WHERE is the Pied Pipeer of Wall St. TAKING US?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Elizabeth Warren head of the oversight panel setup by Congress
to monitor the Federal Bailout says, “THE GOV’T STILL DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE A COHERENT STRATEGY FOR EASING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS despite the billions it already spent in that effort”. "Instead the gov’t seemed to be lurching from one tactic to the next without clarifying how each step fits into the overall plan. The overall impression is one of confusion by a leadershp(?) that does not know what it is doing.

One of the reasons for Ms. Warren’s observation is the US does not have an economic strategy or for that matter a strategy for many other important areas.

Professor Michael Porter distinguished Harvard Business School Professor has written in the Nov. 10 issue of Business Week an article explaining why he believes the development of a economic strategy is critical.

Professor Porter notes the American political system as it has evolved with piecemeal reactions to current events. Each candidate during the election presented a set of disconnected policy proposals for their political appeal. Each “approached the the economy with long held ideologies and policy positions, many of which no longer fit with today’s reality. I believe Professor Porter would like to see an organized approach to policies that promote long term growth and competitiveness

Professor Porter has measured the US economic effort against other countries. The US is not in the top 10 as a free market economic in many important aspects. MORE ON THIS.

HELP for troubled Mortgage Holders?

THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The $700 Bil bailout, according to Treasury Secretary Paulson, will not be used to help troubled mortgage holders. Sec. Paulson has admitted he has the authority to use the money for troubled homes but has refused to do so.

Federal Reserve Chairman Berneke has said he is working on a plan to subsidize 30 yr mortgages. However his plan will only help new owners. The plan is not meant for old or present owners.

The FDIC plan for modification of mortgages by extending the life of the mortgage and reducing payments to 31% of monthly income comes closest to helping troubled homes. Even this plan only covers about 20 % of the number of troubled mortgages expected to go to foreclosure in the next few years, The FDIC expects 1/3 of the helped homes to default on the modified mortgages.

It looks to Diogenes like most of the troubled mortgage holders have been left to hang in the wind. The longer the discussions go on without any help the worse the situation will get. The large increase in unemployment rates will only accelerate the downward spiral.

Diogenes believes the President, the Congress. and the public have not faced up to the economic problems. This is a chronic problem of the Bush administration with the help of a docile spineless democratic leadership.. The face up statement can be made for terrorism, education. global warming, etc.

What PLAN if any is the pied piper of Vall St. following?

FDA more DRUG troubles

STILL MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The list of troubled medicines goes on. After 19 sudden deaths and 26 reports of other problems such as strokes and fast heart rates The American Heart Association has recommended that children given Ritulin, Adderal and Concertin for attention deficit disorder be screened. The Heart Association now recommends a through exam with an electrocardiogram and family history. About2.5 million children and 1.5 million adults take medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

On Friday, April 25,”In fury and despair people harmed by Lasik eye surgery told federal advisors of severe eye pain and blurred vision. The advisors recommended that the gov’t worn more clearly about the risks of the hugely popular operation”. About 700,000 Americans yearly undergo this operation. Most people do benefit according to the Chicago Tribune article. However about 25% are not good candidates. One percent report serious difficulties. The FDA is promising a major study to better understand who has had bad outcomes.

What are the reasons FDA is failing us? More

FDIC Proposes a Mortgage Plan

Get the facts behind the NEWS

Sheila Bair head of The (FDIC) Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has been championing a plan. Ms. Bair says the plan could help 2.2 million home owners with troubled mortgages keep their homes. MS. Bair is a republican appointed by Pres. Bush two years ago after serving many years at FDIC.

The plan is to modify the troubled mortgages by extending the time of the loan and reducing the interest rates so that payments do not exceed 31 % of monthly income. Under this plan the US Gov’t would guarantee the mainly risky( low down payments and/or weak credit) loans . Under this plan the taxpayers would absorb 1/2 the loss on modified loans if the borrower defaults on the modified loan. She says this should encourage mortgage houses to modify their troubled mortgages. In addition the mortgage house would be paid $1,000 for each modified loan. This p[an has been put into effect for 65,000 Indy-Mac homeownera and is part of the Citigroup bailout

Ms. Bair stated the FDIC expects 1/3(750,000) of the modified loans to default. This plan would save 1,500,000 homes from foreclosure at a cost to the US gov’t of $24 bil. Moody ’s Economy.com expects 10 mi.l foreclosures over the next 5 years.

The Treasury and the White House are fighting this plan Critics estimate the plan would cost $70 bil, Treasury Asst Secretary Neel Kashkart said "the $700 bil bailout plan was to make investments with the hope of getting the money back". He called the FDIC plan a gov’t spending program with no chance of repayment. No doubt there were homeowners who deliberately overbought. However most(personal opinion) homeowners bought in good faith. Many of these people were enticed by gov’t programs offering easy terms and were not protected by any gov’t oversight, federal or local. Many of these homeowners had little experience in real estate or home ownership. Diogenes believes the gov’t bears much of the responsibility for the foreclosure situation.---- more suggested solutions next

Ben Bernake suggests HELP FOR MORGAGE HOLDERS

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Ben S. Bernake, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Thursday that the soaring number of foreclosures threatened the economy. He then proposed some ideas — government-engineered loan modifications, and more taxpayer money to help people refinance.

