28.11.03
College Football: Jackie Sherrill, one of the more colourful coaches of college football, is done. He was sent to his retirement last night by an ass-kicking in the Egg Bowl, getting shut out by Ole Miss 31-0. He didn't always follow the rules: he left Texas A&M in the late '80s under the cloud of NCAA sanctions; he coached at Mississippi St. through the '90s, including a period in the mid '90s (1995 or so, I think) when he faced NCAA sanctions. And Mississippi State is, apparently, under investigation again.
But, in any case, he (usually) put together a good team, and there were the colourful incidents of which he was a part. The most famous of these is, of course, the motivational castration of a bull in front of his players (I think this was while Sherrill was at A&M, but I could be wrong). He felt that having his players see a bull lose its manhood would cause them to fight for theirs. Or something. Who knows? He probably could have used that this season, when his team all but quit on him midseason. Here's to you, Jackie, in your retirement. I'll hoist one to you, at least for the colourful incidents.
Pro Football: It should be noted that I didn't watch TV yesterday. I didn't watch the NFL games, nor did I watch the Egg Bowl.
So I'll just note that Miami beat Dallas in Dallas worse than they beat my Redskins in Miami. Ummm...I can't figure it out either, but it pleased me to see that Dallas lost at home by nearly 3 touchdowns.
Another thing that I can't figure out is how Green Bay loses to Detroit. Fine, the game was in Detroit. So? Detroit hasn't exactly set the league on fire the last few seasons. Even Barry Sanders has castigated the Lions' (mis-)management on their lack of commitment to winning. The question still stands. How, exactly, did Detroit beat Brett Favre? Black magic, I guess. Or maybe it was the tryptophan shakes in the visitors' locker room. Eh.
Letters to the Editor:
Am looking at today's letters to the editor in the L.A. Daily News. A couple jumped out at me, so I figure I'll respond to some of 'em.
First, we have Graydon, from Canyon County, writing about price controls:
Re "Price controls hurt" (Their Opinions, Nov. 21).
Oh really? Whom? It is true that developing a new and more effective product can cost millions, but it is a one-time cost and can be written off -- every cent of it -- and those products are sold at a very handsome profit for years with the total cooperation ("collusion") of the Food & Drug Administration, the copyright and patent offices and our "esteemed" politicians, who get millions of dollars donated to their campaigns by the pharmaceutical companies to maintain the status quo.
So here's my question, G. If you sink money into research into something (say, a widget - or even better, some miracle drug that cures everything), should someone or a group be able to force you to just burn that money (i.e. write it off) for the sake of affordability to the masses? Last I checked, the drug companies are in business to make a profit; although they are at times charitable (such as involving company programs giving free samples to doctors - often passed on to indigent patients - or programs to provide drugs directly at a reduced or no cost to indigent patients), they sink billions (yes, that's with a b) of dollars into research in the hope that they'll be able to get it back. And they also sink millions of dollars into the process, administered by the conspirators at the FDA, to prove to the government that the drugs safe and effective; in other words, they sink millions of dollars into the process by which they may be allowed to bring the drugs to market. And since it's a one-time expense, you just suggest that the companies "write it off". Why should they be forced to do so, anyway? And how (other than forcing the expenditure of millions of pharmaceutical dollars in the approval process) does the FDA "collude" with the drug industry?
I am not saying that they are not entitled to a profit, but when those prices are completely extortionate that is where I draw the line. It is true that prices are controlled in Canada and elsewhere, but quite obviously those companies are making money or they would not be selling those products to them in the first place.
