Comment on "FDA is Considering Bending the Rules"

In this article posted on the blog entitled, Alien Government, the author outlines the consideration by the FDA of allowing the use of drugs to cure "non-official" causes. Representative Henry Waxman on the oppositional side, gives the argument that marketing companies would take advantage of this and market the drugs as "cure-alls." The FDA however, is saying it will release medical studies of unapproved uses for these drugs and give them to doctors as medical tools. The author asks, "Who's the real bad guy here?" and "Does it even matter as long as we get better?" of which I have opinions on both. First, there is no bad guy in this situation. The FDA is releasing medical information that may help countless numbers of people, however, by releasing this information they are opening powerful medicines up to "interpretation" on its usefulness by doctors and marketers alike. On the other hand, those who oppose the FDA's decision are worried that these medicines could not only be misused but also misrepresented. The bad side to this, is that those medicines might actually have helped people. Second, though we would all like to blame rich drug companies, I don't believe it is their fault either. They are trying to make a profit of course by encouraging larger usage amounts of their drugs, but unfortunately it is a necessary evil. So does it really matter? Only if the drugs are misused as foreseen and people end up getting hurt instead of getting helped. And if that happens, then we'll have lots of people to blame.

The Drug, Not It's Form

An editorial in The Dallas Morning News entitled, The Drug Not It's Form, outlines the racial bias in the sentencing of cocaine or "crack" offenders because of a legislation passed called the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. The editorial outlines the governments paranoia at the growing use of the cheaper form of cocaine, otherwise known as crack, during the 80's. Apparently, the legislation made it so that even possessing the smallest amount of crack that would normally not register as "possession" was enough to put a person in jail for 5 to 10 years minimum. The problem with this, is first, because crack is the cheaper version of cocaine, it is used heavily in inner cities, which as we all know is comprised mostly of minorities, to be specific African Americans, and this causes racial bias in the amount of Blacks sentenced to prison because of crack possession, and secondly, because the punishment is so severe that it is equated in the editorial to "instituting far harsher sentences for "cheese" dealers than someone caught with a like amount of pure black-tar heroin." Lastly, the article states that cocaine is cocaine, no matter which form it is in and the punishment is too harsh for crack and not as harsh for cocaine.

Mr. Biden, a presidential candidate, said he would build on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which lowered the federal guidelines for crack offenders as of Nov. 1.

I think this debate is petty and worthless. They are arguing over the "fairness" of punishment between the same drug in its many forms. Since we are using cheese analogies, that's like arguing over yellow vs. white cheese. As far as lowering the federal guidelines for crack offenders, I think that is probably not the smartest move. What should happen, is that they increase the penalties of people caught with regular cocaine so that it matches that of crack. Not to mention, the reason there is a racial bias is because crack is cheaper than pure cocaine, therefore, in inner city areas where there are larger populations of minorities including blacks, crack will be more prevalent than cocaine, which is why you see a skew to one race over another. I don't think this has anything to do with a race issue to be quite honest, and don't really understand why it was made one. I may be seeing this as a black and white issue, but doing drugs is a punishable offense that people take whenever they decide to do drugs, whether it be their first time or they are now an addict. Make the penalties as harshly equal for each illegal substance and then it eliminates racial bias based on the type of drug that it is and also gives a clearer message about the kind of punishment a drug user will receive. Consistency is the main issue here.

To read this article for yourself, go to: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-cocaine_28edi.ART.State.Edition1.36aab26.html

Comment on Monkey See Monkey Do

Monkey See Monkey Do Article: http://thedailydelegate.blogspot.com/

First and foremost, there is no connection between video games and the 10 year old that started the Southern California forest fires. He admitted to police that he was playing with matches and accidentally started the fire, but that in no way, shape, or form implies that video games are at the root of his motivation. Until we have steadfast evidence that he said he "did it because he saw it on a video game," there is no plausible evidence to suggest that these 2 factors coincide. As a matter of fact, the statement given by the D.A., Steve Cooley, said, "there is no evidence of intent on the part of the minor."

