Category Archives: government

Early morning, April fourth

Today is the anniver­sary of Mar­tin Luther King’s assas­si­na­tion. You can find a par­tial archive of his speeches and video and audio clips, here and here. Link to The King Cen­ter, here.

For the tran­script and audio of Robert F. Kennedy’s speech in Indi­anapo­lis about Dr. King’s death, click here.

For Nel­son Mandela’s Accep­tance Speech of the Nobel Peace Prize, click here.

If you haven’t yet read or watched Barack Obama’s recent speech on race, you can do so here.

May you have some time today to rec­on­cile in your heart some­thing you pre­vi­ously found too uncom­fort­able to con­tem­plate, and may you find the hope, the energy, the courage to strengthen your resolve to add a drop to the bucket of change.

For shame

Lucky elit­ist mem­ber of the edu­cated mid­dle class that I am, I can’t imag­ine join­ing the mil­i­tary to pay for col­lege. I know that I will earn enough, later on, to pay it off. I can’t imag­ine join­ing the mil­i­tary at all, peacenik ben­e­fi­ciary of prior soli­diers’ deaths that I am. I’m lucky– I’m smart, I’m self-conscious, I have par­ents and had teach­ers who were capa­ble of impart­ing to me the val­ues and drive that opened up other career options than the mil­i­tary. Not that the mil­i­tary can’t be a good choice. It’s just not mine. And I don’t want to sound like I think every sol­dier is a dolt– they’re not, but there is a range of intel­li­gence, imag­i­na­tion, and sen­si­tiv­ity in the mil­i­tary like every­where else. The smart folks (or those smart enough to keep out of trou­ble, do what they’re told, and suck up to the right peo­ple, thanks Cricket for the reminder) tend to rise. The rank and file can and does con­tain folks who won’t be pro­moted far.

What I now com­pre­hend, how­ever, is some­thing I couldn’t before imag­ine, yet some­how knew was hap­pen­ing, as dis­cussed in a recent New Yorkerthe military’s whole­sale fail­ure to train and com­mand its ground level forces at Abu Graihb, aban­don­ing sol­diers who were essen­tially kids, who didn’t know any bet­ter, to tor­ture pris­on­ers, and then to have the audac­ity to frame them for it. To con­done it, in fact– to take advan­tage of these kids’ lack of train­ing (they were not prison M.P.s) to have them wan­tonly vio­late the Geneva Con­ven­tions– because they didn’t know any bet­ter, and in some cases, prob­a­bly weren’t smart enough to chal­lenge the sit­u­a­tion them­selves. The phrase “fail­ure of com­mand” could hardly have more mean­ing.  The posi­tion brings the respon­si­bil­ity toward one’s sub­or­di­nates with it, no mat­ter the indi­vid­ual morality/intelligence/capacity of those sit­ting in the chairs labeled colonels, gen­er­als, Com­man­ders in Chief.  To fail to com­pre­hend or carry out the respon­si­bil­ity?  Shocks me, though per­haps it shouldn’t.

The us ver­sus them thing has long existed, so the Geneva Con­ven­tions exist–because at an extreme, we think it’s tol­er­a­ble to tor­ture them, if our “prin­ci­ples” are to sur­vive. But to sub­orn our own sol­diers’ prin­ci­ples, or the prin­ci­ples they’re sup­posed to be pro­tect­ing, against their will, how­ever late their con­scious­ness of betrayal emerges? It’s almost as shame­ful as the tor­ture of the pris­on­ers themselves.

Cold, hard science? Hardly.

The NYT pub­lished an arti­cle about drug tri­als and the under­re­port­ing of neg­a­tive and equiv­o­cal study results to the FDA and peer-approved jour­nals, data which fac­tors sig­nif­i­cantly into the FDA’s assess­ment of where a pro­posed drug falls along the risk/benefit spec­trum.  To me, it’s no sur­prise.  Despite cladding their stud­ies in impen­e­tra­ble jar­gon and cloak­ing their data in sta­tis­ti­cal regres­sions so com­pli­cated that you need a new eye­glass pre­scrip­tion to parse the num­bers, sci­en­tists are human.  They need fund­ing.  Announc­ing some big pos­i­tive find or advance is likely to be more reputation-making than another crit­i­cism with­out a solu­tion.  And drug com­pa­nies have an obvi­ous incen­tive to bury the data– if not out of con­scious greed and mali­cious dis­re­gard for the health of drug con­sumers, than out of wish­ful think­ing and the manip­u­la­tion of study results and monday-morning quar­ter­back­ing of the fac­tors under­ly­ing the neg­a­tive study and its results.  Drugs are big money.  I just wish I didn’t need mine so much.

Finally, the sad facts are this:  the FDA, like any other gov­ern­ment agency, is under­funded and under­staffed, rel­a­tive to the impor­tance of its reg­u­la­tory mis­sion.  They rely on the drug com­pa­nies to be hon­est and to dis­close good and bad infor­ma­tion. That alone, not account­ing for a revolv­ing door of researchers, study project man­agers and admin­is­tra­tors between drug com­pa­nies, the FDA, pri­vate and uni­ver­sity labs, and med­ical prac­tice, is enough to war­rant my vig­i­lance about the drugs that I take.  I don’t nec­es­sar­ily think all drug com­pa­nies are evil, or that every FDA researcher is neg­li­gent or cor­rupt.  But I do think some of them are, and the rest are only human.  So I’ll con­tinue to be the geek who reads the entire set of warn­ings with each new pre­scrip­tion, and who re-reads them every time she gets a new pill to add to the older ones.  And I’ll con­tinue to be the geek who scans the Health and Sci­ence sec­tions of the paper every Tues­day, even though I’d rather not worry about it.  But rather doesn’t enter into it.