At the Treasury Department, meanwhile, top officials continued to work on a plan to bolster the housing market by subsidizing 30-year home mortgages with rates as low as 4.5 percent — a level that home buyers have not seen since the early 1960s.

Since the financial crisis began last summer, both the Fed and the Treasury had focused almost exclusively on patching up the financial system — propping up banks, Wall Street firms, money market funds and issuers of commercial debt.

The new focus on helping individuals could create a bitter split between those who want to buy homes and those who already own them.
The cheap mortgages would be available only for people buying houses, not the roughly 50 million families that already have mortgages and would want to refinance at a lower rate. As a result, the plan offers no direct relief to the millions of people who face foreclosure because they took out exotic mortgages that they could not afford. Nor would the plan offer any benefit to people who have stayed current on their mortgages and would simply be interested in taking advantage of a lower. rate,

How does this plan compare to the FDIC plan. See next blog.

Can $800 billion get us out of the DEPRRESSION?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS PART 4

Financial plans to get us out of a “depression” are coming fast and furious. Secretary of the Treasury Paulson with the help of the Federal Reserve Bank has announced an $800 billion fiscal stimulus. This stimulus is different than previous financial helps.

Since the financial crisis began last summer, both the Fed and the Treasury had focused almost exclusively on patching up the financial system — propping up banks, Wall Street firms, money market funds and issuers of commercial debt.

This financial imitative gets closer to the consumer possibly to answer those who believe help should be for main street, where the problems begin and not wall street where main street problems can end up.

This Paulson plan has twor parts. (A)To lower interest rates on loans for home buyers the gov’t announced it will buy up to $100 billion in mortgages held by Freddie Mac and Fannie May. It will buy up to $500 billion of mortgages securities held by the two housing giants plus Ginnie May.

What this means for home owners and the housing markets is uncertain. This may reduce interest rates but not slow the growing rate of foreclosures accordng to the economic experts.

At the same time the gov’t, announced through the TALF (Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility) a $200 billion program. This program will loan money at attractive ratea to private investors who buy securities backed by auto and student loans, credit cards and small business loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration. The plan will also guarantee the loans if underlying securities default.

The prograqm should lower rates for auto loans for those with confidence to buy an auto Good credit card risks have not been effected. Poor credit card risks have been cut back. The effect this program will have on increasing credit to poor credit risks is unknown. Student loans are another area where the effect of the program is unknown due to conflicting opinions. More on the latest developments.
.

MORE VIOXX AND THE FDA

-MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Dr. Eric Topal, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in a column posted the week of April 8th on the New England Journal of Medicine’s web site called for a congressional review of the “catastrophic” events”. “The senior executives at Merck and the leadership of the FDA share responsibility for not having taken action and not recognizing they are accountable for the public health.” Dr. Topal has also stated, “The FDA didn’t do anything. They were passive here.” Remember Dr. Graham linked Vioxx to 27,000 deaths.

There are other interesting aspects of the Vioxx case. Dr.David Graham the. Lead scientist mentioned in Blog 2, told the Senate Finance Committee investigators that the FDA tried to BLOCK publication of his findings, according to Senator Grassly chair of the Senate Finance Committee. “Dr. Graham described an environment where he was ‘ostracized’, ‘subject to veiled threats’ and”intimidation’. Dr Graham showed Senator Grasslay e-mails that appear to support Dr. Graham contention that his superiors suggested watering down the conclusions.

It APEARS THAT THE SUPERIORS AT THE FDA WERE MORE INTERESTING IN PROTECTING THE MERCK CO THAN INPROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

More on Merck and other troubled drugs in Blog 5

Why can’t the police stop gang violence?

Get the FACTS behind the NEWS

The newspaper headline read “Violent Crime on The Rise”. The homicide rate is going up and gun violence is spiking,” says Ron Ruecker, head of the International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police. The increase is primarily occurring in large cities such as Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, New Orleans, and Baltimore. What are some cities doing right? Chuck Wexler head of the Police Executive Research Forum says that cities that are able to quickly deploy officers to hot spots can cut back on crime. Preventative efforts and community involvement are also key”.

As one of our senior newscasters would say, “and now the rest of the story”. A recent article in the Chicago Tribune, by Anthony D. Box, may give us some clues. Anthony served 9 years with the FBI. He has a bullet in his liver from wrestle with a thug when he was 16.

He says the most distressing aspect of the rise in violence is the usual bromide by public officials that the POLICE SHOULD DO MORE. Anthony believes these public officials are “looking thru the wrong end of the telescope”. He also believes that handgun bans are not effective.

Anthony says the real challenge is to improve the BROKEN HOMES, BROKEN SCHOOLS. and ECONOMIC DESPAIR that exists in high crime neighborhoods.

