Let’s Change the U.S. Constitution

18 Monday Apr 2016

Tags

Why is it that every other constitutional democracy on the planet simply changes its constitution when it needs to, with little effort and no hoopla, in order to accommodate the changing needs of the country? Why are our state constitutions changed readily, easily and often (230 times) to better suit changing conditions and requirements? So why is it so God-awful difficult to change the US Constitution? We argue constantly about “what the Founding Fathers meant” by this or that. To hell with what the the Founding Fathers were thinking – let’s amend the wording to make the meaning perfectly clear about what we are thinking.

The job of the Supreme Court seems today to be less resolving thorny moral and legal issues that have been placed in front of it by appeals from lower courts, but more “interpreting the Constitution”. Why? Because some moldy old phrase needs to be “interpreted” to properly address “gun ownership” or “corporate free speech” or some other modern cause that has been thrust upon us.

For heaven’s sake, let’s just change this dusty wrinkled old document to better suit modern times and current needs. The constitution is simply a document upon which our supposedly representative government is based. It describes the role of the president, legislative bodies and how they are elected; it describes the states and the relationship among them and to the Federal government. It outlines how laws are to be established and how power is to be divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The Constitution was written by men who owned property that included human beings, slaves to be exact. It was written by men still struggling to understand and address issues related to voting and taxation, the relationship of the Federal government to state governments and the role and powers of a quasi monarch (the President) in this government. Yes, the Constitution is not perfect and furthermore it was not “handed down to us by Jesus” as the Utah “artist” Jon McNaughton would have us believe. The Constitution does not have to be venerated, worshipped or handled with care. It is a piece of paper upon which the basic laws of our government are written. If some need to be changed or re-written, let’s do so. And let’s begin by changing the Constitution itself to make it easier to change in the future. No constitution of any modern democracy is as difficult to change as ours.

To further address what needs to be changed, think about the following. What would the “Founding Fathers” think of the issue of gun ownership today? Are the three hundred million guns floating around in our families and communities, packing enormous firepower and wrecking horrible havoc, death and sorrow on those families and communities, what they had envisioned as the “right to keep and bear arms” for a “well regulated militia”?

And what would the Founding Fathers think of today’s problems with the “Electoral College” system of electing a president every four years, where a George W. Bush can be elected president while not earning a majority of the popular vote, or presidential campaigns being waged exclusively in “swing states” while the rest of the country is ignored?

What would the Founding Fathers think of the current “representiveness” of our Congress, where 50 of our Senators represent only 16 percent of the country’s population (example: a California senator represents 18.7 million people and a Wyoming senator represents 282,000) and where House voting districts are gerrymandered to render a great majority of congressional seats completely uncompetitive. For example look at Ohio, which, despite voting Democratic in the last election, returned 12 Republicans and only four Democrats to their seats in the House of Representatives.

What would these venerable constitution writers think of the role of money in politics today, where massive injections of money have created a virtual shadow government run by the Koch brothers and where Republican presidential candidates have had to compete in a “Billionaires Primary”, bowing down and groveling before the likes of Sheldon Adelson to win his blessing and the millions of dollars of campaign money that come with it? Don’t you think that these “Founding Fathers” would want elections to be competitive and won on issues rather that who had the most Koch or Edelson money? I think that the “Fathers” would immediately obliterate any notion of “corporations being people” and “money being free speech” that drives today’s elections.

And what about voting rights? The white propertied males who wrote the constitution were divided about who should vote. But the Bill of Rights addresses voting in the Fifteenth Amendment and the language is generally interpreted to mean that everyone should vote. Furthermore, Congress has visited the issue again and again, generally establishing that there should be no obstacles to voting. Yet, what would the Founding Fathers say about the present efforts to restrict voting, unfortunately supported by the latest Supreme Court decision, “Shelby County vs Holder”? I think that they would rewrite the constitution to make universal suffrage crystal clear, abolish any and all forms of voter restriction and make voting as easy and as effortless as possible.

What would the Founding Fathers think of our use of the hideous and barbaric death penalty? If anything is “cruel and unusual”, the death penalty is. What would they think of firing squads, hanging, the search for “ideal” cocktails of various poisons which can kill easily, quickly and “humanely”, or the electric chair or the gas chamber? Or the uneven application of this sentence across the country? I don’t think that there is any doubt that were this distinguished group to observe all this today, that they would immediately classify the death penalty as “cruel and unusual”, thus amending the constitution to outlaw it immediately.

What would the Founding Fathers think of the way Congress functions now? Obstruction, opposition, impasse, no compromise, few laws passed. Congress has virtually gone on strike and nothing in the Constitution can compel Congress to act. What would they want to do about members of Congress representing special interests instead of the people? And what about shutting down the government, which actually has occurred a few times, most recently in 2013, over congressional funding and Presidential authority issues, both of which were promoted by their respective supporters as “defending the constitution”. Look at the host of presidentially appointed judges and government officials that remain unconfirmed by the Senate while their offices remain unoccupied and dysfunctional. In many respects, our government has simply failed to function. Even preparing and approving a budget seems impossible. The 112th and 113th Congresses were the least and second-least productive on record, passing just 283 and 286 laws, respectively. And the present 114th Congress is not doing much better. Certainly the Founding Fathers would want to draft language to address these serious problems which have the potential to make the most powerful nation on earth a “failed state”.

Finally, one recent attempt to amend the constitution, Equal Rights for Women, passed the House and Senate in 1972 but fell three states short of the 38 state legislatures needed for ratification. This Amendment should be revived and again put before Congress and the states. But, alas, looking at how Washington functions now and how most state legislatures have been taken over by ALEC, its chances of passage look far more bleak now than in 1972. But Equal Rights remains one more area in which the Constitution has fallen short and needs to be amended.

