I am always impressed by the level of political knowledge and idiologies that float among the Hatrack community, and I do read OSC's essays earnestly, trying to educate myself further. And with all politically-themed essays, there will be supporters and dissenters. Usually, I read one of OSC's essays and parts I agree with, parts I disagree with, and other parts educate me on things I was ignorant of.
But once in a while OSC writes something that hits home on every level, and his most recent article on John Edwards as VEEP and the legalization of illicit drugs was one of them.
I know there are threads on Hatrack that condemn OSC for his recent political essays "alienating" his fanbase, but I felt compelled to show that there are the other points on the radar that do support OSCs comments as well. I will be the first to admit that I do not agree with everything that OSC comments on, but I agree with so much more than I disagree with, and the disagreements are more like shades of gray than they are "knock down. drag out" fightin' words.
So again, thank you. As a pharmacist who sees patients addicted to prescription drugs and what they will do to get them, I am deeply concerned. Patients do not come to me because of the allure of these prescription drugs being so hard to obtain, they come to me because they have a physical or mental addiction to the drug. Legalizing certain drugs would only make the situation worse for persons who abuse these types of drugs. Do I think there can be such a thing as recreational drug use? Sure. But there is a price for just using drugs, and OSC addressed it beautifully.
I also loved the commentary on John Edwards. Being in the heath profession, I cringe when I envision him making a fortune from the pain and suffering patients and doctors have endured from medical malpractice. Of course patients deserve compensation when they are injured by medical malpractice! I wholeheartedly support the patient's right to sue, but at a rate of 30-40% in legal fees? That is obscene! I could only hope that the shame and humiliation doctors must endure when they injure a patient would be penance for their actions. I wish the monetary awards patients receive in court would erase the event that transpired, but it doesn't. Yes, we are left with an ugly situation that has no easy answers and is endlessly debatable as to its inner-workings. But please excuse me if I do not support a person who has milked these situations for obscene personal wealth in an arena that I make a living.
One last time, thank you OSC. This is just one of the million reasons to keep coming back to the river.
[ July 17, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
The opening sentences of the article:
quote:So John Edwards finds himself with the kind of national prominence he hungered for.
Not bad, for a lawyer who never ran for anything before his Senate race six years ago.
Heh!
I love this flawless logic.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh, holy crap, that's a terrible article. Straw man army.
If I have nothing going on tonight, I'll dissect it.
Posted by @Ease (Member # 3066) on :
quote:the only way Bush could lose in North Carolina would be to get caught dressed in women's underwear.
This was probably supposed to be funny, but it says an awful lot about how conservative North Carolina must be. Bush can start a war and his VP can give the clean-up contracts to his patrons, that's okay; but let him show any "immoral" tendencies and he's shunned.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Those points are the point of hot contention, not commonly accepted fact.
I imagine North Carolina voters are not the only ones who choose to believe one side over the other.
Sorry, playing Devil's Advocate.
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I was a fan of OSC's writings for many years. It wasn't until I started reading his Uncle Orson articles and later his War Watch articles that I became a fan of OSC as a person.
Posted by @Ease (Member # 3066) on :
TMedina- I don't believe that the items I mentioned are debated, but the why of those decisions that are debatable. And I'll grant you that the "why" makes all the difference.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
My grandmother lives in rural NC, retired there from living the majority of her life in conservative, rural PA. She lived on a plantation in a run down shack while my grandfather built their retirement home, and I was amazed at the condition of their surroundings, especially after seeing firsthand the backwards lifestyle of the Appalacian hillbilly.
To give you any idea of the nature of her neighbors, they treat their hunting dogs with more compassion and respect than they do their wives, and they fiercely defend their right to hunt from the back of a moving pickup truck.
What this has to do with the conservatism of the state of NC, I have no idea.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: This was probably supposed to be funny, but it says an awful lot about how conservative North Carolina must be. Bush can start a war and his VP can give the clean-up contracts to his patrons, that's okay; but let him show any "immoral" tendencies and he's shunned.
You say 'conservative' is it is a bad thing...it is simply a different set of priorities.
Starting a war, you see as a bad thing. Most conservatives thought going into Iraq was a good thing...not a bad thing (actually, prior to the war, many democrats were for it as well). Regardless of the WMD issue...which by the way we HAVE found WMD in Iraq, the media just barely mentioned it Saddam was doing unbelievably terrible things to his people.
As for the cleanup contracts, they were given to people who had shown they could handle this sort of clean up. It seems to make logical sense to give contracts to people who did a great job of cleaning things up in the last gulf war no matter who the VP is. Did Halliburton do some shady things once they were over there? Yes, it does look like it...though on further investigation it does not look as bad as first reported.
As for immorality, morals are important to the conservative group. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so...most people want leaders that share the same values that they hold. Most democrats I know what a president that has some socialistic tendencies, because that is where their values lie. It seems logical that conservatives would have a set of values that they think is important.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Thanks to Dag, I was pondering the specifics of my phrasing:
1. Nobody argues we went to war. Whether or not it was a good thing is a matter for debate.
2. As to whether the VP used croney-ism to have the contracts awarded to his friends and compatriots, this is a matter of speculation and debate.
As it happens, the contracts did end up in the hands of associates of Mr. Cheney, but we do not know if he was involved in any sort of manipulation to determine the outcome of the bidding process.
-Trevor
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Incidentally, was there anyone else more experienced, or willing to give the US a better deal than Halliburton?
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Yes: The Carlyle Group.
They are headed by George Bush's second in command from the CIA days as their CEO and the bin Laden family sits on the Board of Trustees.
Then again, this might have been a little too close to home for GWB, as well as giving grounds for the media to ask a LOT of questions.
Pssst! But The US has used them in the past....