Anthony agrees with Neil Basanko, executive director of the South Chicago Chamber of Commerce, “that it all begins with family”. He quotes Pres-elect Obrama, its time people accept responsibility for themselves, their family, and their community. Its time> to challenge men to quit behaving like boys.

Problems with the police forces another blog,

NAIN STREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY?

can we make a RECESSION PAINLESS? PART 3
GET the FACTS behind the NEWS

The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.

However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses. If financially well of,with the approval of Treasury Secretry Paulson, they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .

Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices. The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.

WASHINGTON Nov. 19 — The Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., on Tuesday rejected pleas to use money from the $700 billion bailout program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure or to stave off bankruptcy by Detroit’s Big Three automakers.

Mr. Paulson acknowledged that he had the authority to use bailout money for homeowners, but he insisted that the money should go toward “investment” in financial institutions rather than “spending” on rescue efforts.“We have seen that capital purchases are clearly powerful in terms of impact for dollar of investment,” he said in his prepared testimony.

FEDERAL FINANCIAL HELP IS NOT GETTING TO MAIN STREET.
Next, what are others doing to help.

The Real Ortho Eva Story

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The Ortho Evra case is the latest in a series of failures to protect he public against the serious health hazards of powerful medicines. This situation has caused experts and others to question the Food and Drug’s commitment, and the present Federal Administration’ s commitment to protect and preserve the nation’s health.

It was six years after the companies’ own researchers found that the Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, even before Ortho had been approved by the FDA, At last six years later the public was notified.. In the six-year interval, the larger amount of estrogen increased the risk of blood clot’s and strokes. The Food and Drug Agency received reports of at least 50 deaths associated with the drug according to an article in the April 6. 2008
New York Times.

In addition it appears that the Ortho people deliberately camouflaged the increased estrogen by reducing the actual figures by 40% .This correction was mentioned only once in a 435 page report to the FDA and then in a complex mathematical formula according to an April 14, 2008 New York Times article..

3,000 Women and their families have sued Johnson and Johnson claiming that ORTHO EVRA patches caused heart attacks, strokes, and in some cases death.

How could this happen? Why didn’t the FDA catch this error and do something about it?

In Blog 2,3,4 and 5 we discuss several other hazardous mistakes. by the FDA. In Blog 6 we have a brief look at the FDA and its support from the Federal gov’t. Blog 7 explains how the Johnson Co, makers of Ortho, are trying to avoid any legal and financial responsibility for the deaths and illnesses caused by the larger estrogen dosage.

The World Turned Upside DOWN

Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?

GET THE FACT BEHIND THE NEWS

The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.

The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.

For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.

The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.

This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.

Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.

President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B

MAIN SREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY

can we make
A RECESSION PAINLESS? Part 2

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The Congress and the Executive branch of the Federal gov’t have embarked on a new mission. How to make a recession painless. The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to $420 billion Federal deficit budget.

Diogenes is concerned that the measures taken so far are essentially blank checks to the same managements that appear incompetent and failed their company and the public. AIG Insurance was a large well financed insurance company. Management has changed recently. Maybe it should change again. AIG was originally given $85 billion and requested an additional$37.5 billion. General Motors received $25 billion and has now requested an additional $25 billion. GM is a company that was at the top of its field. GM has been going downhill for 40 years. Diogenes believes the Congress should demand new management and demand all models of GM have hybrid engines within three to four years.

This system of subsidizing inefficient companies only leads to trouble further on. It is a system used by communist China before they decided to modernize. One day in the near future you turn around and you have a whole range of inefficient companies that can not compete in the marketplace on their own but require constant subsidies.

Next we will discuss the validity of the gov't(public) making good on everyone’s loses.

MAIN STREET-WHERE IS THE MONEY

can we make A RECESSION PAINLESS ? Part 1

The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. This is in addition to a $417 billion budget deficit.

However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses or if financially well off they are looking to acquire banks or their assets at bargain prices. .

Now a new complication. On Nov. 3, 2008 the Federal Reserve reported its latest quarterly survey of bank lending practices.
The Federal Reserve said that “a high number of bank reported they had made it tougher to borrow across a broad range of loan products”. 60% of the banks had tightened credit card debt, 80% had tightened business and commercial loans. 95% raised costs for lines of credit to large and medium size business. 50% of domestic banks said they ”were somewhat or much less willing” to make consumer installment loans This report was for Oct. 1-15th.. Financial help is not rapidly getting to main street.

Perhaps some of this tightening was needed. But, we must be careful not to repeat one of the great mistakes of the 1929 Great Depression. According to Milton Friedman, in reacting to the speculation at that time, we tightened credit too much and stifled the economy.

Is the Bill of Rights in danger?

Where is the conservative
Supreme Court taking us?

IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.

In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”, unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion.. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.

Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.
However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.

The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Right by passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.

When you vote

BE AN INFORMED VOTER

Rep. Deborah Price, a republican from Ohio, was elected to the US House of Representatives four times. She is not running in 08. She said she has family obligations and finds it not as interesting as a member of the minority.