Distinguished retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ new book, “Six Amendments” provides additional and much more erudite justification for much of what I have offered above. His “Six” concern campaign finance, the death penalty, gerrymandering and the second amendment which I have covered above, along with the addition of two more areas with which I am less familiar – the “anti-commandeering rule” and “sovereign immunity”, both of which are eloquently justified by Stevens and appear to be certainly needed to address serious problems.

Before closing, I should mention that what I have proposed above and what Justice Stevens has outlined in his book are essentially liberal positions embraced by the Democratic Party. To be fair, let’s not forget that the Republican Party and their candidates for President, both standing and fallen, have embraced amending the constitution as well. High on their lists are a “balanced budget” amendment which would spell disaster for the fiscal health of the nation and a “stop Obamacare” amendment. Former candidate Marco Rubio also had proposed amendments to “outlaw flag burning” and “establish the fundamental right of parents to be free from government infringement in child raising” (whatever that means). Candidate Ted Cruz has proposed an amendment “to define marriage as between a man and a woman”. Also on the Republican list is an amendment to limit congressional terms (maybe not too bad an idea).

Let me close this piece by asking the reader to notice the difference between how Democrats or “progressives” would amend the Constitution and how Republicans or conservatives want to amend it. The former have largely embraced what I have outlined above, all efforts to protect or expand rights, while the latter have embraced potential amendments that limit or take away legal rights. We need to seriously consider which amended Constitution we would like to live under, but most of all, we need to improve our Constitution to better suit current conditions and address modern problems, and we badly need to make this amendment process a whole lot easier.

Economics 101

18 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by ralphfriedly in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

economics 101

I am certainly not an economist but the persistent embrace of fallacious principles by the Republican party compels me to share what I believe to be some basic economic tenets that history has validated.

Basic Principle One. To borrow from NY Times columnist Paul Krugman – “your spending is my income, my spending is your income”.

This is very simple and basic. If you lose your job and have no money to spend, my income is reduced. Likewise if I lose my job, your income is negatively affected. For an economy to work properly, people must have jobs and money to spend. If people have jobs and are spending money, those entities providing goods and services will keep producing, keep hiring and paying employees, who will in turn spend their money and all the gears of the economic machine mesh and keep turning.

In the Great Depression, many people lost jobs, had no money to spend, demand plummeted and production of goods and services went down, causing more people to lose jobs, less money was spent, causing even more reduction of production, a “vicious cycle” causing economic recession and depression. The only solution during this horrible time was to “prime the pump”, to have the government be the employer of last resort, provide jobs to put money into the hands of consumers, who would in turn spend that money, causing the need for goods and services to increase, additional people to be hired and paid again, in turn spending more money, arrest the progress of the vicious cycle and cause the economic wheels to start turning again in the right direction.

Basic Principle Two. Inequality is bad for an economy.

It’s always interesting to note that back in the 1950’s through the 1970’s, the US economy boomed. There was a thriving middle class, unions were strong and everyone felt that their children would be better off than they were. Factory workers owned homes and cars, took vacations and sent their kids to college. Income taxes were progressive, with the very wealthy taxed at 90 percent. CEO top pay was approximately 30 times that of the average employee, not the 300 times typical today. When President Kennedy first cut top tax rates claiming that, “A rising tide lifts all boats” and when Reagan completed the job by reducing the top rate to 28 percent the trend toward our present serious inequality began and the economic foundation began to weaken. Why? The US has a consumer based economy so it does well when people have money to spend. When vast sums of money are transferred from the middle class to the wealthy, there is far less consumer spending. The wealthy do not buy the appliances and cars that keep the economy humming. They already have plenty of those. Their additional billions are banked and do not circulate in the economy. Thus, inequality harms a consumer based economy like ours.

Perennial Republican candidate Mitt Romney, like virtually all Republicans, claimed that tax cuts for the rich help the economy because “the job creators would have more money to invest in and expand their businesses and would hire more workers, etc, etc.” No, sorry, tax cuts for the rich do not work this way. Businesses expand when there is increased demand for their products and services. And demand for products and services increases when the people who buy these things have more money to spend. An economy works best when inequality is minimized, producing a huge middle class earning and spending good money and there is minimal money sitting idle at the top.

Basic Principle Three. The “free market” needs controls. Unfettered capitalism will eventually feed on itself and die if not regulated.

The “free market” is not self-regulating, as we would like to believe. If corporations had their way in their never ending quest to maximize profit, they would pay their employees less and less to make more and more profit. And if this reaches its logical conclusion, then soon no one could afford to buy the products and services provided by corporations and the corporation would cut production, close factories, further limit services in order to save money, and would further cut pay or fire employees. Soon since no one would could afford to buy its products the corporation would die, killed by its own relentless quest for profits in exactly the same way that a parasite eventually kills the host that feeds it.

From this little scenario it should be clear that corporations need to pay their employees well. This is best done by not relying on the largesse of the employer but by strengthening unions so that good pay and job security for workers would be guaranteed and that providing this pay and security would be an integral part of every company’s balance sheet. Heeding strong government regulations to ensure that companies provide safe working conditions for their employees and produce safe and high quality products should also be part of every corporation’s business plan.

Strong government and strong unions are required to counter the overwhelming strengths of corporations as John Kenneth Galbraith’s “Theory of Countervailing Power” made clear. Unfortunately our government has allowed unions to become decimated, correspondingly strengthening the power of corporations. Government too has become weaker, allowing mergers that would have been unthinkable a few decades ago and allowing rules and regulations to be attacked and weakened.

And finally, the government should always be the “employer of last resort”. Everyone able and willing to put in a day’s work should receive a fair living wage in return for that work.

Basic Principle Four. “Reaganomics” didn’t work, won’t work and will never work.

This set of principles is unfortunately alive and well today. It’s hard to believe that “trickle-down” and “supply side” economics are still solid pillars of Republican orthodoxy. Yes and Republicans are still believing in “the Laffer Curve”. And prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan are still reading and worshiping Ayn Rand.

