3,000 American Military Personnel dead because of George W. Bush's horrific blunder.
Now go out and party. Oy.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Its Not that Often that David Keelan and fineline Agree
But read this post from David's blog. It reveals a key (perhaps the key) issue facing HoCo.
Now do you see why the Senior Tax Cut gets under my skin?
Update: I don't agree with every thing David says in the Post. I most definitely am Not in favor of cutting back on the County Executive's transportation and security details or cutting any county-provided services. I think we have to bite the bullet and raise taxes. Of course I believe any tax increases should be progressive in nature. But David does draw attention to an important issue. I guess there had to be a catch.;-)
Now do you see why the Senior Tax Cut gets under my skin?
Update: I don't agree with every thing David says in the Post. I most definitely am Not in favor of cutting back on the County Executive's transportation and security details or cutting any county-provided services. I think we have to bite the bullet and raise taxes. Of course I believe any tax increases should be progressive in nature. But David does draw attention to an important issue. I guess there had to be a catch.;-)
George W. Bush's Invasion of Iraq: the Worst Thing to Happen to the United States (and Iraq) Since Slavery?
Read this Op-Ed by Richard Clark on some of the hidden costs of the Iraq War. Its definitely thought provoking and worrisome.
The question's are (1) what can the Democrats do to get us out of Iraq and (2) what will the Democrats try to do about Iraq?
It doesn't take a genius to see that the American People sent a strong unambiguous message to Washington in November: get us out of Iraq and clean up the corruption. Did our leaders get the message?
If the Democrats succeed in cleaning up the ethical mess and getting us out of Iraq, they will win big in 2008 and for a while thereafter. If they don't . . .
The question's are (1) what can the Democrats do to get us out of Iraq and (2) what will the Democrats try to do about Iraq?
It doesn't take a genius to see that the American People sent a strong unambiguous message to Washington in November: get us out of Iraq and clean up the corruption. Did our leaders get the message?
If the Democrats succeed in cleaning up the ethical mess and getting us out of Iraq, they will win big in 2008 and for a while thereafter. If they don't . . .
A Good Start for the Ulman Administration
Our new Housing Director, Stacy Spann, looks like a very promising choice.
One of the most important functions of a County Executive is to choose, and then manage, a good executive team. County Executive Ulman hit a home run here. Knowing that we have this kind of talent working on development and housing issues is reassuring.
One of the most important functions of a County Executive is to choose, and then manage, a good executive team. County Executive Ulman hit a home run here. Knowing that we have this kind of talent working on development and housing issues is reassuring.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
There's a New Blogger in Town
Freemarket. Welcome to the HoCo Blogosphere.
Freemarket asks a good question: Is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "good for us?" Freemarket prefaces his question with the following commentary:
Second, no drug is completely safe and completely effective. What is important is that any drug's side effects are well understood and that their effectiveness is throughly tested before being placed in the market place. And its important that there be a unbiased referee to make these judgments in an impartial, objective and fair manner. One of the reasons the question posed by Freemarket is a good one, is that the FDA no longer functions as originally intended, its become over politicized and a pawn of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Its actually pretty rare that the FDA rejects a drug thats been submitted by the pharmaceutical industry (most of the bad drugs are dropped by the companies who don't want to waste money and potential liability on drugs that have a long shot at FDA approval).
It rankles me to read the line about FDA approval costs causing the lack of drugs for rare diseases. Are you aware that the Pharmaceutical Industry is the most profitable major (legal) industry out there? Whats wrong with requiring a drug to be throughly tested before its marketed? Could the fact that rare diseases don't get the needed research be that the potential market is so small? Could it be that this is just one more example of why the free market can't be trusted to do everything?
And can you name a single drug that has been pulled from the market, by the FDA, because of a single death?
I'm not saying that the FDA is perfect or even operating in an acceptable manner. I do think that the United States needs to have a fair and effective program regulating the safety of pharmaceuticals.
