Things in the News Today that Gave Me Pause
Generic Drugs
The president has been touting pending rule changes by the FDA to prevent the brand name drug companies from keeping generics off the market indefinitely (e.g. Paxil which should have been a generic years ago) by filing repeated patent infringement challenges that trigger multiple 30-month delays -- sometimes for nothing more than packaging changes. But similar legislation was killed last year by drug company lobbyists and pharmaceutical lobbies were non-comittal Thursday on whether they would accept the FDA's changes, which could be challenged in court unless a pending Senate bill ratifies the changes. Consumer advocates fear the incremental FDA rule could doom bigger reform. New Rules promise faster generic drugs. Reported by Lauran Neergaard, AP medical writer, Page A-9 in today's New Orleans
Times Picayune.
Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird
On the News Hour with Jim Lehrer last night there was a wonderful tribute to Gregory Peck showing his speech to the jury in the movie version of Harper Lee's
To Kill a Mockingbird. I may just buy the movie to send that clip to a couple of racists I know that still don't think there's anything wrong with racist jokes.
More Hillary Bashing by Gentlemen Bill Safire
Despite his spirited defense of Martha Steward in William Safire's article today, Safire excuses her untruthfulness as merely exercising her right to a personal defense of her reputation, and pointing out that merely "lying" is not the same thing as purgury. He says "Even a wealthy woman who created a company that employs thousands and genersates taxable profits is entitled to act like a jerk on occasion without risking a charge of . . . criminal [conspiracy]." Earlier in the article, he says the U.S. Attorney, after a year-long investigation has not accused Steward of insider trading because ". . .he decided that would be too difficult a charge to persuade a jury to believe." Then Safire trashes Hillary Clinton by saying that "In the Hillary Clinton Travelgate case, the independent counsel Robert Ray concluded that her sworn testamony was 'factually false', but he declined to procecute because he didn't think a jury would convict the first lady of perjury." First of all, Safire assumes that the independent councel's opinion was better evidence of Clinton's guilt than the discretion of a jury, which certainly sounds like Safire believes that guilt by prosecutorial opinion, even by a lily-livered prosecutor, outweighs a jury trial.
Let's see now, what it boils down to is that the U.S. Prosecutor gave Hillary a pass, which was wrong, but he didn't give one to Martha Steward under similar circumstances, which was also bad. The difference of course is that it's fun to bash Hillary and gentlemanly to defend Martha Steward.
Burning the Flag Redux
A consitutional amendment to ban burning of the U.S. flag has reared it's head again, but according to Cokie and Steve Roberts in their article today, instead of "putting this turkey back on the shelf where it belongs" this time the jingoistic patriotism resulting from 9/11 might sway enough votes to change the outcome. They quote Rep. Mike Pence, (R) Indiana as making the case that "This (banning flag burning) is about this Congress exerting its ability to express community standards in this democracy." The Roberts say: "That statement shows a profound misunderstanding of the true meaning of democracy. The rule of the majority always has to be balanced against the rights of the minority; particularly unpopular minorities."
This seems to me to be one more instance of the danger of radicals on the right and on the left. Long live the American Taliban? All power to the people? Maybe it ought to be legal to burn the flag only after you've wrapped yourself in it.
The Old Republican Prescription Drug Bait and Switch
After long labor and in the midst of the great sound of Republican trumpets, the House has squeezed out a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The trouble is, it leaves a gapping hole in the middle of coverage AND it does not go into effect until 2006. If you're an old folk, waiting three years for assistance is not very promising AND 2006 will be two years into the next administration. Anybody want to bet that it will ever go into effect, especially if W. wins another term? Now you see it now you don't, just like the tax cuts that will expire at about the time the drug benefit kicks in.