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote: Drug users aren't tolerant, though they demand tolerance from others. Drug users are utterly, supremely selfish -- if it feels good to them, then they'll do it, regardless of what it might cost others, directly or indirectly.
I don't know.. I have found that many recreational drug users are indeed very tolerant, generous, and don't pressure people into things they don't want to do.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Incidentally, was there anyone else more experienced, or willing to give the US a better deal than Halliburton?
Therein lies the virtue of an open bidding process. It's kind of like the Clinton scandal. The issue isn't his fidelity to his wife, it's that he lied about it. This isn't an issue of Haliburton getting the contract, it's that it was awarded the contract surrepticiously. Graft on a billion dollar scale, and we know it's possible because Enron and Worldcom serve as precedents.
[ July 17, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
If there was an open-bidding process, perhaps Haliburtons would have still been awarded the contract. After all, they are pretty experienced with this sort of thing. But they might have had to bid a lot less for it, which could have reduced a lot of the overspending/scandal/whatever.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
I think the point to be understood is that Dick Cheney controls 49% of Halliburton. For him to endorse a war in Iraq and then his company gain rights to several lucrative governmental contracts seems highly unethical at the least.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
But to add an addendum to this off-track thread is that no matter what the shortcomings of our current President and VP of the US, I would pray for some economic growth, (sacrificing a chicken if necessary) and stick with them over the Democratic choices.
Even worse, I am NOT happy with my choice. I think our options stink.
Posted by @Ease (Member # 3066) on :
Lupus-
quote:As for the cleanup contracts, they were given to people who had shown they could handle this sort of clean up. It seems to make logical sense to give contracts to people who did a great job of cleaning things up in the last gulf war no matter who the VP is. Did Halliburton do some shady things once they were over there? Yes, it does look like it...though on further investigation it does not look as bad as first reported.
Halliburton came under suspicion twice in a period of four years for defrauding the Federal Government. You'd think that the old addage "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would have been followed.
quote:Since the start of the Iraq war last March, Cheney’s former company has been the subject of intense scrutiny on Capital Hill ever since it was hand picked by the federal government to lead reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Halliburton stands to earn as much as $11 billion for its work in rebuilding Iraq’s schools and buildings, a financial reward Democrats say is a direct result of the Vice President‘s ties to the company. It’s important to note that Halliburton’s military contracts ballooned while Cheney was chief executive of the company from 1995 to 2000. Cheney claims he severed all ties with the company after he became vice president and that he hasn’t used his influence to help the company secure its recent military contracts, but Cheney still receives $150,000 annually in deferred compensation from Halliburton and holds about $18 million in stock options."
quote:As for immorality, morals are important to the conservative group. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so...most people want leaders that share the same values that they hold. Most democrats I know what a president that has some socialistic tendencies, because that is where their values lie. It seems logical that conservatives would have a set of values that they think is important.
Is a man's choice to wear women's panties a reflection of his abilities or his morality? I wouldn't choose a man who dresses in women's panties to give me a clue as to whether to buy my boyfriend boxers or briefs, but I'd certainly hire him if all his ethics were intact and his abilities were appropriate to the job.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
That's refreshing, because I wear women's panties. However, I am not running for public office,
yet....
Posted by @Ease (Member # 3066) on :
:decides that Alucard makes some darn fine points, but makes note not to ask his advice regarding bf's undies::
[ July 17, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: @Ease ]
Posted by @Ease (Member # 3066) on :
Lupus
quote:You say 'conservative' is it is a bad thing...it is simply a different set of priorities.
I meant "conservative" in its literal sense.
quote:1.Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. 2.Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
It was not a value judgement, just an observation.
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: :decides that Alucard makes some darn fine points, but makes note not to ask his advice regarding bf's undies::
Hey! I am a happily married man, and sometimes I just need a little help getting my wife to laugh out loud.
Besides, thongs just chafe.
In all seriousness, one of OSC finer points he did not make in this current essay is that the vast majority of Americans would be considered moderate conservatives. I like your definition of conservatism, however I welcome change whenever it has the potential to make a positive difference in our lives, i.e. the world is not flat .
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Pssst! But The US has used them in the past....
Yeah, weren't they questioned during the Iran/Contra hearings? Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Halliburton came under suspicion twice in a period of four years for defrauding the Federal Government. You'd think that the old addage "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would have been followed.
You would think that, but unfortunately, that's not what generally happens. I can only speak toward the State of Florida, but it takes a lot for a contractor to actually lose the ability to bid on future jobs. I would think the federal government isn't that much different.
Unless Haliburton was barred from making bids, the government would have to consider the same as any others.
I'm not commenting on whether the bidding process for this situation was on the up-and-up, just that Haliburton's past might not matter.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Halliburton came under suspicion twice in a period of four years for defrauding the Federal Government. You'd think that the old addage "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." would have been followed.
I think you mean, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on... you can't fool me twice."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering there wasn't a bidding process, it would be hard for it to be on the up and up.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Which means that if this election turns out correctly, and we stick with our much-vilified and ridiculed Abraham Lincoln
So OSC is comparing Dubya to LINCOLN??? Bwahahahahaha...
I was hoping this would be something different from his other articles, but nope...usual banter. I would LOVE to see him use George W.'s pre-politician jobs as a reason to SUPPORT George in office...ran multiple businesses into the ground (consistent, OSC might say), skipped out on national guard duty (keeps his priorities), etc. That isn't very likely, though. OSC is reading more like Rush Limbaugh every day. Fear of Hillary? Check. Make point that Democrats are just as rich as Republicans? Check. Make up things that he would like to think Edwards says to himself? Check (this was made fun of in a glorious way in Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot book, btw).