Ah, but Graydon, you are saying precisely that they are not entitled to a profit. First of all, the prices are "completely extortionate" because the R&D process consumes billions of dollars every year; they have to pay for that somehow. How, exactly, would you propose that drug manufacturers pay for research? Moreover, another reason that drug companies' prices are "completely extortionate" is that they are forced to sell drugs to governmental agencies and commercial retailers in other countries at a lower price. They are forced to do so because other governments, through treaties of which the United States is a signatory, hold the whip hand. Other governments may, if drug companies are unwilling or unable to provide drugs at "a reasonable cost" as defined by the governments, revoke any patent protections on those drugs and manufacture cheap knockoffs. So here is my question to you, Graydon: at what point do prices become "completely extortionate"? For that matter, since drugs aren't the only things which make our lives better (the computer on which I type this, and the car sitting in my driveway are two others that occured off the top of my head), should we set price controls on everything which make our lives better or "livable"?
Jerry from Granada Hills writes about the Democrats' apparent hypocrisy regarding the latest Medicare bill, and that they should support it, since it is an expansion of Medicare, which he calls (correctly, I think) "socialized medicine". I don't want to delve too deeply into this, but I'll just say this: the bill is awful, not least for its $400 billion (which trumps the $87bn approved by the Congress to prosecute the war in Iraq, and the $400bn, just like projections for previous entitlements, is almost certainly absurdly low) expenditure. Conservatives (and, fiscally, I am that) hate it because it is the largest entitlement since Johnson's Great Society. Liberals hate it because of (a) the privitization issue (which I like...no one is forcing seniors off the governmental rolls; they are merely giving seniors a choice, and competition breeds efficiency, something for which all programs should strive) and (b) gaps in coverage (I forget exactly what the numbers are...something like the first $250 is picked up by the taxpayer, the next $2000 is paid for by the consumer, then the rest is picked up by John Q. Taxpayer). Ted Kennedy was threatening to filibuster this piece of legislation. Of course, I opposed it for different reasons than "Red Ted", but I would have loved to see that particular bill killed on the Senate floor.
Next, we have Dennis from Canyon County saying that, while it's good that we forced Saddam out of power, our army isn't made for occupation (a fair point), and we should leave the democritization of Iraq to the Iraqis:
I agreed with George W. Bush when he sent troops into Iraq to get rid of Hussein, and I think the USA certainly stepped up to the plate and did the right thing -- with and without help from some of our alleged allies. But now it's time to end it. It certainly appears the Iraqis don't want any more help, and Americans are now giving their lives for people without the sense to realize there is a better way to live.
This is certainly, at base, about what is good for the Iraqis. Personally, I believe that an Iraq without Saddam is very good for the Iraqis. I also believe that a constitutional republic, or a representative republic - rather than a totalitarian republic as Iraq was under Saddam - is a wonderful form of government, something that would benefit Iraqis. There are some Iraqis that, doubtless, see us as occupiers, after nothing but the oil (were that the case, though, one presumes that we'd have just violated the embargo and bought it, like the French allegedly did). Some may, even, have changed their outlook and see us now as occupiers after seeing us a few months ago as liberators. But most, doubtless, are those who have been removed from power by the Americans in the last 2 years, and their ideological brethren: the Islamofascist Taliban, assorted terror groups like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, and the perverted national socialist Ba'athists of Iraq and Syria. And, given that Saddam, in his 25 years in power, killed nearly 2 million fellow muslims both at home and in two wars of aggression, and in the process of killing these fellow muslims, used tabun and sarin gas to do so (both with the Iraqi kurds, at places like Sarseng, and against the Iranians, in battles like the marshes at Fao), it was necessary to rid ourselves of the man, and of the Ba'athists. Of course, one presumes that Dennis agrees with this; he stated that he supported our war of liberation.
However, we must see this through. We must stay and oversee an orderly - and peaceful - transition to a stable constitutional republic, and we must defeat those who would slit our throats.