Tax cuts do not “pay for themselves” as Arthur Laffer and other supply side economic gurus would have us believe. The present ongoing failure of tax cut experiments in Wisconsin and Kansas are living proof of this. And the experience of other states, like my own home state of Arizona, cutting progressive income taxation in favor of regressive sales taxes has slowed growth and seriously reduced state revenues.

“Cutting entitlements” or raising the Social Security retirement age or “means testing” for Medicare, are not the answers. The payroll tax that funds Social Security is not a progressive tax. Income above $118,500 escapes the payroll tax altogether. Simply abolishing this ceiling and assessing the payroll tax on all income would solve Social Security’s problems for the next sixty years. Raising the retirement age is a “solution” concocted by people making a living sitting on their fannies because anyone who does physical labor for a living will tell you that “raising the full retirement age” for Social Security is not at all realistic.

And finally, distinguishing between “makers” and “takers” is fallacious. Among the biggest takers are American corporations, many of which totally escape corporate income tax because of dozens of loopholes.

Basic Principle Five – It is ok for the Federal Budget to run a deficit.

I am really tired of Republican fiscal hawks wringing their hands and waiting for the sky to fall over the federal debt and infamous national debt “clock” and the ubiquitous bad news graphs and diagrams about budget deficits. Also I am tired of those same people saying we need a “balanced budget amendment” in our constitution. And another common refrain from these “deficit scolds”, as NY Times columnist Paul Krugman has labeled them, is comparing our Federal budget to one’s household budget – “No household can continually spend more than it takes in, and neither can the federal government”. The two are not in any way the same and in fact are radically different.

120516_romney_debt_clock_4x3-photoblog600

Household and personal debt both face a day of reckoning – when the notes become due or when you die and the debts have to be paid or discharged. Our federal government has existed for 221 years and has been in debt for about 218 of them. And the federal government has run budget deficits for about 190 of those years. And the government is still in debt and it’s still running just fine. No “day of reckoning”. Furthermore, I don’t know of any household that can mint and print its own money, establish its value, impose taxes….and collect them in those same dollars.

Yes, the debt can perhaps grow too big and perhaps become less manageable. But we’re not anywhere near that point. As a percentage of GDP our federal deficits and total debt right now are really quite modest. And a “balanced budget amendment” for our federal government would be its death knell. The federal budget needs the flexibility to inject money into the economy if necessary to fight recession. And it needs the flexibility to borrow heavily for other needs of common benefit. Such a limitation would be deadly for the country and our economy.

Basic Principle Six – Paying taxes is ok, being taxed is ok, we need taxes to run federal, state and local governments .

This simple statement runs counter to Republican dogma, which says that taxes are too many and too high – abolish the corporate income tax, abolish capital gains taxes, lower income tax rates or abolish the income tax altogether, replace it with a value added tax, or a national sales tax or at the very least establish a simple flat tax, or a combination of some or all of the above. Republican anti-tax guru Grover Norquist wants to starve the government of taxes “… to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” and has incredibly anointed himself with enormous power by extracting his “pledge” of “no new taxes“ from a majority of members of congress.

Listen, we need taxes. Taxes have been paid to governments from time immemorial – from farmers providing the Pharaohs with a portion of the grain they have grown, to peasants paying the local duke or prince a portion of crops or animals grown on land rented from said potentate. Presently we are the least taxed of any developed country so we need to stop complaining about high taxes. Do we need to improve our system of taxation? Of course. Loopholes in personal and corporate income need to be closed. The wealthy and corporations need to pay their fair share. Does the government need to spend money more wisely? Of course. A blank check for the Pentagon (with no auditing) every year, trillions wasted on destructive, tragic and futile wars and $8 million a day for a wealthy country like Israel are stupid. But do we need taxes? – of course we do.

Right now, with low oil prices, we desperately need to raise the fuel tax and use that money to repair our crumbling infrastructure. This “user fee” has always been the most rational and sensible way to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure. But instead, our “no new taxes” Congress has chosen instead to fund much of the new Highway Bill with a mishmash of crazy and unreliable sources totally unrelated to the “user fee” concept.

Finally, I am tired of hearing politician after politician referring to “your tax money”. No, it’s not our tax money, it is the government’s tax money. Part of whatever I have earned from the time I started working at 16 years old has been the government’s money. And that’s ok.

Talk to Your Doctor About…

12 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by ralphfriedly in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

TV drug ads

Few examples better illustrate the need for increasing regulation of our out-of-control pharmaceutical corporations than the blitz of drug commercials on television and in print media. Presently only two advanced countries allow direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising – New Zealand and the United States.

It seems that the majority of commercials on TV presently are advertising drugs to treat a multitude of trumped up “diseases” in order to make even more billions for today’s obscenely wealthy pharmaceutical companies. And the slick multi-page ads that have invaded all of our popular magazines raise the same questions. Why are drug companies allowed to advertise this way directly to us, always advising us to “talk to our doctors” about this or that drug to treat a multitude of symptoms or diseases that most readers or viewers have never heard of.

Before 1997 there were no drug commercials on television. The FDA allowed direct to consumer advertising of drugs on television because of the actions of an FDA deputy commissioner, Dr. Michael J. Friedman whose next job was vice president at Searle Pharmaceuticals, just one of hundreds of examples of the “revolving door” between the FDA and pharmaceutical corporations. In an early post-1997 commercial Eli Lily Pharmaceuticals was permitted to market Sarafam, to treat a “disease” invented by Lily – PMDD (premenstrual dysphoric disorder), a “severe” form of PMS. Thus the pattern was set for the hundreds of commercials on television and in magazines we see today, most for “diseases” and “conditions” invented by the drug manufacturers.

Pharmaceutical companies now spend approximately 19 dollars on marketing to every one dollar spent on research. Big Pharma would rather make slightly different versions of the big selling drugs that they already manufacture and market them under a different name in order to rake in even more profit. Perhaps you are wondering why Big Pharma hasn’t come up with a drug to treat Ebola, or many other diseases that effect people in poor countries. There’s no money in it, that’s why.