His legalizing drug rant was pretty much right wing rote as well. I don't know of many people pushing to legalize all narcotics...mostly just marijuana. As typical for people who see things only in black and white, OSC misses the complexity of the drug issue in this country. We already HAVE legalized narcotics that are just as harmful or more harmful than those that aren't legal...alcohol and tobacco (with extra nicotine, of course). We are a giant drug culture, one that grapples with mixed drug messages every day...
"Feeling down...need a pick me up? Feel that you can't mix well in crowds of people and need to relax to do it?" In the past an advert like this would seem to point to some alcohol product...now it points to Zoloft or Prozac or...whatever. Some drug (legal) that makes you feel good. And these are advertized on television all day. You can also hear these same types of words talking about illegal narcotics as well. Mixed message? Sure. Brought up in OSC's rant? Nope. Anyone who uses Big D Drugs (not little d drugs like Zoloft, Paxil, alcohol, etc.) is a parasite and a vampire and should be shunned and reported. Compassionate conservative? Well, not like his Lincoln, I guess.
fil
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: As a physician, I am delighted to have a court structure which ensures my profession to be challenged to uphold its highest standards. Yes, there are problems, and yes, there are abuses, but I couldn't hope for more than excellent, passionate prosecutors, some of whom would challenge me and my colleagues in a court of law.
Well said, CT. I couldn't agree more. What saddens me is how the concept of medical malpractice was engineered by insurance companies and their legal departments as a means of revenue... Evidently an actuary at some nameless insurance company came up with the bright idea that there might be money to be made if doctors started getting sued. Sure we are all human, and I admit that I make mistakes at work occasionally, and I also believe I am accountable for my actions. I even carry a one-million dollar umbrella policy over the protection that my nameless, faceless corporation shelters me with, just in case I do serious harm to a patient.
But to address your point, CT: I too welcome the triumverate structure of the legal system, health care, and the Public Good, but the fact is, lawyers like John Edwards have taken advantage of a very serious problem to make a small fortune.
To put both concepts addressed in OSC article into my perspective: What if I were helping people maintain their pain management by dispensing TONS of Oxycontin and other addictive prescription medications? I am serving the public by rendering a service right? In case you might wonder, 90 tablets of Oxycontin 80MG retail for about $900, and have a street value of $1 per milligram (that is $7200 for anyone who does not want to do the math). So a gross profit of $6300 sounds pretty good for the average Oxy peddler. Meanwhile, I am selling hundreds of thousands of dollars of narcotics, and net a small fortune over the few years that these drugs are in vogue. (Not to fear, when the Oxy craze is over, multi-billion dollar companies will spend billions of dollars developing and promoting new ones...)
As I am trying to illustrate, CT, we are trying to do good in this world, and we welcome a check and balance system that insures our honesty and integrity. But for every ethical and upstanding lawyer, for every good doctor and pharmacist, there is an evil-doer who is twisting the system for their own personal gain. This is what irks me and is the fundamental reason for me to dislike the grounds beneath the John Edwards movement.
[ July 18, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Evidently an actuary at some nameless insurance company came up with the bright idea that there might be money to be made if doctors started getting sued.
I seriously doubt that. Don't blame the actuaries!
Remember, always blame the lawyers.
*flees*
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
CT, I've heard that were alcohol discovered today, it'd be a class-one drug, on par with cocaine. Is that right?
I've heard it from friends who have rather extensive knowledge of most drugs and an interest in seeing at least marijuana legalized, so I assume they know what they're talking about. I also assume they're fairly heavily biased. And so I lay this riddle at your feet, O Golden-Locked Queen of Medicine and Mistress of my Heart.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But for every ethical and upstanding lawyer, for every good doctor and pharmacist, there is an evil-doer who is twisting the system for their own personal gain. This is what irks me and is the fundamental reason for me to dislike the grounds beneath the John Edwards movement."
What exactly makes you think that John Edwards should be the poster boy for evil-doing lawyers? Is it the fact that he became rich suing wrongdoers, or is it that you don't think the people he sued did wrong?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Wow. A friend just directed my attention back to the article -- am I really alone in noticing what a joke this is?
quote:"My land, John, you're a good-looking fellow," he might have said to the mirror. "But not too good-looking. You have that semi-goofy boy-next-door quality that will make people vote for you. Especially women -- because you aren't threatening, you're just ... darling."
My expectations are low, but christ.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: My expectations are low, but christ.
Hey, different girls are attracted to different things. I am definitely *not* attracted to men who are too good-looking. (This is in no way a commentary on Porter, BTW.)
Or perhaps closer to the truth is that while I may be in one aspect attracted, I am also either intimidated or turned off (if they are arrogant) and the two cancel out.
I can think of two rather homely men at the moment who turned me on far more than any drop-dead gorgeous Joe-Smoe I've ever come in contact with. (Neither of them were Porter.) But I will readily admit I am an unusual female.
[ July 18, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You don't happen to vote Republican, do you?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Hmmm, not quite sure I get it. Are you saying that Republican candidates tend to be more homely than Democrat candidates? That is all I'm coming up with right now.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: CT, I've heard that were alcohol discovered today, it'd be a class-one drug, on par with cocaine. Is that right?
This is silly nit-picking, and not an attempt to refute your argument. But actually cocaine isn't a schedule 1 controlled substance. It's schedule 2, in the same class as drugs like Percocet and Ritalin, since it does have limited medical use as a local anaesthetic and vasoconstrictor. Marijuana, heroin, LSD, and all the other illegal recreational drugs commonly associated with evil-doing are schedule 1, but you happened to pick the one drug that isn't.
[/anal tangent]
[ July 18, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Well, I meant ignoring the maliciousness of a Republican pundit to make hobbled jokes around the subject of the pundit's attack -- but, yeah, Orrin Hatch isn't about to win any beauty contests, either.