Her comments on politics were very interesting. She has little hope of a shift in campaign tactics unless there is a public backlash. The last campaign convinced her that negative ads work.

“I don’t think anything will change until Americans revolt and get it into their heads they need to be informed voters instead of just listening to the paid political ads.”

We hope our blog will help you to be a more informed voter.

When you vote

BE AN INFORMED VOTER

Rep. Deborah Price, a republican from Ohio, was elected to the US House of Representatives four times. She is not running in 08. She said she has family obligations and finds it not as interesting as a member of the minority.

Her comments on politics were very interesting. She has little hope of a shift in campaign tactics unless there is a public backlash. The last campaign convinced her that negative ads work.

“I don’t think anything will change until Americans revolt and get it into their heads they need to be informed voters instead of just listening to the paid political ads.”

We hope our blog will help you to be a more informed voter.

A Painless Recession

How to make a
A RECESSION PAINLESS
The Congress and the Executive branch of the Federal gov’t have embarked on a new mission. How to make a recession painless. The federal gov’t has agreed to spend $300 plus billion on bailouts of various companies plus $750 billion to ease banking liquidity. This does not include $160 billion economic stimulus payment with talk of another stimulus program probably as much or more. These expenditures are in addition to $417 BILLION bugdet deficit. These types of efforts may help keep the the economy at maintenance levels but by themselves will not cause an expansion.

I believe the stated purpose of these moves was to increase financial liquidity so that large banks could lend to small banks, and small banks could lend to main street. However what is happening is that the large banks are sitting on the public money to protect against their own losses or if financially well off they are looking to acquire troubled banks or their assets at bargain prices. Thus at least delaying getting money to main street. Perhaps another example that the “trickle down” republican theory does not work well. Or perhaps main street help was used to sell the public, but the real reason was to help the big banks. This would not be out of keeping with previous Bush administration moves.

Our next message will discuss whether the gov’t can make a recession painless and if it can should it?

The Act lists new Federal crimes

The Act also lists several new federal crimes. Two of the more important ones are “domestic terrorism” and “material support”.

“Domestic terrorism” extends beyond acts of violence to include any “ acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws- - - if such acts - -appears to be intended- - to influence the policy of a gov’t by intimidation or coercion” and are conducted primarily within the” U. S. (Room for protest or disagreement?)(Martin Luther King protests for instance.)

Lending material support, “to any terrorist organization designated as such by federal officials, who have complete discretion in deciding which groups have “terrorist” aims. “Material support” is broadly defined to include any, ”physical asset,” “personnel”, “training” or “expert advice or assistance.” This provision does not require proof that a person charged with this crime intended to further any terrorist activities.

try for peace not war

Why aren’t Bush and McCain

trying harder to STOP THE WAR?

One of the reasons is the Bush-McCain policy of not talking to countries or groups that they consider enemies or terrorists. The Bush-McCain policy is to only talk to countries after they have agreed to Bush-McCain demands. This position rules out any negotiations. The other party has to surrender before Bush-McCain will talk to them. RESULT STALEMATE. No progress toward peace. The purpose of negotiations is to bridge differences or workout an arrangement suitable for both sides.

Thus is in stark contrast to previous republican administration efforts. In the 1991Iraq War Secretary of State James Baker, for Bush Sr., made 32 trips to Syria. This is one of the countries Bush-McCain will not speak to. He finally achieved his purpose of getting Syria to come into the war on our side.

In 1952 General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in World War II and latter two term President, decided to run for President. At that time the US was fighting a war in North Korea. General Eisenhower said that if he was elected he would go to N.Korea to see if he could stop the fighting.

He issued a statement, “If a journey to Korea and a study of our military and political problems there CAN SAVE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER and BRING PEACE OF MIND TO ONE FAMILY—I must make the journey to Korea". Eisenhower was elected and he did go to Korea. There was no prior negotiations or agreements arranged. He was unable to stop the fighting.

But the important thought, which I think won him the election, was that here was a candidate that would speak to anyone, travel anywhere, make every possible effort to save American lives.

We should ask Senator McCain why he and George Bush are unwilling to make the same effort that Dwight Eisenhower made?

Fortunately for us Barack Obrama has the same dedication to peace that Dwight Eisenhower had.

More later.

2 Views on the Patriot Act

In looking at the Patriot Act we should keep in mind not only what the Act authorizes but what are the possibilities for abuse particularly if there is no oversight.


The Dept of Justice(DOJ) say “the ACT equips federal law enforcement with the tools they need to mount an effective coordinated campaign against our nation’s terrorist enemies.”

The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) claims that the ACT “vastly expands the gov’t’s authority to spy on its own citizens “ “while reducing checks and balances on these powers like judicial oversight, public accountability and the ability to challenge gov’t searches in court.

Obrama Leadership

OBRAMA SUGGESTIONS

These suggestions are offered to more fully capitalize on your strengths.