Remember Dorothy Hamill gliding over the ice and extolling the powers of Vioxx to alleviate her arthritis symptoms when this FDA-approved drug actually caused heart attacks and strokes in the approximately 27,000 people that took it and had to be taken off the market? And remember Dr. Robert Jarvik recommending Lipitor to viewers, when he was neither a cardiologist nor a licensed medical practitioner? These are prime examples of the chicanery, lies and deception we allow in the epidemic of drug commercials that smite our sensibilities and insult our intelligence daily on television and in print media.

I mean since when did “erectile dysfunction” become an epidemic? Why do the multitudes of people who have COPD have to “talk to their doctor” about Symbicort or BREO. And Osphena will help the millions of women who suffer from another “disease” – that of “painful intercourse”.

When did simple heartburn, which can be caused from eating too much, eating spicy food, eating too late at night or generally “eating stupid” and thus be easily treated by changing diet habits or just drinking a little baking soda and water, or taking an Alka-Seltzer or chewing a Tums, become “acid reflux disease” and instead of eating wisely you need to “talk to your doctor about” Nexium. Never mind, forget the doctor, you can now buy this dangerous drug, the famous “purple pill” over the counter in your pharmacy without a prescription. This highly profitable, yet dangerous and misunderstood family of drugs, known as “proton pump inhibitors” is said to be the second best selling class of drugs in the world. Even more worrying, there have been efforts to market versions of these drugs to mothers of infants to treat “spitting up”, a normal condition with which we have dealt with successfully without drugs for centuries. Yes, Prevacid, the prominent PPI drug now comes in a “child friendly” formulation.

And when did “Low T” become an epidemic and we needed to “talk to our doctors” about Axiron. Perhaps men watching the commercial fancy themselves being the squinty-eyed, whiskered macho man piloting his speedboat with the shapely babe beside him and think that they needed to take this dangerous drug to be like him. Testosterone boosting drugs have serious and dangerous side effects but profit is more important. And law firms are increasing business significantly by going after drug companies because of dreadful illnesses caused by testosterone enhancing drugs.

With all due respect and sympathy for the people who actually have these maladies, I am sure that any responsible doctor treating them has already discussed the various remedies which may provide some relief from symptoms or expand the possibilities for a cure. But in the meantime we are inundated by this flood of ridiculous advertising, I am sure to make us imagine symptoms where there are none in order to “talk to our doctor” and sell more of their drugs and make more money. These outrageous commercials come dangerously close to advising us basically to self-medicate, through the “talk to your doctor about…” dictum.

Drug companies spent $4.5 billion on Direct to Consumer advertising of their products in 2014, up 30 percent from two years earlier. But because the drug industry can deduct such expenses from their taxable income, and because such advertising has increased revenues and profits, it continues to be a bargain for Big Pharma and will likely continue to increase.

Here are a few of the more ridiculous television drug commercials I have been subjected to lately on my news and sports programs:

Androgel – another dangerous and often unneeded testosterone drug …”get the blood test…get your number…turn it up.”

Latuda – for bipolar depression -“ask your doctor if once a day Latuda, lurasidone HCL, may help you…”

Xarelto – for atrial fibrillation – “a-fib”, another dread “disease”, and also blood clots and “deep vein thrombosis”. And Xarelto’s dreadful side effects are now potential grounds for lawsuits, not mentioned of course in the ubiquitous goofy commercial with comedian Kevin Nealon, race driver Brian Vickers and golfer Arnold Palmer.

Humira – for “moderate to severe” Crohn’s Disease, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis …and just lately “moderate to severe ulcerative colitis”. Wow, truly a miracle drug! “With Humira, remission is possible”. Guess what ? – without it remission may be possible as well.

Invokana – “a once-daily type 2 diabetes treatment that may help manage blood sugar levels for people living with diabetes”.

Farxiga – “an adult type 2 diabetes treatment used with diet and exercise to improve glycemic control”. Features goofily happy people doing normal things – is the viewer supposed to think that they are fighting diabetes and are fine now?

Crestor – the most moronic of all the commercials advertising dangerous statin drugs (read the research) featuring an infantile jerk dressed in orange dancing about because his cholesterol is below 100. No mention of the debilitating side effects caused by Crestor and other statin drugs.

Dulera – for asthma – “helps significantly improve lung function”…take a look at commercials “Amy’s World” and “Waterside in Costa Rica”.

Breo – for COPD. What exactly is COPD, when we have to have so many expensive drugs to treat it? My name is R-A-L-P-H and I have C-O-P-D. And I take B-R-E-O. Unbelievable.

Spiriva – also for COPD – tv commercials featuring an elephant following people around and sitting on their chests!

Lyrica – “ for diabetic nerve pain and …significantly relieves the chronic widespread pain of Fibromyalgia…ask your doctor about Lyrica”.

Hetlioz – “for Non-24, circadian rhythm disorder for blind people”. Why is this being advertised on television and in popular magazines for blind people? Maybe their glossy ads should more properly be in Braille.

Eliquis – for atrial fibrillation, again – “A-fib not caused by a heart valve problem”. Must be a real epidemic!

Linzess – for “irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C)” “I’ve tried laxatives but sooner or later the constipation comes back like a pile of bricks”. IBS-C – now there’s a great new “disease”, likely better treated by an improved diet. Try raisin bran.

Abilify – for use with an antidepressant. Commercials feature an animated “A” tagging along with the antidepressant taken by the animated character. This drug is actually a very dangerous antipsychotic but sales have increased 30 percent since FDA approval (why?) for use with an antidepressant.

Stelara – for “moderate or severe plaque psoriasis” and/or “active psoriatic arthritis”. I didn’t really know that these “diseases” existed.

Chantix – “is proven to help smokers quit” – their anemic 44 percent claim is likely exceeded by the “cold turkey” method which has significantly fewer unpleasant and dangerous side effects.