Actually, that's a bit of a lie. I had no idea what you were talking about at first, and thought you'd simply not understood what I was talking about. Then I noticed the straw man I cited involved Edwards being vain, and figured out you were making a Funny.
It's a good one!
Man, with this kind of processing power, maybe I should vote Republican...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Eddie's trying to understand why you don't realize how offensive Card's insinuation is.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Oh, it's not my argument. Thanks, dude, I knew that cocaine could be used for medicine, but I didn't (and don't) understand the differentiations between schedules.
Do you know if alcohol's up with schedule-one? Its only medical use I know of is sterilization...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh, Tom, she's a woman, of course she doesn't understand. She's too busy enjoying the sight of my cute ass. And can you blame her?
My land, Lalo, you are a good looking fellow...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Unfortunately, I haven't read the article, so I have no clue the context of that paragraph. I was just commenting on Lalo's comment on it.
Lalo, I can't appreciate the beauty of something I have never seen. Don't take that as a suggestion. Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: And Prohibition wasn't repealed because it failed. It was repealed because too many prominent people despised the law and flouted it openly. Because too few people insisted on rigorous enforcement of the law. Because too many people winked at violations of the law.
That certainly sounds like a failure to me.
I agree with OSC about legalizing drugs. It shouldn't be done. I would even go as far as saying that caffeine shouldn't be legal, or should at least be more regulated than it is. IMO, anything you can get addicted to is BAD.
But he seems to me to be resorting to petty personal attacks in the first part.
I don't really much like reading OSC's articles anymore. I don't like feeling the need to defend his POV to my friends. I'm not offended by his point of view. I don't usually agree with him, but that's beside the point. The way he sometimes chooses to express it offends and baffles me. He is an intelligent person and I was taught that intelligent people don't need to resort to petty rabble-rousing to get their point across.
It's just hard to continue to respect someone who chooses to express his opinions by vilifying me and people who think the same way as I. In a strange way, though, I respect him for expressing his opinions regardless of the fact that it might alienate the people who pay his bills. (us) I just don't understand his thought processes or why he's so afraid of liberals.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: IMO, anything you can get addicted to is BAD.
Might as well face it... I'm addicted to love. And it's not bad!!
*ahem* Anyway...
I will admit it. I usually agree with Card's articles. I'm neither Republican or Democratic, although I do tend to agree with the Republicans more. I refuse to say I'm either one, I could never agree with everything or be proud of what either stands for. Typically, politics and politicians suck.
But Card's last World Watch essay was pathetic, in my not-so-humble opinion. There are a lot of good points on both sides of the issue of whether or not to legalize drugs. I happen to be in favor of legalizing marijuana. The fact that it's illegal in the first place is all about money and politics anyway. It's stupid. But whatever side you're on, you only HURT your chances of convincing anyone by using stupid arguments. It was completely obvious that Card has never researched his views on drugs, or if he has, he's gone to completely biased sources. For a man who points out the biases so strongly in the media and recommends that we get our news from several sources, this is completely hypocritical.
Take your own advice, Card. You don't have to TRY drugs to get the facts.
Want to hear what the other side has to say? Check out the NORML website. Of COURSE they're biased. Biased doesn't necessarily mean wrong. NORML
-Katarain
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It was completely obvious that Card has never researched his views on drugs, or if he has, he's gone to completely biased sources.
Do you think it possible that he has researched the other view, and yet still disagrees with it?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I like the story of how he met some other writers who had a "J" and how he felt uncomfortable "=judged".
precious. bless his heart.
fallow
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: Do you think it possible that he has researched the other view, and yet still disagrees with it?
No. For one very important reason: he never addressed the arguments of the other side, or at least not adequately. He usually does that with his other essays. Why not now? If he had truly researched both sides, then I expect him to write an essay addressing the other side and refuting it. There are a lot of very good points made by the pro-legalization side. He should have addressed them.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Katarain: You make a very valid point. I feel like a heel backpedaling, but there are a fair amount of good arguments for legalizing marijuana which Card did not address. I misphrased as well. I should have said, IMO any addiction is bad. :/ Sorry. I would say Many addictions are bad, but I'm working on not softening my opinions so much.
Regardless of my personal opinions, it's true that some of the punishments for drug-related offenses are extravagant. I personally think that alcohol does more damage than marijuana, it has at least done more damage to people close to me. Regulating marijuana would also lessen the likelihood of the drug being laced.
In any case, whether marijuana becomes legal or not, I won't be teaching my children that it is ok to smoke it, if I have any. But I will also hopefully be teaching them that it's not OK to drink or smoke. (Father's good influence pending) Also... Not Mormon. :ninja:
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:But for every ethical and upstanding lawyer, for every good doctor and pharmacist, there is an evil-doer who is twisting the system for their own personal gain
A one-for-one ratio, eh?
I doubt it very much. Let's see some proof.
But are you saying 1:1 on good vs. evil doctors? Or lawyers? Or pharmacists? Or just 1:1 for the good professionals on one side, and the evil every-one-who-is-evil on the other?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I certainly hope that was a rhetorical question.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ryuko, I actually agree with that statement--pretty much. Ya see, you can't get addicted to marijuana. Not physically at least. Any smoker will tell you that you can get psychologically addicted. You can still quit easily. So yeah, I agree.
Alcohol is bad. Tobacco is bad. Most drugs are bad, legal and illegal. And even marijuana can be bad. Just usually isn't.
Okay.. it's like I'm campaigning... sheesh...
I hate when essayists don't properly argue their point. I'm an English teacher. I take it personally.
-Katarain
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Ugh. You know, I don't even drink beer or coffee. So you might think I'd be sympathetic to an anti-drugs article. But the rhetoric and logic of this article is just awful...
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: IMO, anything you can get addicted to is BAD.