Freemarket asks a good question: Is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "good for us?" Freemarket prefaces his question with the following commentary:
When the FDA makes a mistake, one of two things will happen. Either a drug that is harmful will be approved, or a drug that is beneficial will be delayed or unapproved for use. Both of these mistakes will cost lives, but which would the FDA be more fearful of? Surely litigation and sullied reputation would be strong incentives for the FDA not to approve a drug that hurts people, but these same fears of litigation and embarrassment impact the behaviors of the drug companies as well. For this type of mistake, I doubt that the FDA adds much to the protections already in place by the legal system and the market. However, when the FDA delays or rejects a drug that is beneficial or the regulations of the FDA makes drug research so expensive that rare diseases are not worked on by drug companies, who bears the cost of this mistake, and who even knows about it? The sick who could have been helped have no knowledge of the harm caused to them by the FDA.I respectfully dissent Freemarket. First, Freemarket assumes that the legal system and marketplace will both work to ensure a supply of safe and effective drugs. In theory, that is correct. However, there is no real world evidence to support this theory. On the other hand, the state of affairs that existed before the creation of the FDA is proof positive that the legal system and "freemarket" were insufficient to protect consumers (and legitimate business people too, who had to compete with the corner cutters too). I've been working in the legal profession and in goverment(s) for over 20 years now, and I would trust Government Bureaucrats over the legal system any day to protect my safety. (In my opinion, Government bureaucrats are unfairly maligned). Since safety is an externality, it can't be trusted to the "freemarket." (The quotation marks are used to indicate my doubt that truly free markets exist often in the real world, rather than any personal distrust of our newest blogger). Who would you rather have judge the merits and safety of a drug: a jury of twelve people off the street or pharmaceutical experts? Did the legal system stop the marketing of tobacco and asbestos?
Second, no drug is completely safe and completely effective. What is important is that any drug's side effects are well understood and that their effectiveness is throughly tested before being placed in the market place. And its important that there be a unbiased referee to make these judgments in an impartial, objective and fair manner. One of the reasons the question posed by Freemarket is a good one, is that the FDA no longer functions as originally intended, its become over politicized and a pawn of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Its actually pretty rare that the FDA rejects a drug thats been submitted by the pharmaceutical industry (most of the bad drugs are dropped by the companies who don't want to waste money and potential liability on drugs that have a long shot at FDA approval).
It rankles me to read the line about FDA approval costs causing the lack of drugs for rare diseases. Are you aware that the Pharmaceutical Industry is the most profitable major (legal) industry out there? Whats wrong with requiring a drug to be throughly tested before its marketed? Could the fact that rare diseases don't get the needed research be that the potential market is so small? Could it be that this is just one more example of why the free market can't be trusted to do everything?
And can you name a single drug that has been pulled from the market, by the FDA, because of a single death?
I'm not saying that the FDA is perfect or even operating in an acceptable manner. I do think that the United States needs to have a fair and effective program regulating the safety of pharmaceuticals.
It Looks Like the Regressive Senior Tax Cut is Here to Stay
For at least a year anyway.
Its time for fineline's first Personal Ad:
Its time for fineline's first Personal Ad:
Former Councilman and County Executive candidate is seeking hot senior citizen (over 69) with less than $75,000 per annum income for short courtship and then marriage (must take place by June 1, 2007).
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Delegate Bobo Sponsors Important Environmental Legislation
It would be great for the State and for the Bay if this bill becomes law.
Of course the coast is not clear:
The bill, which will be sponsored by Del. Elizabeth Bobo, a Howard County Democrat, would bring Maryland in line with standards originally adopted in California for limiting releases of three known or suspected cancer-causing chemicals.
Of course the coast is not clear:
The so-called Clean Cars Program is expected to face continued resistance from the auto industry.I'll be watching this bill. It might just save your life.
Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland and a veteran environmental lobbyist, said at a news conference at Sinai Hospital that a new report by his group shows the cancer risk associated with the three chemicals is 40 times higher in Maryland than the federal Environmental Protection Agency's benchmark.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
A UMBC Professor with National Reputation has some Interesting Advice for Democrats
Thomas F. Schaller says ignore the south.
I think he's right that we don't need the south to win. I also agree that by trying to cater to southern voters, the Democrats could alienate their northern, mid-western and western bases.
But I wouldn't stop trying to win over the South. They are not hopeless.
I think he's right that we don't need the south to win. I also agree that by trying to cater to southern voters, the Democrats could alienate their northern, mid-western and western bases.
But I wouldn't stop trying to win over the South. They are not hopeless.
A Sobering Article on Iraq
Too bad the evil clowns won't read it. Juan Cole has been right about Iraq all along, his predictions have been right on target.
R.I.P. President Gerald Ford
While I often disagreed with his policies, I always liked and respected President Ford. He was a man of integrity and decency. Unfortunately, people like him are all too rare in today's politics.
On the Local HoCo Scene
County Executive Ulman continues to put his team in place. Councilmember Watson submits her first bill: a solution to a problem I didn't know we had. The local blogosphere is very quiet. The calm before the storm?
Sunshine Is the Best Disinfectant
A famous quote from Justice Louis Brandeis. The Bush Administration has been of the opposite view. Of course, if I were Bush, I wouldn't want anyone to know how badly I am messing things up. TPM Muckraker documents the atrocities. A very sad era in American History.
Is the Housing Slump Already Over?
That would be a very fast recovery and excellent news. Still, I'm a bit skeptical.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Its Good to See
That our new Governor and County Executive have a good relationship.
That should be good for the County.
That should be good for the County.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)