1)I think you want to be recognized as a LEADER WITH VISION. A leader who is in front of the curve to see opportunities to be taken and dangers to be avoided or deflected rather than one who is always “locking the barn door”,

One of the best ways to do this is to cite your warnings on vital issues. This is much more effective if you do this as a package rather than interspersed with discussions on issues.

a) Your warning on Iraq. A brief quotation from your speech. Then hit hard what you said would happen—HAPPENED.

b) Your warning on sub-prime mortgages.. A brief quotation. Then
hit hard what you said would happened—HAPPENED.

c) Your warning on global warming. A brief quotation. Then hit hard
what you said would happened is happening.

d) Another example is fine but not necessary.

Always tie McCain to Geo Bush. i.e. They are trying to give you a hard time about your willingness to meet with foreign dictators. You have a wonderful ally whose name you have never mentioned and I can’t understand why. His name is Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in WW II and two term republican president. This is a name respected even in republican circles

When gen-Pres Eisenhower was running for President in 1952 the US was fighting a war in N. Korea. Gen Eisenhower said that if elected he would go to N. Korea to try and stop the fighting. I only remember the first few words of his statement but it began “If I can save the life of one American” and it continued with the thought his effort would be worth while. This line is a showstopper.

Gen Eisenhower was elected and he did go to Korea. There was no prior negotiations or agreements arranged. He was unable to stop the fighting.

But the important thought, which I think won him the election, was that here was a candidate that would speak to anyone, travel anywhere, make every possible effort to save American lives. They say lightning never strikes twice but it might be worth a try.

Then ask Senator McCain why he and George Bush are unwilling to make the same effort that Dwight Eisenhower made?

More later.

To restore confidence Bush. Cheney should resign

TO RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN OUR ECONOMY

PRES. GEORGE BUSH AND VP DICK cHENEY SHOULD RESIGN

The quickest and only way to improve economic confidence is for Congress to form a committee to ask Prs Bush and Vice-Pres Cheney to resign for the good of the country.

The appointment by the Attorney General of of a special investigator to investigate the firing of seven district attorneys will probably be the first of many to investigate the wrong doings of the Bush administration.

The public senses that and has lost all confidence. A change of leadership is the only way out.

In addition it is a necessity that any arrangement made should take the PROGRAM AND ANY MONIES COLLECTED OUT OF THE TREASURY TO A NEW ENTITY.

Lastly remember Pres.Bush has a history of exaggerating dangers and trying to rush through laws that the public and many legislators later regretted. BE CAREFUL. Take your time. INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY.

WHAT HAS THE PATRIOT ACT DONE?

4th Amendment and the Patriot Act Part I

USA PATRIOT ACT (USAPA) introduced changes which significantly increase the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US. These new powers included criminal as well terrorism activities. The ACT did not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Probable cause and judicial review were frequently replaced by certification by law enforcement officials. In this process a law official appears before the court and certifies that the requested procedure is for a criminal or terrorism investigation. The Court has to approve it. There is no judicial opinion involved. Other methods used to avoid judicial review are the allowable use of subpoenas and search warrants.

What we should be AWARE of?

Where is the conservative Blog 5A
Supreme Court taking us?

What should we be aware of?

Chief Justice Roberts in an article written in 1993 wrote, ”A relaxed doctrine of ‘standing’. would transform the courts into an ombudsmen of the administrative bureaucracy, a role for which they are ill-suite both institutionally and as matter of democratic theory.” In another.” article written in 1993 Justice Roberts wrote, “The one thing(Congress) may not due is ask the courts in effect to exercise (legislative) oversight responsibility at the behest of any John Q. Public whom happens to be interested in the issue.”

Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense..

THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE COIN. Any increase in judicial restraint increases the power of the executive, namely the President. The more the Court restrains the weaker the oversight and the greater the executive power, and vice versa..

Our system of gov’t was called a system of checks and balances. It was based on a English idea that “mixed govt is best”. Each of the branches of gov’t, legislative, executive. and judicial would keep informed and check on the other two.

The quotations from Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts above would indicate that if the conservatives continue to get their way the Supreme Court practically gives up the Court’s oversight role as a counter balance to the other two branches of gov’t.

On certain issues such as greater transparency in govt, trying to maintain some checks and balances, guarding against executive overreach, and civil liberties the “liberals” and more liberal conservatives can come together .to make a majority.

This is particularly important because the congressional republicans in recent terms has shown no interest in an oversight role of the executive branch. They have acted like a cheering section for whatever the executive wanted. Diogenes believes the Congress has neglected and abandoned its constitutional duties.

Probable Supremer Court Oitlook

Where is the conservative B log 4C
Supreme Court taking us?

What is the probable Court outlook ?

Court history shows that the periods of conservatism far outnumber progressive periods. The makeup of the present court will result in many years of conservative outlook. At the present there are no conservative Judges ready to retire. The next Judge to retire will probably be liberal Justice Stevens now 87 but still in good health. If a democrat is President the court could maintain its present make up. If a Republican is President the court would probably move further to the right.

What does this mean for us the public?

It means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals. including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.