Xeljanz – for rheumatoid arthritis pain. “Your body was made for better things”. “Ask your rheumatologist about Xeljanz”- but don’t ask him to remind you of all the miserable side effects.

Otezla – “Show more of you”. Another drug to fight the epidemic of “plaque psoriasis”.

Jublia – for toenail fungus – an animated big toe saying, “Fight it, don’t hide it…ask your doctor… is Jublia is right for you?” And “Make the call, don’t hide it – smash it” with John McEnroe. John should be ashamed! And now, another commercial featuring football celebrities Howie Long, Deion Sanders and Phil Simms. They should be ashamed too.

Brisdelle – (maybe the name of the Noven Therapeutics CEO’s country estate ?) – for hot flashes, a new “disease”.

Namenda XR – for Alzheimers, adding to Aricept “may improve” condition. (check the research on any of these “Alzheimers drugs” – they don’t help, are very expensive and could be harmful.)

Namzeric – Another deceptive drug for Alzheimers. There are no drugs to treat Alzheimers, yet the drug companies keep on deceiving us and taking our money promising only that they “may improve” symptoms.

Januvia – Yet another medication for type 2 diabetes. A once daily prescription pill that along with diet and exercise helps lower blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Restasis– for “chronic dry eye disease” (“disease”? Give me a break.). “Make more of your own tears”. Ask your eye doctor about Restatis. Hmmm, wonder how this “disease” is spread. Mosquitoes? Not washing your hands?

Prevnar 13 – “Pneumococcal pneumonia can be serious…one dose of Prevnar13 can help protect you. Get this one done.” I really didn’t know I needed a vaccination for this rare affliction.

Pristiq – for depression, “Could Pristiq be right for you?”

Victoza – “Take charge of your Type II diabetes…”may” lower blood sugar, etc. Check the horrifying potential side effects that “may” affect your health if you take this stuff.

Onexton – “Stop hiding your acne and start fighting it”. One potential side effect is colitis, yes really, but do fight that acne, “Show your face!”

Levemir – “Today is the day to ask your doctor about Levemir”, for blood sugar control with Type II diabetes.

Anoro Ellipta – yet another drug to treat COPD. Really, I had not realized that we are having a true epidemic of COPD.

Harvoni – no, not a pizza place or the machine that resurfaces the ice at the hockey rink, but a drug to treat Hepatitis C (known in the commercial as “hep C”) “I am ready to put hep C behind me…I am ready to be cured!” Yes, and the cost is upwards of $800 per pill – more huge profits.

Botox – the most amazing wonder drug of all – not only used for the well known cosmetic treatment but now for overactive bladder, chronic migraine headaches, eye muscle problems like “strabismus” and “blepharospasm” (look these up), and “severe underarm sweating”. Also, “Ask if Botox could calm your bladder.”

Trumenba – “a vaccine indicated for individuals 10 through 25 years of age for active immunization to prevent invasive disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis group B”. Interestingly, of the approximately 500 cases of meningitis reported in the United States in 2012, only about 160 were caused by serogroup B, hardly a reason to rush out to get this vaccine “before the school season starts”.

Enbrel – another drug for the plague of “moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis and plaque psoriasis”.

Myrbetriq – for yet another highly profitable “disease” – overactive bladder or “OAB” whose commercials feature a cute little animated bladder dragging its owner to the bathroom.

Tanzeum – “Once a week Tanzeum may help adults with Type 2 diabetes lower their A1C when combined with diet and exercise”, featuring a “Once a Week” dummy walking with a family.

Jardiance – “Hey, adults with type 2 diabetes! Your A1C called, it wants to get down.” Yet another drug which “along with diet and exercise” (likely much more important than the drug) promises to lower blood sugar.

Opdivo – to help lung cancer patients “live longer”. Horrible side effects and no cure, just “live longer…” How much longer? Really no one knows – weeks, months, maybe just days?

Xifaxan – new antibiotic treatment for “IBS-D” (irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea), another one of the many “diseases” invented by drug companies to increase profits. “If you think you have IBS with diarrhea, talk to your doctor about Xifaxan!”. Again, maybe a simple change in diet is in order. And the latest commercial spots are truly disgusting, with an animated pink wad of intestines, a “GutGuy”, illustrating “IBS”.

Movantic – for “opioid induced constipation”, whatever that is. I am sure there is an epidemic of this new “disease”, called “OIC” in the commercial, that will have individuals and health insurance companies lined up to fill the pockets of its manufacturer.

Neulasta – a drug to reduce infection from chemotherapy – the commercial features a gay couple, or are they sisters, discussing the drug amidst some nice seaside scenery and a great seafood dinner.

Orencia – for rheumatoid arthritis. “Works differently – by targeting the source of symptoms”. Check out those horrible side effects.

Bellsomra – Another dangerous sleeping pill – commercial features animated stuffed fuzzy twisted word animals that are terrifying – seeing this ad will keep me awake not put me to sleep.

Zecuity – “Migraine has met its patch” – yes, a battery powered delivery system for migraine headaches that features a patch on your arm or leg. “When the storm of migraine hits, strike back!”

Toujeo – Commercial features a woman writing in her journal and then navigating a paper world, pursuing a new pen for administration of a drug to control A1C.

Entyvio – for “moderate to severe” ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease. “Is it time for a different perspective – relief and remission within reach”.

Seroquel XR – for treatment of depression. Ninety second TV ads tout the treatment for 30 seconds and then spend a full minute describing the horrendous possible side effects. “Say I’m OK”. Really??

Prolia – a drug for “post menopausal osteoporosis”. Actress Blythe Danner doesn’t talk about the dreadful side effects but her “two shots a year” work for her.

Trulicity – “Activate your within”, a pen-type medicine to regulate sugar levels for people having type II diabetes. Jerry the photographer says, “I click to activate what’s within me”.