He does make a good point, though: Iraqis, in the end, are the ones who need to take the lead and build a peaceful government; the Americans cannot (and note that I am not saying "may not"; I am referring to the impossibility of such), however much they might wish to, impose such a government on them against the will of the Iraqis. However, as the Iraqis have not had such a government, they will need assistance and guidance, provided by the Americans; Americans have helped liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein. Now the Americans must help lead Iraq down the path toward self-determination, because were we to leave now, we would end up with a situation such as in Iran (a virulently anti-American anti-democratic theocracy) or Afghanistan until the Taliban were removed (ditto, but with warlords running things in many outlying areas). Or we would end up with one of Saddam's minions running it, and in any of those cases, we'd need reinvade.
Now they're beating Americans to death with bricks -- enough is enough. Even a loser in Vegas knows when to leave the table. James Hahn wants to do something about the gangs in L.A. Good, round them up and send them to Iraq -- they like to fight -- and bring home the service people.
Ah, yes, those exemplars of the rule of law and of democracy: the street gangs. Some things just make me chuckle.
Next we have Arthur from Los Angeles, proposing impeachment:
I support the effort to hold President Bush and others within the White House responsible to the American public by calling for their impeachment. President Bush lied to the people and to Congress about weapons of mass destruction and the purported "grave and imminent" threat Iraq posed to the U.S.
I would love to see a citation of such a lie. Moreover, Arthur, President Bush never mentioned that Iraq was a "grave and imminent" threat, as you suggest. One presumes that you refer to the 2002 and 2003 State of the Union addresses, in which Mr Bush says that Iraq, as a part of the "axis of evil" is a "grave and growing danger" (it's about a third of the way down, in the paragraph starting "States like these, and their terrorist allies,..."), and further said that the United States must not wait until such a "threat is imminent" (near the end of the speech, in the paragraph starting "Some have said we must not act...")
It is obvious that there was no imminent threat, and the unilateral actions of the Bush administration in waging and threatening wars of aggression do not serve the interests of the people of the U.S., but instead serve the interests of the big oil and corporate elite who are Bush's true constituents.
If Bush really wished to serve "big oil and the corporate elite", he'd have done what France did: just allowed commercial interests simply to ignore the UN embargo and buy the oil. Had he committed such an awfully cynical act, it would have, more than likely, been ignored by the media and by the public. "Big oil" would get their access to the oil, and no one would get slammed by public opinion. And the number of people killed by Saddam would continue to rise.
As a side note, to be fair, Saddam was in power for closer to 30 years than 25 (he was the power behind the throne as early as the early 1970s, before he ascended to the presidency and seized power in 1979, I think it was). If you do the math, it works out to, on average, roughly 5,500 people a month killed by Saddam. So, if you wish to bring up the "body count" argument (as does, apparently, Iraqbodycount.net, and if you use their number on the high end (9,749 dead as I type), and consider that we have been there since spring, we are on pace to kill only a third as many as would have Saddam (assuming it was an average year). Is it tragic? Of course it is. No one denies that it's tragic. But, I suppose, since the intervention of the United States led to the deaths of these people, it must be reported, whereas if these people were killed by the orders of the Ba'athists, it wouldn't even be known. But the fact is that civilians killed by Saddam are just as dead than the (far fewer in number over the same period) civilians killed by America.
Walter from Van Nuys says this about the recent legislation passed in California (SB 60) allowing illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses:
The words "starving" in Mexico and having to share a car to get the kids to school are an invalid appeal. Just how does giving driver's licenses to those who already have violated the laws make California a safer place? Your heroine admits to sneaking across the border and purchasing and driving an automobile which I'd guess is not insured (three laws broken).
Which laws do you want enforced: Those which are convenient to your ideals or all of them? There are legal ways to become a citizen. Schwarzenegger, our elected governor, followed them and only expects that others should do the same. Davis, our ex-governor, tried to be ethical and not allow SB 60 for valid reasons until he thought he could buy a few more votes by caving in. A pathetic move.