Ryuko, you average about 7 posts/day here at Hatrack. You may be addicted. Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
quote: What exactly makes you think that John Edwards should be the poster boy for evil-doing lawyers? Is it the fact that he became rich suing wrongdoers, or is it that you don't think the people he sued did wrong?
Tom, sorry I did not respond to your post sooner. A few answers:
I never suggest we make any posters. His history as an amazing trial lawyer that sues doctors for heinous amounts of money is simply the only reason I need to not support his cause. Hey, if I met him, I might even find him likeable, but I would still not support him. This is not about him as a person, but the path he has taken to achieve his place in politics. While we are at it, GWB is no shining angel either...
So to answer the second part of the quote, I am completely turned off by the millions of dollars made, yes. I agree that patients should be protected and in all liklihood, some patients who sued probably deserve more compensation than they were awarded. But that is not helped by the legal fees of 30-40%.
Maybe I would be less offended by John Edwards if he had those wonderful commericals where we can call now if we have been injured! And remember: There are no fees unless we get money for you .
Tom, The State of Pennsylvania has basically warned doctors not to leave in response to the huge increase in malpractice insurance rates. Do we have a decline in the quality of doctors that mandates higher premiums? I doubt it. The cost of living here is less than most states, but there has been a revisiting of how much companies charge for premiums, and also a reassessment of local and state taxes. This means organizations have realized they might not have been charging enough in this state, IMHO. I have watched doctors leave my hometown for no other reason than lower malpractice insurance premiums in another state. Doctors actually staged a "walkout" in response to the increasing premiums, and the situation is only getting worse. Hope that helps explain my opinions more. And it is nothing more than that: opinion.
Which reminds me of a joke: Q: When can you tell if a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving...
quote:A one-for-one ratio, eh?
I doubt it very much. Let's see some proof.
But are you saying 1:1 on good vs. evil doctors? Or lawyers? Or pharmacists? Or just 1:1 for the good professionals on one side, and the evil every-one-who-is-evil on the other?
SS, Your initial assumption was incorrect. The math on this is a little rough, but do try and stay with me:
Good = A Bad = B
A>B (A does not equal B) Ratio of A/B impossible to define, but for every B, there is at least one A.
And I thought all those math classes would never pay off...Thanks for making me clarify the obvious!
[ July 20, 2004, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:I agree with OSC about legalizing drugs. It shouldn't be done. I would even go as far as saying that caffeine shouldn't be legal, or should at least be more regulated than it is. IMO, anything you can get addicted to is BAD.
Okay, so addiction = bad.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't logically follow that the government is responsible to keep people from doing all bad things.
Prohibition was a successful experiment, wasn't it?
Eating McDonald's every day of your life certainly is bad for you. Should the government tell me what I can and cannot eat?
Hanging meat hooks through your shoulders is probably not advisable (see story). Does that mean the government should disallow it? In this case, the police can't do anything.
Guns can do some pretty bad things. I'd argue, though, that the argument 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' could be applied to marijuana and McDonald's and meat hooks.
Obviously, the line has to be drawn somewhere. The strongest argument I see against legalizing drugs is a strictly economic one -- it is in the best economic interest of the United States to *not* have the entire population addicted to heroin or cocaine. Remember how the Brits controlled the Chinese through opium? It would be terrible for our productivity and ultimate economic prosperity.
Marijuana, however, falls into a different category (in my opinion). It does not cause physical addiction, and ultimately would not cause the same severe economic consequences that the legalization of narcotics would. This, of course, is open to debate.
But I'm a bit of a libertarian, and just because something is 'bad' does not mean I want the government telling me I can't have it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Kasie, I assume you've never hung out with any stoners. I've known plenty of people who smoked until they were incapable of getting up off the couch. Every night when they came home from work, they smoked an ounce and vegged. Every day. For years.
Yeah, they were working. Sort of. When they felt like going in. But they weren't happy with their lives, and rather than do anything about it, they smoked pot and pretended it wasn't there.
Personally, I feel for our Congressmen. It'd be really easy to boost your polls by saying you favored legalizing marajuana. After all, all the cool people smoke pot. But I know I couldn't look the mothers of those kids in the eye and say, "Sorry, lady, it's not our problem. They should know better."
Marajuana, as we learned in health class, is a gateway drug, like alcohol and tobacco. Lots of people who use it are looking for an escape from their problems. When the buzz isn't good enough anymore, they'll move on to stronger drugs. So while it would be nice to let people use reasonable amounts, I can understand our Congressmen's reluctance to legalize. To me at least, there's too little potential good to outweigh the potential harm.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Yes, I know some stoners. I know many more people who smoke pot on a regular basis. And I probably know hundreds who've tried it once or twice. (I, for the record, never have.)
Thing is, people have been smoking marijuana for a long, long time. A few end up stoners for life. Most give it up by the time they start working. There're lots of hippies currently in the workforce. Most of them don't smoke pot anymore.
Cocaine and heroin addicts usually end up going down a different path.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Avidreader...you knew stoners? Ones that used daily for years? And this is when it is illegal to use marijuana? How would legalizing it change anything for these friends of yours? Make it cheaper? Easier to get? From what it sounds like, nothing at all would change other than they could do it without fear of legal action against them. Keeping it illegal has done absolutely nothing to change their life for the better.
This "gateway drug" thing is always a hoot. Most drug prohibitioners say that Marijuana is THE gateway drug but I am very happy to read Avid's inclusion of alcohol and tobacco (most public discussions seem to ignore these real gateway drugs). As long as we live in a hypocritical and contradictory system, there will always be this tension between legalizing and criminalizing drug use. Two of the most dangerous drugs are legal and can be obtained by any adult without prescription, needing only an appropriately aged (or faked) ID card. Marijuana is safer, cheaper to produce and has less costly side effects than either of its two legal brethrens (no calories of beer and as far as I know, none of the cancerous effects of cigarette smoke...and for you Adkins folks, it is low in carbs ). And unlike beer and cigarettes, marijuana has other medicinal uses.