Viberzi – yet another drug to treat “IBS-D” – Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea, featuring a woman with an irritating companion, presumably the “disease” who makes her decisions for her. I can’t believe these commercials!

There is a dreary similarity among all these commercials. They all seem to feature happy, healthy people pursuing pleasurable recreational activities like hiking, biking, fishing, traveling, eating dinner or sitting by the sea, presumably all better now from their “plaque psoriasis”, depression, A-Fib or whatever, while during the latter part of the commercial a serious voice-over intones the dreaded list of serious side-effects, many of which seem considerably worse than the malady itself.

And I am sure you have noticed that most of these heavily marketed and highly profitable drugs do not cure any disease but simply treat and manage symptoms, so that afflicted people essentially take the drug for the rest of their lives rather than take a specific course of a drug to affect a cure. This is certainly part of Big Pharma’s marketing plan – to sell these expensive drugs to you forever.

One of the most egregious sales feats in recent memory is the drug maker Shire quite successfully making “binge-eating” into a “disorder”. Yes, “ Binge Eating Disorder or B.E.D. is not just overeating, it is a real medical disorder”. Retired tennis star Monica Seles, paid well by Shire, was featured in TV commercials and even guest stints on the Today Show and Dr. Oz Show to talk about her problems with binge eating. And of course in the TV and print commercials Ms. Seles recommended “talking to your doctor” about B.E.D., I am sure anticipating being prescribed Vyvanse, one of Shire’s big sellers for ADHD, which was quickly approved as the only drug for B.E.D. immediately prior to the appearances by Seles. Shire expects sales of Vyvanse, already $1.5 billion for ADHD, to increase by $200-300 million as a binge-eating drug. It surely looks like Shire, the FDA and shameless Monica Seles are in B.E.D. together.

It is reasonable to ask about the effect on revenue and profits from all these commercials. Well, the news is bad for us but great for Big Pharma. They all have dramatically increased sales and profits and the money spent on Direct to Consumer advertising continues to rise dramatically, well over $5 billion this past year. A Thomson Reuters poll in 2010 revealed that two-thirds of respondents said they had seen, heard or received prescription drug advertising in the last six months and one-third of respondents say the have talked to their doctor about a drug and received a prescription for it.

The-20-most-advertised-Rx-drugs-in-2015-by-spending-1024x590

Is there any hope for relief from this direct to consumer onslaught of TV and print commercials? The American Medical Association came out against DTC advertising of drugs in 2015, saying that such advertising is responsible for a significant rise in drug costs and has caused doctors to become business negotiators rather than healers. But any changes seem completely unlikely since such advertising has increased Big Pharma’s profits significantly and their lobbyists and campaign contributions will guarantee that the FDA and Congress continue to allow it.

Another glimmer of hope is that Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced last fall that she would “demand a stop to excessive profiteering and marketing by denying tax breaks for direct-to-consumer advertising and demanding that drug companies invest in R & D in exchange for taxpayer support”. This proposal comes up far short of what needs to be done but again, even if Clinton were to be elected, it is unlikely that Congress or the FDA will act on even this modest aim. So unfortunately we will have to endure more and more of these dangerous and ridiculous commercials on our television programs and in our print media for the foreseeable future. It looks like New Zealand will not be standing alone in allowing these disgraceful practices for a long long time.

Tractors

07 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by ralphfriedly in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Farmall M, Farmall Super A, John Deere 720, John Deere A, John Deere D

I have always loved tractors. While growing up among cultivated fields, visiting grandparents on farms in Missouri and North Dakota or passing hundreds of farms while traveling as a youngster I was enchanted and fascinated by these powerful machines and the many companies which then manufactured them: John Deere, International Harvester, Massey-Harris, Oliver, Minneapolis-Moline, Case, Allis Chalmers, Ferguson and Ford.

I feel very privileged for having farms and farming play such a big part in my life. The church organization in which I grew up maintained a large farm operation to nurture its members. So adjacent to its central New Jersey headquarters were a modern dairy farm and fields of corn and alfalfa to support its operation as well as orchards of fruit and large fields of vegetables produced to eat fresh in the summer or to be preserved for winter consumption.

To work its fields the church maintained a small fleet of tractors and all the requisite implements for them: plows, tine and disc harrows, planters, harvesters, mowers, rakes, balers, choppers and wagons. Fields were plowed, harrowed and planted. Field corn was harvested in the summer for silage and in the fall for poultry feed. Tomatoes, sweet corn and other vegetables were planted, cultivated and picked. Peaches and apples were grown in the orchards and harvested in summer and fall.

As a youngster I was expected to assist in many of the church farm processes and while I did not particularly enjoy menial tasks like weeding or picking fruit or vegetables, I did enjoy very much the more glamorous and muscular operations like baling hay and transporting and stacking the bales. But the best thing about farming as a child was when I got to drive a tractor. To feel the steady throb of a John Deere two cylinder engine beneath me and to experience its power as I shoved the clutch lever forward to engage the drive wheels, was a huge thrill that I will never forget. Or to feel the smoother pulsation of a powerful International Harvester Farmall four cylinder engine and to feel it surge forward powerfully while smoothly turning over three plow furrows was a wonderful experience.

My father, as I mentioned in a previous article, was a part time farmer in the church and not only assisted in the general farm operations but did some farming on his own to make money for the family. In the early 1950’s he bought a small tractor designed for cultivation of food crops called the Farmall Super A, an improved version of the original “A”. A unique feature of its design was that the engine and transmission were offset, giving the operator a full view of the row of plants that he was cultivating.

Tractor power was often rated by how many plow bottoms could be pulled and the Super A being a small tractor could handle only a single bottom plow. But it was ideal for planting and cultivating the smaller plant crops my Dad raised. I think almost all of us drove Dad’s little Super A at one time or another.

Farmall Super A

On the church farms, the first tractor I drove was a John Deere Model A. This popular tractor was manufactured from the 1930’s through the early 1950’s and had an enviable record of reliability and longevity.