The question maybe what rights maybe lost. This also may be an unduly pessimistic outlook. In this age turnabouts sometime come quickly and surprisingly fast.

The Court limits public access

Where is the conservative Blog 4B
Supreme Court taking us?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The court led by Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues. Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.

The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff asked.

Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be affected.

During .the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize for Wall Steet banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.

The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.

Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally. except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.

Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another, where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud,

who gets thru the courthouse door?

Where is the conservative Blog 4A
Supreme Court taking us?

Why is the Court limiting public access?

In a July 2, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal writer Jess Bivins noted, "The Supreme Court delivered this term a series of decisions conservatives have long yearned for”.Decisions then listed.

“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather. it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place. In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’.. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.

One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough and tumble of the free market”. The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. When interpreting statutes the conservatives have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court. When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.

When a suit is dismissed preventing the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”.

.

the World turned upsideedown

Where is the conservative Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Th original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.

The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.

Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,

The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.

In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.

The World turned UPSIDE-down

Where is the conservative Blog 3B
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down. II

The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.

The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,
and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.

Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason for fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,

The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 1 0th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.

In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.

The World turned Up-side Down

Where is the conservative Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.

The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.

The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.

For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.

The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.

This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.

Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.

President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B

The World turned upside down

Where is the conservative Blog3A
Supreme Court taking us?
The World turned upside down.

The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.

The Court is accomplishing this by a very stern, “mean”, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.

For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.

The Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms .Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.

This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.

Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.

President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers. Con’t Blog 3B

Is the Court doing away with civil liberties?

IS THE COURT TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

In Employment Div V Smith (1990) the Supreme Court’s decision could be a threat to the Bill of Rights. First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise there of”. In 1963, Sherbert V Verner,the Court ruled that the free exercise clause did compel an exemption unless the state could advance a “compelling reason>” not to.


In Employment Div V Smith” this rule was overturned, Justice Scalia replaced it as follows, The free exercise does not require the state to accommodate a claim of free exercise”,unless the rule purposefully imposes on religion. Justice Scalia argued, “To make an individuals obligation to obey a law contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling” contradicts constitutional tradition and common sense. Judge Scalia noted that although religious beliefs are absolutely immune from gov’t interference. Religiously motivated conduct is not. Therefore EVEN THOUGH THE
LAW MIGHT ‘INCIDENTALLY” RESTRICT A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IT DOES NOT RELIEVE A PERSON FROM OBEYING A VALID AND NEUTRAL LAW.

Critics argued that the rule fundamentally undercuts the whole idea of the free exercise clause. Justice O’Conner wrote,” A person who is barred from engaging in religious motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion.” Justice Scalia suggested going to the legislature for a remedy.

However the possibility of small groups influencing the legislature to pass legislation is very small. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect small groups and individuals against, “The tyranny of the majority”.

The danger is that every legislative session the legislature could change the Bill of Rightsby passing a law that does not name any group but would in practicality restrict or prevent certain activities. Net result—no bill of rights.

The Rehnquist L egacy

Where is the consevative Supreme COURT TAKING US?

By 1788 James Madison realized that the public desire for a Bill of Right could not be ignored.. As a result 10 Amendments to the constitution called the” Bill of Rights” were ratified in 1791. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect individual rights from violation by the Federal Government.

William Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon in 1986 . An examination of Rehnquist’’s voting record over 30 years brings out some very surprising information.

An analysis of Chief Justice Rehnquist.s decisions show 1) in cases between individuals and the government, Rehnquist almost always voted for the gov’t against the individual, the opposite of the purpose of the Bill of rights. 2)In cases of the state VS the federal gov.t Rehnquist usually favored the state. (3) In cases where the Federal gov.t wanted to exercise Rehnquist voted against exercise.

According to Anan analysis by Geoffrey Stone law Professor at the University of Chicago. showed that Justice Renqquist in 30 years participated 259 case decisions concerning Freedom of Speech or Press; First Amendment. Justice Rehnquist supported the First Amendment claim 20% of the time. An average of all the Justices Rehnquist served with supported the claim 53 % of the time.

63 unanimous decisions were removed from the 269 cases. Unanimous cases do not describe the Justices. individual views. With these cases deleted Rehnquist rejected 92% of the free speech first amendment claims.
Rehnquist rejected 100% of the free press claims. In 30 years Rehnquist never found once for the free press claims. Rehnquist was by far the least likely Justice to support the first amendment.

Industry Appointents,Why FDA failing

Bush Administration Policy Why is Food and Drug FAILING Blog 8 of 8
to protect the public’s health

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. .Why is the Food and Drug so inept?

Most Bush appointments come from the industry that is being regulated or inspected. Critics question the objectivity of these people. This source of appointments may well set up a conflict of interest for the appointee.

Bush administration thinking is that government oversight is bad. In many areas that effect the public the Bush policy is to let the industry police and/ or inspect itself. Those areas that have government regulation are so under funded and under manned that they can not accomplish their mission. The personnel that is in charge is a believer in this approach. In the case of consumer protection of toys the person in charge tried to reject additional funds and personnel to help the agency’s do its supposed job.