On a side note, my old-school mother...who always worried that I did marijuana in high school (for the record, I didn't try it until college and even then didn't enjoy it as much as alcohol) has now been hinting that she would like her significantly older son to find some marijuana for her. She is diagnosed with fibromyalgia and suffers from a lot of pain that no medications have been able to help. She read about how cancer patients and MS patients have found a lot of relief in marijuana and wondered...just wondered...if I knew how to get her any. Gads! Who would have thought it!
fil
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Tom, The State of Pennsylvania has basically warned doctors not to leave in response to the huge increase in malpractice insurance rates. Do we have a decline in the quality of doctors that mandates higher premiums? I doubt it. The cost of living here is less than most states, but there has been a revisiting of how much companies charge for premiums, and also a reassessment of local and state taxes. This means organizations have realized they might not have been charging enough in this state, IMHO. I have watched doctors leave my hometown for no other reason than lower malpractice insurance premiums in another state. Doctors actually staged a "walkout" in response to the increasing premiums, and the situation is only getting worse. Hope that helps explain my opinions more. And it is nothing more than that: opinion.
I've been way too busy the past few days to respond to this thread and believe me - I've wanted to. I am constantly amazed at how thoroughly successful the campaign to vilify trial lawyers has been. But maybe I shouldn't be. Sure, the trial lawyers have a good pot of money to draw on, but it's peanuts compared to the insurance industry.
How do you think we got to this juncture in malpractice litigation? Do you think insurance companies rush to settle fair and equitable claims or do they throw everything they have at every case - regardless of merit - and make the whole process as costly and time-consuming as possible? If the trial lawyer loses, it's an immense loss - and one of the reasons their percentage of the settlement, if there is one, is so high.
I'll try to dig up the GAO report on malpractice rates later. There are some interesting findings in it. One is that the claims of patients losing access to services are being exaggerated by the AMA and others. They have individual stories but little hard data (they've forgotten the plural of anecdote is not "data").
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
As some of you here may remember, Grammy ran me over last summer backing out of her driveway. Her insurance companies stalled on paying ANY medical bills until I found an attorney. AFTER repeated verbal and written requests from me to honor medical bills that were going to be sent to collections due to their failure to act in a timely fashion. So . . . perhaps if the insurance companies did their job in an appropriate manner, there'd be less need for attorney's to do theirs . . .
Okay - legalization of drugs.
*Reconsiders the soapbox she was about to step on*
Never mind. Cary on with your fascinating conversation.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So you haven't ever treated any drug addicts, CT?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
fil,
No, the only thing that stopped one of them was finding out he might have cancer. The rest are still at it.
Legalizing pot would basically be society saying, "Go ahead. We don't mind." I sympathize with our Congressmen. If it came to a vote, a decision either way would be hard.
Persoanlly, I think we'd be healthier as a nation if we made alcohol legal across the board but outlawed movies making it out to be cool to get smashed all the time. Same with the pot. But since no one wants to go preaching morality to everyone, the best we can do is say smoking pot is bad.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Today's edition of the Miami Herald has an op-ed by the attorney representing Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case. I'll excerpt it since the URL includes my registration info (this is weird - haven't run into it before):
quote:Focus on ideas, not smears
BY KEN CONNOR
`A friend to personal-injury trial lawyers?''
Is that it? Is that the best the Republican National Committee can muster?
Immediately upon announcing that John Edwards would be John Kerry's pick for vice president, the Republican National Committee intoned that Edwards was a poor choice, in large part, because he is a ``friend to personal injury trial lawyers.''
As a Republican, a conservative, a supporter of President Bush, counsel to Gov. Jeb Bush and as a trial lawyer, I would caution against such empty-headed rhetoric.
Why?
For one thing, it will come back to bite the Republicans. Mel Martinez -- a former Bush Cabinet member and likely the Republicans' best hope for gaining a Senate seat in Florida -- is himself a trial lawyer. The same Republicans who extol his candidacy excoriate Edwards because of his occupation. And lest we forget -- the Republicans' most revered president, Abraham Lincoln, was a trial lawyer, and a mighty fine one at that.
Excerpts from transcripts of Lincoln's trials are frequently used as teaching tools for lawyers and law students today. Also, 40 percent of lawyers in Florida today are trial lawyers. Does the RNC disavow them? Will it refuse to accept their votes and support?
And if the rap on Edwards is that he is the friend of personal-injury trial lawyers, where does this leave the RNC? Is the RNC the friend of the drunk driver -- sued by the trial lawyer -- who blew the stop sign and caused a young mother to be a quadriplegic? Is it the friend of the car company -- again, sued by the trial lawyer -- that consciously decided not to fix its defective gas tanks, which, upon impact, were causing its vehicles occupants to be incinerated?
The RNC needs to be careful here.
The mere fact that someone is a trial lawyer should not be the gauge by which to judge that person. All professions have members who reflect poorly on them. Doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs -- all have members who are an embarrassment to the others. Should we all bemoan unscrupulous members of the trial bar? Of course. But let's be careful not to paint with too broad a brush.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm not real sure if this thread is about trial lawyers, or about the legalization of drugs. Whatever.
Anyway, my two cents. Marijuana is kind of a non-issue to me. I used pot for awhile many years ago, and never cared for it a great deal -- mainly did it because the people around me were smokin it. I never found it addictive (like I did alcohol) and never did it make me want to try anything harder (like coke or meth). I think peer pressure has more to do with "trying" harder drugs, than the use of pot itself.