The several I drove, most likely manufactured in the 1940’s were basic and simple “hand start” models, with no battery or electric starter and the engine flywheel and clutch assembly spinning dangerously outside of the crankcase.The ignition spark was provided by a “magneto” which supplied current to the spark plugs when the engine was cranked or running.

Starting a John Deere A was an interesting process which involved first advancing the throttle, then adjusting the choke, next opening a petcock on each of the two big cylinders to reduce compression and finally grasping the flywheel and turning it by hand until the engine sputtered to life, after which the choke was turned off and the petcocks closed. You just had to hope that you kept your hands and your clothing out of the area of the flywheel once the engine engaged and it started spinning. You also had to beware of an additional risk to your hands, arms and body during the cranking process when a misfire would cause the flywheel to jerk crazily backward while you were trying to turn it.

This model’s transmission had six forward speeds and a hand clutch, a lever that you thrust forward to engage the transmission. Like most tractors of its type it also had separate brake pedals for the left and the right drive wheels whose application was often necessary to help turn the tractor in soft soil.

The trademark putt-putt sound of John Deere two cylinder engines is a precious memory to many who farmed in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s. John Deere tractors would sadly lose this charm when the company, its engineers having extracted about all the power they could from two cylinder engines, turned to four and six cylinder engines starting in 1960.

John Deere Model A

Another of the church farm tractors I operated was the Farmall Model M, manufactured by International Harvester probably in the late 1940’s. This tractor, quite different from the John Deere A’s that I knew, had a battery, a generator and an electric starter. Also different from the John Deere it had a foot clutch on the left and the left and right wheel brakes located together on the right. The M’s four cylinder engine had a very pleasing and powerful sound when working hard. Both the John Deere A and the Farmall M were rated as “3 bottom plow” tractors, quite powerful for that time. The M that I drove had five forward gears and was a special pleasure to drive in fifth, its “road gear”, which was much faster than the John Deere A’s highest gear, its sixth.

Farmall M

The configuration of both of these tractors was, as pictured, with two big drive wheels and two smaller front wheels together giving the tractors a tricycle-like appearance, a “row crop” arrangement because the tractor could work two rows of crops with the front wheels between two rows and the large drive wheels outside them.

I spent a memorable summer in North Dakota in 1957 when I was fifteen years old, working on the farm where my mother grew up. There I was to have the greatest tractor experiences of my life. My Uncle Clarence ran the farm and introduced me to “standard” tractors – squat four wheel configurations made for pulling – usually plows and harrows but really any kind of heavy implement and definitely not for cultivation of row crops.

The prize tractor I got to drive was a new John Deere 720, still two cylinders with massive displacement and the familiar John Deere sound, but this time a diesel. The diesel engine in this tractor was started with a “pony engine”, a four cylinder electric-start gasoline engine, which when started, connected to the flywheel of the big two cylinder diesel engine to crank and start it. This beautiful tractor also had power steering, which I had not previously experienced and which made driving the tractor so much easier. John Deere 720

This was the main tractor upon which I sat hour after hour, day after day, that summer, cultivating the rich black soil in both fallow fields and those being prepared for planting. Fields in North Dakota were usually quarter-sections (“quarters”) of 160 acres so to pull a huge harrow down a half-mile or mile field length and back could take a half-hour or so. This tractor was such a pleasure to drive – the same welcome sound, incredible power and the not entirely unpleasant smell of diesel exhaust instead of gasoline.

Little brother Charlie on the 720 August 1957

My uncle also had three other tractors on the Mylo, North Dakota farm – the familiar John Deere A and two old but still running John Deere Model D’s. I cultivated a large field of corn several times that summer with the A since it was a “row crop” tractor and I drove one of the D’s occasionally to pull harrows and keep them serviceable for when the 720 was not available.

The John Deere D was an amazing tractor. Its two huge cylinders, each almost 7 inches in diameter, provided significant torque and steady and reliable pulling power. It was manufactured from the late 1920’s clear through to the 1950’s and these two, both probably assembled in the 1930’s, again featured the “hand start” fly wheel method of starting. However, the difference in the strength it took to turn the D’s flywheel compared to that of the A was quite concerning. I really had to struggle to start it, even with petcocks open and the compression reduced. The D had only three forward speeds, all frustratingly slow. The “high” gear still couldn’t get this big tractor out of its own dust. One of my Uncle’s John Deere D’s also had concrete cast in both of its huge spoked wheels in order to give it more traction. I really enjoyed driving these venerable behemoths but of course greatly preferred the modern 720 with its diesel engine and power steering. Incidentally, I should mention that the “plow rating” of both the 720 and the D was a five or six bottom plow.

John Deere Model D

Looking back at my exciting and pleasurable experiences with tractors, I am thankful that I was never injured in an accident, for tractor accidents, especially in the 1950’s, before protective cabs were mandated, could easily occur and were not uncommon. During that memorable summer of 1957, my grandmother Baxstrom used to listen to the news every night sorrowfully sighing “Oh my, oh my” at the accounts of horrific tractor deaths and injuries on the plains of the US and Canada. Tractors turning over on their drivers, farmers becoming entangled between an implement and the drive wheels of a tractor, someone falling off a tractor with the tractor’s drive still engaged and being injured or killed by a towed implement were typical. Fingers and hands would be injured by the spinning external flywheel on a John Deere or feet and legs would be broken or lost by being crushed by a drive wheel. Also not uncommon were injuries caused by hand start tractors being started while in gear and with the clutch engaged. The number and variety of tractor accidents never ceased to amaze me and concern my grandmother.

So I have been fortunate to experience only the pleasure and not the pain of piloting these powerful machines that cultivate our fields to grow our food – a piece of personal history that I recall very fondly.