You also ask the question, "Yet who should we be mad at, the boy, his parents, or some video game he picked up?" I don't think we should be mad at anyone if it truly was an accident. At best, we can say the parents were negligent in leaving matches accessible to a 10 year old, but we all know kids get into everything and it's impossible to keep everything away from a child. Once again, if it truly was an accident then we also can't blame the boy. It was an absolutely horrible accident, but a mistake, nonetheless. The D.A. of Los Angeles agrees with me on this one and decided not to file criminal charges, meaning not to hold fault to the boy, after reviewing all the evidence. So that only leaves video games, and we have already stated that there is no established connection between the two. We don't even know if this boy played video games.

My question is, what made you jump to the conclusion that video games were involved?

Clarifying the Patriot Act

In my last article entitled Telecoms Won't Talk, I briefly outlined that the Bush administration illegally collected private information from telecoms about their users due partly to the Patriot Act. I briefly mentioned it, but I would actually like to go more in depth, considering it concerns all American Citizen's privacy, which, I assume is of great importance to everyone.

The Patriot Act, or by my standards, "the worst law ever," actually stands for the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001," passed by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush only 43 days after the September 11th attacks. Its main purpose was to fight terrorism, and it did so by increasing the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies to search telephone and email correspondence, medical and financial records, and eased restriction on foreign intelligence. It also made it easier to deport foreigners who were suspected of terrorism-related acts. The Patriot Act was passed in large margin by both the House and the Senate, making it, for the most part, a unanimous decision in Congress.

Among many complaints of the Patriot Act include, the weakening of civil liberties, which is in specific, the right to privacy which I explained in the previous article, an indefinite detaining of terrorism-suspected immigrants, searches in which the owner or occupant was not previously notified or asked for permission, and the overuse of "National Security Letters," which basically allowed the FBI to search private records without a court order. Obviously enough, several Federal Courts have ruled the provisions in the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

In my thoughts, those who had the wherewithal to oppose this act before it came to pass were the smart ones. Now, Congress is trying to make up for its mistakes as we have seen with them trying to put the blame on the Bush administration and the telecoms themselves. However, a law has never come to pass which Congress has not voted and given its permission. Therefore, my previous article about the telecoms may have been somewhat biased. Congress has nowhere else to put the blame on but themselves, for if it were not for their "unanimous" decision, the Patriot Act would have ceased to exist. I understand the panic post September 11th, but I always have to wonder if this wasn't used as an excuse to make legal what the FBI and government law enforcement agencies have been doing for quite some time in a "hush hush" illegal sort of manner.

Not only does the Patriot Act clearly support racism, but it also makes our country, which is classically known as the"melting pot," appear as no better than a mild form of the Nazi Regime. A picture of George W. Bush with a swastika on his chest comes to mind. Although there have been several "reauthorization acts" to try and nullify some of the provisions set forth by the Patriot Act, no clear end to the Patriot Act has been established as of yet. We are still all in danger of privacy infringement, yet most of us would never know if had actually happened thanks to the Patriot Act.

My hope, is that the Patriot Act will find its CLEAR end sometime soon. Stay posted, and if you would like to read up on the Patriot Act and understand it in its entirety go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act.

Telecoms won't Talk

An Associated Press article on MSNBC.com entitled Telecoms won't talk about surveillance, outlines the eminent trouble that telecom companies, such as Verizon and AT&T, will be in for participating in Bush administration surveillance programs without court orders. According to the article, these telecom companies have refused to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. Intelligence Agencies access to private information including "calling circles" and subscriber information.

In the midst of all of this, the House is making plans to consider a new government eavesdropping bill, which could penalize the telecoms that illegally provided information for U.S. Intelligence Agencies. The article states the Bush administration has said "the companies cooperated in good faith because of their patriotism and desire to protect the country in the wake of September 11th." Little good their "patriotism" did them now.

I have a hard time believing that telecom companies would willingly give up sensitive information, September 11th or not, knowing that would risk them their company's reputation. Patriotism in this occassion most likely had nothing to do with it. I think that because our privacy rights have been so blatantly violated post September 11th, that Congress is now backtracking and looking for someone to lay the blame on, whether it be the Bush Administration or the telecoms themselves.

