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.
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.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Incidentally, was there anyone else more experienced, or willing to give the US a better deal than Halliburton?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 .
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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!
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Eddie's trying to understand why you don't realize how offensive Card's insinuation is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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:
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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)