And I do have an addictive personality -- I struggled with alcoholism for several years. I think alcohol and cigarettes (nicotine) are much worse, on the whole, than pot. So I'm not sure why the government has picked pot as the scapegoat of choice and made only it illegal. But, of course, we know how much big money is behind the alcohol and tobacco companies, so that will never change.
Of course -- I'm saying ALL of it is bad for you and should be avoided. But I just don't think pot is worse...
FG
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Did I miss something? When did CT ban herself from Hatrack?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Alucard, your math unfortunately requires that the number of BAD people exceed the number of GOOD people for there to be "One bad person for every good person," and not the other way around, as you last put it.
I hope no one here believes that there are more "bad" people than "good."
BTW, any chance on getting your money back on those math courses? Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
This thread is kind of all over the place, and I'm tempted to start a thread devoted to discussion of tort reform on its own. As I said - and probably badly - it's amazing that complex issues such as rising malpractice insurance have been sold as having a single, simple villain: trial lawyers.
USA Today recently published an op-ed by an internist that runs against that grain, calling for people to acknowledge the complexity of the problem - including those that originate from within the insurance industry (although he doesn't make a clear case in the latter).
Insurers, not just lawyers, inflict real pain on doctors
By Marc Siegel
When you go to a doctor's office, you expect to be seen in a timely manner by a qualified professional. Your concern is your health, certainly not a distant issue such as the malpractice-insurance debate. It's an industry issue that doesn't affect you. Right? But consider:
• Care is being affected. Doctors are rushing to see more patients to cover the costs of rising premiums. Much as a teacher is more effective in smaller classrooms, physicians are best with manageable caseloads.
• Legal distractions are becoming more common. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), one in six physicians face a medical-liability claim each year. In high-risk specialties, the frequency rises. Now, many time-pressed doctors have even less time because of lawsuits. Yet 70% of the cases filed are found to be without merit.
Patients should consider that a demoralized and distracted doctor is not an effective caretaker. And doctors must begin to "heal ourselves" by acknowledging that much of our anger toward lawyers is misplaced.
The wrong message
At a recent AMA meeting in Chicago, some doctors said they were going to refuse to care for malpractice attorneys. But physicians' anger is not an effective tool for change. Besides, insurance companies, not lawyers, determine the prohibitive malpractice-insurance rates while ensuring their own profitability.
These skyrocketing rates, together with frivolous lawsuits, are sending the U.S. health care system into a predictable death spiral. Both must be addressed through reasonable reforms, not knee-jerk actions. If not, the patient will be the one to suffer.
Doctors would be wiser to group together and devise our own insurance than to target lawyers. A plaintiff's attorney in New York has a proposal to create liability insurance for physicians. He believes premiums are so overinflated that he can market malpractice insurance at one-third the current price. If such a notion were indeed possible, it would indicate that insurance companies are more than covering their costs.
There's more in the article, such as a system in place in Michigan which has a medical panel review lawsuits to evaluate if care fell outside accepted standards.
Not a great article - but it attempts to address a complex issue with something beyond "it's the lawyers' fault."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Stephen, I've been too cranky even to stand myself. As of yesterday, I'm trying to stay away for a few days, work myself silly, and get over myself.
Cool. Now I can stop feeling guilty for my failure to respond to your questions about abuse. Still trying to sort out the mishmash of connections relating to control, testosterone, and perpetuated institutional customs such as "soaping". Being a divergent thinker (the kind term for "scattered") is really great until it comes time to sort it all out.)
(insert song "What do the linear folk do?" - I can sound just like Richard Harris in my head.)
[ July 21, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
<grin>
Nice links - I had an odd relationship with boomerangs as a kid. (story for another time)
Yeah - well, I live with someone who used to make her living lawyering, although most of her lawyering was working for the government going after scam artists - she won a few.
The thing that really blows my mind about all this stuff about tort reform - especially relating to malpractice - is how little anger is directed at insurance companies.
Here's some stuff from a column Bob Herbert did in the NY Times a few weeks ago (alternate site provided here):
If you hear something enough times from people in authority, you tend to believe it.
The tort reform zealots — including doctors, insurance company executives and legions of politicians across the country — have been hammering away at the idea that crackpot jury awards and lawsuits from undeserving patients are driving up the costs of health care and driving good doctors out of their profession.
"Junk and frivolous lawsuits" is the term of choice for President Bush, who told an audience in Youngstown, Ohio, last month that "junk and frivolous lawsuits discourage good docs from even practicing medicine in the first place."
According to the American Medical Association, "There are now 20 states in a full-blown medical liability crisis — up from 12 in 2002."
As the A.M.A. tells it, "America's patients are losing access to care because the nation's out-of-control legal system is forcing physicians in some areas of the country to retire early, relocate or give up performing high-risk medical procedures."
Full-blown crisis! Out of control!
All right. Calm down. Take a deep breath.
Just last January the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this about the link between high malpractice premiums and the availability of physicians in various specialties:
The General Accounting Office "investigated the situations in five states with reported access problems and found mixed evidence. On the one hand, G.A.O. confirmed instances of reduced access to emergency surgery and newborn delivery, albeit `in scattered, often rural, areas where providers identified other long-standing factors that affect the availability of services.' On the other hand, it found that many reported reductions in supply by health care providers could not be substantiated or `did not widely affect access to health care.' "
That hardly sounds like a crisis. Moreover, in several states specifically characterized by the A.M.A. as in "crisis," the evidence is rolling in that malpractice claims and awards are not appreciably increasing, and in some instances are declining.
The A.M.A. has its crisis states marked in red on a map of the U.S. on its Web site. One of the red states is Missouri. But a press release in April from the Missouri Department of Insurance said, "Missouri medical malpractice claims, filed and paid, fell to all-time lows in 2003 while insurers enjoyed a cash-flow windfall."