The Noxious Cloud of Republican Orthodoxy

07 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by ralphfriedly in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Republican orthodoxy

In spite of a national desire for moderation, it appears that all of the Republican candidates for President, both fallen and still standing, plus the majority of Republicans representing us in Congress have wrapped themselves in the poison cloud of Republican orthodoxy. One has to remain in this noxious fog in order to be a “real Republican” or a “real conservative” for to break out from it is to be a “RINO”, Republican in Name Only.

Sadly, many close to me seem to be lost in this cloud. Perhaps they have had their senses dulled by breathing this poisonous cloud for they evidently cannot see clearly, listen to reason, distinguish between fact and fiction or feel for the less fortunate. This cloud envelops most of talk radio, whose purveyors have added more poisons and pollutants, stirred up the cloud and made it thicker and nastier than ever. The blond bimbos and loudmouthed carnival barkers that inhabit Fox News have also done their part to broaden and intensify this cloud.

This noxious cloud of Republican orthodoxy includes the following gasses, vapors and pollutants:

Cut taxes for the rich and for corporations. Tax cuts “pay for themselves” and benefits will “trickle down” to benefit everyone. Oppose the Inheritance Tax. Oppose increasing the Federal minimum wage insisting, contrary to evidence, that a higher minimum wage will “kill jobs”.
Cut regulations, which are “choking” , “stifling” and “smothering” businesses and corporations. Abolish Dodd-Frank. Unleash the power and magic of the pure free market. Abolish the EPA, the Clean Water Act, support fracking. Give the “job creators” free rein.
Reduce the Federal budget, “pay off” the national debt, as if national spending is in any way similar to household spending (it is not).
Proclaim social security and medicare “entitlements” and pledge to “save the country from bankruptcy” by cutting or limiting these earned benefits.
Cut food stamps, welfare and other support for the poor. Assistance for the less fortunate will cause problems rather than ameliorate them. Reduce the US’s already modest safety net by whatever means necessary.
Slash Federal regulatory budgets, including those of the IRS and the EPA, making it far more difficult to catch and penalize tax cheaters and corporate polluters.
Support “the right to bear arms” and the NRA’s twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment blindly and at all costs, regardless of the needless slaughter caused by firearms every day in the US. Oppose even the most limited and sensible gun regulations.
Spread fear of Muslims, Arabs and others from “strange” cultures and languages and pledge unqualified support for Israel, regardless of its well documented human rights abuses and violations of international law. Proclaim Iran the “enemy” and pledge to undo the Nuclear Agreement.
Oppose same sex marriage and LGBT rights. Spread fear and hatred of “different” people in the school and workplace.
Deny climate change, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence and and vow to take America out of the Paris Agreement.
Oppose abortion, promise to “defund” Planned Parenthood, deny women the right to choose, deny women the right to control their own bodies.
Oppose progressive taxation or taxes period, despite the fact that the US is the least taxed of all the advanced countries. Support a regressive “national sales tax” or an even more regressive “flat tax” instead.
Abolish Obamacare, despite its qualified success, oppose its expansion of Medicaid, offer no reasonable alternative, and simply oppose any form of universal healthcare which all other advanced nations already have.
Support the “war on drugs” and oppose legalization of drugs. Be “tough on crime”, blindly support the police, in spite of their abuses, send offenders to prison where they will be “punished”, not rehabilitated.
Pledge unqualified support for the military and increasing the Pentagon budget, in spite of horrendous waste. Resolve international conflicts through war, not diplomacy, support the expansion of our “American Empire”. Support America as the top world arms merchant.
Oppose unions and workers’ rights. Support “right to work” (this term lends a false sheen to its anti-union intent) laws. Give employers unlimited rights over employees.
Sell western Federal lands to the states and private corporations (hooray for Cliven Bundy!) who they claim can manage it more fairly and efficiently than the Federal government.
Support privatization of public functions like education and municipal services. Promote the discredited Reagan claim that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem”. Support “small government” (whatever that is) while contradictorily expanding the military, corporate welfare and control over women’s bodies.
Discredit and defund public schools, support corporate charter schools and “accountability” through standardized testing, oppose “common core” curriculum (actually just a modest effort to create a national curriculum, like other nations have).
Support the death penalty as “revenge and “punishment” in spite of its documented ineffectiveness as a deterrent and in spite of the fact that we are the only advanced nation that still subscribes to this medieval practice.
Support “enhanced interrogation” to enhance national security, despite the fact that this torture violates international law and has proven to be ineffective. Keep Guantanamo open, in fact, “fill it up”.
Limit voting rights to stop non-existent “voter fraud” by requiring photo ID, reducing the number of polling places and reducing or eliminating early voting and voting by mail, but blather on about the “sanctity” of the vote and the “duty” to vote.
Keep politics and elections running on money and continue to bow and bend to the influence of billionaire donors like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. Demonstrate absolutely no interest in overturning Citizens United.
Oppose immigration, especially for Syrians and other Muslims, blame people of color for most of our problems and oppose any attempt to grant amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants.

The above tenets compose the noxious cloud of Republican orthodoxy. I realize that we all grasp what we can from our personal past, our knowledge of history and from what we choose to digest from the media to generate and support our convictions but conservatives embracing this mess of mostly false and harmful notions to construct their orthodoxy is unprecedented. Prevailing American public opinion, which opposes most of the above, should readily puncture and rend this cloud to allow in some sunshine and illumination but if the Koch brothers, Fox News, ALEC and the rest, have their way, the Republican party will continue to stagger around in the darkness of this cloud for much of the foreseeable future.

Eventually this cloud will replicate, condense and coalesce into more solid matter – the Republican Presidential Platform. But it will continue to envelop the Republicans who presently represent us in Congress and in our state legislatures and who occupy our state governors’ offices until the Party heals itself and returns to the more rational and moderate principles espoused by so many great Republicans of the past.

Ralph Friedly

Monthly Archives: April 2016

Let’s Change the U.S. Constitution

Economics 101

Talk to Your Doctor About…

Tractors

The Noxious Cloud of Republican Orthodoxy