A lot of this comes from the Patriot Act. Congress, understandably, panicked after September 11th and did everything in its power to make sure that Americans were protected from terrorism, including taking away the right to privacy that we fought so hard for we had to label it a penumbra of rights pieced together from several different amendments. In its wake, however, by panicking Congress may have passed one of the worst bills of all time in the Patriot Act. Now, as they're trying to make up for it, they're blaming the Bush Administration for its abused use.

To be quite honest, while I don't believe the telecoms should have helped the Bush Administration commit privacy violations through non court appointed surveillance methods, I can't blame them for staying mum as the issue heats up. The longer they stay quiet, the more the Bush Administration has to answer for, which includes protecting the telecoms from which it solicited information.

If you're at all concerned about your privacy, or you just want to read more about this article and stay informed on the development of the House's new eavesdropping bill, go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21322332/from/ET/

The $7 Million Lunch Tab

An article entitled, Taxpayers eat $7 million government lunch tab, on CNN.com talked about the amount of money taxpayers are spending to feed Justice Department employees at conferences, meetings, and so forth. The report, written by an inspector general, reviewed the 9 most expensive U.S. conferences between October 2004 and September 2006, including an international conference that was held during the same time.

The exorbitant amount allotted to feed the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees includes a federal $51 per diem rate for food. However, the average range for the conferences included as high as a $64 per registrant average for food, and even an "At the Movies" luncheon buffet (including candy, popcorn, and soft drinks) that cost $25 per person on top of a sandwich buffet that cost $44 per person.

Just to make this all very clear, that's almost $70 per person on sandwiches and popcorn. So, even if I allowed for an average sandwich cost of $15, and popcorn, candy, and soft drink cost of $40, there is still an extra $15 that goes missing. Now, this is not to say that I know how much things cost in different parts of the country, but in my opinion, $15 a sandwich must be some type of gourmet sandwich and although movie food is expensive, $40 is more like what I spend on 2 people at the movies instead of just myself.

That is not to say that DOJ employees shouldn't be allowed to eat at conferences such as these. On the contrary, I feel that having a food allowance that is supported by taxpayer money is, if at least not preferable, then definitely necessary. However, I do not feel like we should be feeding them filet mignon sandwiches, gourmet flavored popcorn, and imported soda, which in all likelihood is what is being served if food costs are truly as reported by the inspector general. I don't know about you, but I don't even spend that much money on food for myself. I definitely do not want to pay that much for someone else to eat. That's like asking a stranger out to dinner, giving them your credit card and saying order the most expensive thing you can, but don't tell me how much it costs.

To make matters worse, the report from the Office of the Inspector General ,Glenn Fine, stated that most attendees were failing to deduct their $51 per day allowance for food, even though the food at the conference was being fed to them for free. This essentially means, that the government is paying for their meals twice. Which of course, is passed down to the taxpayers. I bet you all had no clue you were paying for someone else's food everyday when you went to work.

The report stated that their should be some way of "developing conference food and beverage policies to ensure adequate justification of significant food and beverage costs." The Justice Department said it agreed with the recommendations. Thanks for the obvious answer. Now let's see if something is actually done about it.

If you want to check this article out for yourself or form your own opinion, you can view the article at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/14/meatball.justice/index.html

"Back Iraq"

An article in the Chicago Sun Times entitled, Back Iraq When I'm Gone, highlights some of President Bush's key points in his speech given this past Thursday night.

Bush ordered gradual reductions in the number of U.S. troops still stationed in Iraq, stating that almost 168,000 troops will have returned home by this July of 2008. Despite these reductions however, Bush is still standing firm behind the Iraqi war. He asked that after his presidency has come to an end, that we still continue at least minimal efforts in Iraq.

He also acknowledges the fact that the Iraqi government was not as quick to meet the political goals the U.S. had set for them as was originally fore casted. While there is progress, there are around 8 "benchmarks" that have yet to gain a satisfactory score.

While Bush has made somewhat of an effort to bring the troops home, looks like this war will not be over just yet. We need to make sure that we are keeping posted on the war in Iraq. Some of those soldiers still serving could be your friends and family.

For more information go to:http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/557440,CST-NWS-bush14.article