Another red state on the A.M.A. map is New Jersey. Earlier this month, over the furious objections of physicians' representatives, a judge ordered the release of data showing how much was being paid out to satisfy malpractice claims. The judge's order was in response to a suit by The Bergen Record.
The newspaper reported that an analysis of the data showed that malpractice payments in New Jersey had declined by 21 percent from 2001 to 2003. But malpractice insurance premiums surged over the same period. A.M.A. officials told me yesterday that they thought the New Jersey data was "incomplete," but they did not dispute the 21 percent figure.
A little more...
quote:There is no question that malpractice insurance premiums have increased sharply over the past few years. In some instances they have skyrocketed. But, as the Congressional Budget Office has noted, there are a variety of reasons for that, including the cost of malpractice awards, decreases in the investment income of insurance companies and cyclical factors in the insurance market.
"Insurance companies' investment yields have been lower for the past few years," the budget office said in a report in January, "putting pressure on premiums to make up the difference."
I'm kinda disgusted the AMA has made this their top legislative priority. As near as I can tell, they aren't spending anywhere near as much time and energy trying to get the profession to reduce the alarming rate of medical errors being made in the system. (one interesting aside in all this is that - and I'll have to look - there is good evidence that only a small percentage of malpractice cases actually get litigated.)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I finally get around to posting my malpractice/tort reform stuff and the only response I get is from the person who isn't posting to Hatrack right now.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
What I don't understand is what is intrinsically bad about something you *might* become physically addicted too?
Isn't it more dangerous, by far, and more lasting and more difficult to "Get Over," a mental addiction to something? Certainly we have made no steps towards banning television watching for fear of it becoming chronic, or the entertainment industry altogether, to keep people from obsessing over stars, or *picture frames* to make sure no one can't stand to see them crooked. Why are possible mental addictions simply shrugged at and glossed over, whereas possible physical addictions (and let's face it, both types of addictions can be JUST as harmful to all parties involved) are jumped upon by just about everyone?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Maybe we're all a figment of your imagination.
*Can't answer. Enjoying a good existential crisis right now, thank you very much.*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*hands sndrake the reins to da cartes*
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Why must marijuana remain illegal?
I'm so very glad you asked! Here are several answers to that very question.
1. Because we think it's bad, and therefore, must impose our belief on you.
2. We must impose our belief on you because you're too stupid to decide things for yourself. Just look at your choices so far. Yeah, Stellar!
3. Because we once knew a pothead who had no ambition and was basically a useless specimin of human existence.
4. We already have alcohol, and although it's more damaging to your body and dangerous for those around you, it's LEGAL already. Changing the law to include marijuana would just be too much trouble.
5. The government might not be able to tax everyone who grows and smokes marijuana, even though after the initial buying of seeds, the grower is spending no money on the product. This confuses even us, however, since potheads are notoriously lazy, and we can't imagine them going to the trouble of growing their own when it would be easily accessible at the corner store.
6. Our children might not believe all of the stories we make up about marijuana if it is legal for adults. (Don't judge us for making up stories! Marijuana is evil! Facts shmacts!) We're too scared to talk to our children honestly about the real problems associated with irresponsible marijuana use and that some people really shouldn't smoke it.
7. Marijuana is more potent than it was in the 60s. We got some real sciency guys who proved it, really!
8. Only unambitious parasites on society smoke pot. Successful people who say they smoke it are lying in an attempt to take over the world. They figure if everyone smoked it, they could steal all our stuff and we wouldn't care. We're not falling for it, buddy!
9. Everybody knows hippies smell funny.
10. People might not smoke as many cigarettes, creating financial problems for Big Tobacco and therefore, straining the economy.
11. People might not drink as much alcohol, which often makes people violent. If people weren't as violent, the police wouldn't have as much to do.
12. Pharmaceutical companies would suffer financially because some sick people would achieve better results from smoking marijuana.
13. Massive amounts of money can be made from hospilization, drugs, and treatments of cirrhosis of the liver, kidney damage, diabetes, and a myriad of other illnesses caused or complicated by alcohol consumption.
14. Cotton growers and the makers of synthetic materials would have to deal with competition from hemp producers.
15. It causes pleasurable sensations. This is unacceptable, even if you're in your own home, because all pleasure is bad. (See our related campaign against all sex, cheesecake, chocolate, video games, massage chairs, bubble baths, adreneline, fuzzy slippers, and other pleasurable items and activities.)
Thank you for taking the time to read our reasons for the prevention of the legalization of marijuana. Please feel free to submit your own reasons, as we feel this is but a very small number of the many, many reasons for our cause.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I vote for a tort reform thread. That'd be fascinating. And save me some research time to boot, I bet. (NOT a homework assignment, thank you very much. )
Go for it, Stephen!
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
ssywak,
Those equations are quantum, um...populatory nanite-derived quotia of the 4th dimension. Yes,....that's it. And in all actuality, they make perfect sense to me. After all, my job only requires me to count by fives.
As for the derailment of this thread. It is no longer a thread but more like a web. The original point I was trying to convey is that I completely agreed with OSC's recent essay on every level. The essay that I refer to is open to much debate, and I just wanted to say a simple "THANKS!" for writing what he did. And as Voltaire is famous for his guardianship of opinions, so are the blessed members of Hatrack. And this thread is quite a smorgasboard of topics!
As for tort reviews, can we review the term "tort" and possibly initiate a grassroots effort to change the name to something cooler?
[ July 22, 2004, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Alucard... ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
On every level? Even his bit about Edwards?
...why? I thought you were smarter than that.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: Ryuko, you average about 7 posts/day here at Hatrack. You may be addicted.
If I had read this comment on the day you posted it, you could tell me I'm addicted.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
So OSC is comparing Dubya to LINCOLN??? Bwahahahahaha...![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Don't blame the actuaries!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)