Conflictsof interest, Why FDA failing

INDUSTRY APPOINTMENTS-CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. .Why is the Food and Drug Admi so inept?

Fourth, most Bush appointments come from the industry that is being regulated or inspected. Critics question the objectivity of these people. This source of appointments may well set up a conflict of interest for the appointee.

Lastly the companies that have had troubled products are trying to avoid legal and financial responsibility. They claim that because the FDA approved their product they are protected against any claims. Formerly the courts did not favor this approach. However recently the Supreme Court gave this protection to some medical devices. A case is coming up soon before the Supreme Court that may determine if FDA approval will shield drug products as well. Considering the present condition of Food & Drug this seems like a very dubious proposition.

Lack of plant inspection-FDA fails

A LARGE FOOD AND DRUG PROBLEM

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. .Why is the Food and Drug so inept?

Another reason the FDA is failing is a lack of timely plant inspections. Most domestic firms are inspected every two years according to Rep. John Shimkus® Illinois. As more ingredients come from outside the US the picture is very different. There are 3,200 foreign drug sources according to gov’t auditors. Last year the FDA inspected 30 of these drug sources, less than 1%. At this rate it would take 100 years to inspect the whole 3200. Most of these sources have never been inspected. This fiscal year the FDA plans to inspect 50 foreign sources. At this rate of inspection it would take 60 years to inspect the whole list. This fiscal year about $10 mil has been allocated for foreign inspections.

Rep John L. Barton® Texas said ballpark estimates from Republican aides are that the FDA needs 500 more inspectors. The Cov’t Accountability Office said the cost of such by- yearly inspections would be about $70 mil annually. Whatever the actual cost or number of inspectors, we see an agency grossly undermanned and under funded.

Foreign plant inspection lag, FDA fails

MORE REASONS FOR PROBLEMS-FACTS

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. Why is the Food and Drug Admi so inept?

Another reason the FDA is failing is a lack of timely plant inspections. Most domestic firms are inspected every two years according to Rep. John Shimkus® Illinois. As more ingredients come from outside the US the picture is very different. There are 3,200 foreign drug sources according to gov’t auditors. Last year the FDA inspected 30 of these drug sources,less than 1%. At this rate it would take 100 years to inspect the whole 3200. Most of these sources have never been inspected. This fiscal year the FDA plans to inspect 50 foreign sources. At this rate of inspection it would take 60 years to inspect the whole list. This fiscal year about $10 mil has been allocated for foreign inspections.

Rep John L. Barton (R) Texas said ballpark estimates from Republican aides are that the FDA needs 500 more inspectors. The Cov’t Accountability Office said the cost of such by- yearly inspections would be about $70 mil annually. Whatever the actual cost or number of inspectors, we see an agency grossly undermanned and under funded.

.

Why is Food and Drug FAILING 6

WHy THESE PROBLENS?---FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Mistakes or omissions by the FDA have caused serious physical and mental problems to the public and have even been fatal in many cases. Why is the Food and Drug Admi so inept?

There are several reasons. One is how the FDA operates. The FDA structural system is deeply flawed. The FRA does not have its own laboratories. The FDA DEPENDS ON THE MANUFACTURERS TO NOTIFY IT WHEN THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR POSSIBLE TROUBLES WITH MEDICINES.

This is a common method used by the Bush Adm. Their thought is to minimize the role of gov’t. The idea is to let the industry police itself. This method of oversight creates an OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST. After a company has usually invested several million dollars and perhaps several years of time it is very difficult for the management to admit to large health problems.

Generally a company will publicize the good results and minimize the questionable or trouble parts. In some cases if appears that the company has deliberately hidden results that they feel may cause trouble to patients and alert gov’t regulators. See next blog..

FDATrouble with more DRUGS

STILL MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The list of troubled medicines goes on. After 19 sudden deaths and 26 reports of other problems such as strokes and fast heart rates The American Heart Association has recommended that children given Ritulin, Adderal and Concertin for attention deficit disorder be screened. The Heart Association now recommends a through exam with an electrocardiogram and family history. About2.5 million children and 1.5 million adults take medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

On Friday, April 25,”In fury and despair people harmed by Lasik eye surgery told federal advisors of severe eye pain and blurred vision. The advisors recommended that the gov’t worn more clearly about the risks of the hugely popular operation”. About 700,000 Americans yearly undergo this operation. Most people do benefit according to the Chicago Tribune article. However about 25% are not good candidates. One percent report serious difficulties. The FDA is promising a major study to better understand who has had bad outcomes.

What are the reasons FDA is failing us? SEE Blog 6

MORE VIOXX AND THE FDA

VIOXX AND OTHERS--MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

Dr. Eric Topal, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, in a column posted the week of April 8th on the New England Journal of Medicine’s web site called for a congressional review of the “catastrophic” events”. “The senior executives at Merck and the leadership of the FDA share responsibility for not having taken action and not recognizing they are accountable for the public health.” Dr. Topal has also stated, “The FDA didn’t do anything. They were passive here.” Remember Dr. Graham linked Vioxx to 27,000 deaths.

