterday. ... "Manufacturers are offsetting discounts with prices that are higher than they otherwise would have been," John Rother, AARP's policy director, said at a news conference. — Drug costs soar before 'discount': AARP survey says increases offset Medicare cards, Mark Sherman, The Associated Press, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 1, 2004

Corporate representatives said these increases were necessary to fund new development:

Rother singled out Bristol-Myers and Pfizer, which between them produce 12 of the 25 top-selling drugs. Bristol Myers-Squibb prices rose 7.2 percent while Pfizer increased its prices 4.8 percent in the first three months of 2004, AARP said.

Pfizer spokeswoman Laura Glick acknowledged the prices went up but said those are annual increases that typically occur in January.

Bristol-Myers spokesman Rob Hutchison said the company spends an average of $800 million on each new drug it develops. "The prices of our innovative medicines reflect the research needed to discover and develop them," he said. — Drug costs soar before 'discount': AARP survey says increases offset Medicare cards, Mark Sherman, The Associated Press, Seattle Post‑Intelligencer, July 1, 2004

That's a lie, and I can prove it.

First, companies that rely on innovation to stay in business do spend a lot of money on research and development. Businesses, like the Boeing Company, spend billions on R'nD. But if Boeing jacked up the price of the 747 to cover the development costs of future jets, their customers would turn to competitors, like Airbus.

So Boeing has to cover the expense of research and development out of their profits. That means that if, to remain competitive and stay in business, their profits have to decrease, then they will either do that, or they will do it in conjunction with massive lay‑offs. What they will not do is jack up their prices. They can't, because they are not a monopoly, and their customers have choices.

Drug companies, on the other hand, are very nearly monopolies. As such, they can jack up their prices to maintain profits, because their customers' choices are severely limited.

Alternatives limited by collusion?

In a free market, Americans could rebel against the high prices of drugs by turning to lower cost alternatives, like the same drugs, often manufactured in the same facilities, sold in Canada at lower prices. But that's kind of against the law. Why? In any other industry, that would be called a monopoly. But in this industry, it's called FDA regulations, and, of course, it's for our own good. The safety of drugs imported by private citizens cannot be guaranteed by the federal government; therefore, we can't have them.

What else the FDA does for our own good is to ban or restrict access to non‑drug alternatives that work almost as well, if not better, than prescription drugs. A process in which insurance companies cooperate—one is tempted to say "collude"—to enforce.

How's that? Because insurance companies won't pay for non‑prescription drug alternatives. For example, Fish oil, omega‑3 fatty acids lowers cholesterol, but insurance companies won't pay for that; they will, however, cover expensive cholesterol‑lowering drugs.

In addition to this, the FDA has banned non‑drug alternatives that have proven to be so effective as to reduce the market for certain drugs, including Prozac and Strattera.

Bush to blame?

Doubtless, liberals/progressives will blame conservatives for this, but the fact is that, while many Republicans are involved, conservatism has nothing to do with it.

Observation tells us that trust‑fund babies, heirs to fortunes built by corporate founders, tend to be liberal/progressive Democrats, while corporate executives tend to be liberal/progressive Republicans. In both cases, they pursue their goals through pragmatic means. For corporate executives, these means include lobbying Congress to maintain drug maker monopolies that restrict and sometimes ban alternatives and force Americans to pay higher prices than the market would otherwise sustain.

On the surface, the Medicare‑Approved Prescription Drug Discount Card Program looked like it would mitigate the burden this monopoly imposes on elders. In practice, however, it appears to be nothing more than another corporate welfare program. Democrats will blame Bush for this, but it was just as bad under the Clinton Administration.

By himself, Bush can't change this, though he probably wants to. The drug company lobby is too powerful. If this is to change, it has to come from the grass roots of America. It has to begin with the power of the people.