This, of course, is the crux of the issue. I think it was Proposition 187, back in the mid '90s, that mandated government not allow illegal immigrants to have some services. The opponents of Prop 187 (which was eventually victorious on the ballot, but declared in violation of the California constitution, if memory serves, by a judge in San Francisco) screamed "racism". Well, we're back for more of that (there's a letter in today's LA Times about that. Of course, Bruce from LA's argument falls short when he suggests, correctly, that such laws will probably not deter some terrorists. Of course, this argument is specious, because it suggests that if a law doesn't deter an action, it is worthless. To expand on Bruce's "terrorist" theme, there were laws - both state and federal - on the books on 11 Sept 2001, providing the following acts were illegal:
- carrying weapons onto a plane
- using those weapons to threaten passengers and crew
- hijacking the plane
- murdering several thousand people
Does this mean that we should take these laws off the books, as well? Of course not. There are some who will be deterred by such a law, and in that there is value. Moreover, they are our expression of belief as a society that doing such things are wrong. In the end it is about the rule of law, and the idea that a lower level of government should not abet the violation of the law of a higher level of government (California and the United States, in this case).
Emilia from Los Angeles, and Leada from Sunland are on opposite sides of the issue of the strikes of the UFCW and MTA workers (whose union name I forget), albeit for seemingly different reasons. First, from Emilia:
The people who are on the picket lines deserve what they are asking for. The "big three" supermarkets did not hire their employees through the borders. Try to be in their shoes and you'll know what I mean.
Be courteous to the customers even it if kills you because customers are always right -- even the rude ones. Smile and greet them. Standing up on your feet for eight hours or more. Lifting heavy stuff for scanning -- no wonder most cashiers and meat cutters have carpal tunnel syndrome. The scabs at Ralphs didn't even know what half of $3.65 was. Shame on the letter writer for belittling the striking employees.
Having been in their shoes (I worked at 7-11 once), I can say that, Emilia, you're right. it does suck. Having said that, the strikers deserve, as do the grocery stores (as is the case in any business deal, regardless of what it involves) exactly what they negotiate. If the strikers don't like what the grocery stores offer, they can better themselves through education and find another job that they believe is more along the lines of what they "deserve". And I don't know how it is at Albertsons or Ralphs, but at the 7-11, there were a few hard workers, but more were lazy dregs. I never found it particularly demanding labour; maybe that's why it's not particularly high paying, either.
Leada from Sunland has no sympathy for the workers involved in either strike, because theirs are not the only increases in health care costs:
I think it's about time we abolish the MTA and hire a private company to run our buses. Just think of how much we could save on administrative costs, wages for drivers and mechanics, hospitalization, workers' compensation, unemployment taxes, etc.
One imagines that a private company, competing for the bid, would do the job more efficiently than does the local government monopoly.
I have no sympathy for the MTA workers and the supermarket workers. I am retired and have Blue Shield. I just got notice of how much my costs are going up in 2004. Hospital stay, $196 a day for one to 10 days. This year it was free. Day surgery, $200. This year it was $25. My husband has prostate cancer and needs a shot every three months. Last year it was free. This year we had to pay $295 for each shot. Talk about take-aways -- see what our HMO has done to their retirees.
In other words, the strikers are not the only ones whose health care costs are increasing. Consumers don't give a hoot how much it costs, because employers and insurance pick up most of the tab. But when employers can no longer both pick up the tab and make a profit, then it would make sense to pass some of that to employees. Certainly employers have the right to offer, as part of compensation, health care. But employers also have the right not to do so, or to offer an extra stipend in lieu of health insurance through the employer; likewise, employees have the right to leave a job that doesn't offer health insurance as part of the compensation, or to stay in such a job. I believe that decoupling employee compensation from health care will lead to more reasonable rates, as insurance companies and health care professionals are forced to compete with one another for people's business.
As a side note (and in the interest of full disclosure), I don't have health insurance at the moment. Personally, I see no need for it, although I probably ought to look into some sort of catastrophic coverage. So, when someone, whether the President or Senator Kennedy cites the growing problem of people without health insurance, blame me. I lack it by choice.
Kelly from Saugus makes a good point.
So I see that the teamsters are refusing to make deliveries to Vons, Ralphs and Albertson's. It must be nice to have a job where one can choose not to do their assignment and yet face no disciplinary action. It's obvious that the lunatics really are running the asylum.
John, from Studio City, suggests simply breaking the strike:
I've had enough of these low-life striking bums constantly waving signs in my face and costing the economy untold thousands of dollars in lost revenue. When will the supermarkets find the guts to fire every single last one of them? Hundreds of people will rush to fill their shoes and earn the high wages they take for granted.
Although I think it harsh to call them low-life bums, this would be one solution to the problem. Although, other problems would creep up. I am not conversant enough with California or federal labour law to tell you whether this is legal or not (if such an act isn't legal, it should be; I'm not saying it's right from a moral or ethical standpoint, but I am saying that both employers and employees should have the right to terminate their relationship at any time, subject to contractual limitations). Further, the grocery chains would have to deal with the ire of unions everywhere (such as the Teamsters, see the letter above), and one presumes that a union - or unions - like the UFCW would organise a boycott of the grocery stores, thus costing the stores business.
Finally, Myrna from Rosemead runs off at the mouth with this anti-FOX rant:
The Fox media, owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch, has been misleading us in its efforts to boost support for the Bush administration by presenting an ever-lengthening list of misrepresentations to the public. If the U.S. is to remain a true democracy, based on the tenants of our Constitution, the American public desperately needs truth in reporting (a fact that became evident a long time ago).
Yes, America needs truth in reporting. How, exactly, does it matter that FOX is owned by NewsCorp, itself owned by Rupert Murdoch? Is this an insinuation of some sort? And, if so, of what, exactly? But to merely rattle off some tired, baseless allegations that FOX is "presenting an ever-lengthening list of misrepresentations to the public" without proof doesn't help your cause, Myrna. What misrepresentations does FOX present to the public? And how long ago did it occur to you that America needs "truth in reporting"? Were I to venture a guess, I would guess it's when FOX News came on the air; that is to say, a media organisation which purported to give news, rather than solely commentary, that was to the right of Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson (a statement which, were I to further guess, applies to approximately 98% of the electorate).
On a semantic note (yes, I do nitpick from time to time; moreover, I am appalled that a major newspaper didn't catch this), of whom is the Constitution the landlord? That is to say, who, exactly, are its tenants? If you're referring to its values, or ideas, then I suggest you use the word "tenet" next time, Myrna. And, more generally, the notion that editing begins and ends with the spell-checker is appalling to me. I have, from time to time, misspelled words on this blog; I don't regularly use a spell-checker. However, I do edit my work before I post it. If errata slip through the cracks, then mea culpa.
We rely on news outlets to deliver that truth; otherwise we are just as bad off as the former Soviet Union or Communist China or all those other places around the globe. The Fox media is doing nothing more than "leading us down the (proverbial) garden path" for its own gains. I think it comes under the category of greed.
Huh? Since when is FOX the only news outlet available to Myrna? Perhaps it is, in which case I might agree with her - although I would make the subjective assertion that FOX is far more balanced than anything disseminated in any totalitarian state. And how is what FOX is doing different from what NBC or CBS or ABC (or the print media, of which at least one outlet - the Daily News - is available to Myrna) do? And I would love an explanation of the last comment, about the "category of greed".
Zuletzt: I have a real mea culpa to offer up. In an earlier entry, I suggested that it was the Arabs who are attacking everyone at the edges of the Muslim world. Although Arabs are attacking some (such as in Sudan or in Israel), they don't bear the complete blame. I should have said Muslims, because there are several ethnic groups who try to bring more of the world under Muslim dominion.
More later...letters to the editor are always amusing. R.
Comments:
Post a Comment