There are other interesting aspects of the Vioxx case. Dr.David Graham the. Lead scientist mentioned in Blog 2, told the Senate Finance Committee investigators that the FDA tried to BLOCK publication of his findings, according to Senator Grassly chair of the Senate Finance Committee. “Dr. Graham described an environment where he was ‘ostracized’, ‘subject to veiled threats’ and”intimidation’. Dr Graham showed Senator Grasslay e-mails that appear to support Dr. Graham contention that his superiors suggested watering down the conclusions.

It APEARS THAT THE SUPERIORS AT THE FDA WERE MORE INTERESTING IN PROTECTING THE MERCK CO THAN INPROTECTING THE PUBLIC.

More on Merck and other troubled drugs in Blog 5

ADVICE TO THE NATION

Rep. Deborah Price-
ADVICE TO THE NATION
The purpose of our blog

Rep. Deborah Price, a republican from Ohio, was elected to the US House of Representatives four times. She is not running in 08. She said she has family obligations and finds it not as interesting as a member of the minority.

Her comments on politics were very interesting. She has little hope of a shift in campaign tactics unless there is a public backlash. The last campaign convinced her that negative ads work.

“I don’t think anything will change until Americans revolt and get it into their heads they need to be informed voters instead of just listening to the paid political ads.”

We hope our blog will help you to be a more informed voter BY GIVING YOU SOME OF THE FACT BEHIND THE NEWS.

Food and Drug-The VIOXX STORY

MORE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

One of the largest and most well known failures of the Food and Drug is the Vioxx .case. An April 8, 2008 article in USA TODAY reports that FDA researcher David Graham, a lead scientist on a Vioxx study linked Vioxx to 27,000 “heart sudden cardiac deaths nationwide from the time Vioxx came on the market in 1999 through 2003”.

Vioxx was one of several medicines developed to be safer than traditional anti-inflationary drugs that sometimes cause gastrointestinal hemorrhages and can result in death. However a study completed in 1999 shortly after FDA approval showed better GI safety than naproxen but ”an alarming increase in cardiovascular problems”.

For the next five years Merck manufacturer of Vioxx continued to minimize unfavorable findings. Finally, upon completion of David Graham’s database analysis of 1,400,000 patients that showed a substantially higher risk of heart problems with Vioxx, the Merck Co. then removed Vioxx from the market.

The Ortha Evra Tragedy A

Why is the FDA failing To protect the public’s health?

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

The Ortho Evra case is the latest in a series of failures to protect he public against the serious health hazards of powerful medicines. This situation has caused experts and others to question the Food and Drug’s commitment, and the present Federal Administration’ s commitment to protect and preserve the nation’s health.

It was six years after the companies’ own researchers found that the Ortho Evra birth control patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills, even before Ortho had been approved by the FDA, At last six years later the public was notified.. In the six-year interval, the larger amount of estrogen increased the risk of blood clot’s and strokes. The Food and Drug Agency received reports of at least 50 deaths associated with the drug according to an article in the April 6. 2008
New York Times.

In addition it appears that the Ortho people deliberately camouflaged the increased estrogen by reducing the actual figures by 40% .This correction was mentioned only once in a 435 page report to the FDA and then in a complex mathematical formula according to an April 14, 2008 New York Times article..
3,000 Women and their families have sued Johnson and Johnson claiming that ORTHO EVRA patches caused heart attacks, strokes, and in some cases death.

How could this happen? Why didn’t the FDA no catch this error and do something about It.?

In Blog 2,3,4 and 5 we discuss several other hazardous mistakes. by the FDA. In Blog 6 we have a brief look at the FDA and its support from the Federal gov’t. Blog 7 explains how the Johnson & Johnson Co, makers or Ortho, are trying to avoid any legal and financial responsibility for the deaths and illnesses caused by the larger estrogen dosage.

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex based wage discrimination.

Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. plant in Gadsen, AL. She received an anonymous tip that she was making $6,500 less than the lowest paid man who had her job... Lilly sued. This looked like an open and shut case. (see above)

However the law said she had to file her discrimination complaint wthin 180 days of the alleged unlawful discrimination. Since the 1990’s nine federal circuit courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had ruled that the 180s started every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 180 days began with Lilly’s first discriminatory payment about 20 years earlier. This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.

Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough support in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.

President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.

This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers.

ARE YOU PROTECTED AGAINST TERRORISTS

WHO IS PRESIDENT BUSH PROTECTING?

IT CERTAINLY IS NOT THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

1)At present, six years after 9/11, 95% of the shipping containers entering the U.S. are not inspected. This information is from Ken Gabril Senior Research Scholar and Engineering Manager at the Maryland Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson ® Tx who has sponsored legislation to correct this situation reports that 11,000 containers enter the U.S. each year. This means that approximately 10,450 are not examined.

IF someone places a bundle of dynamite, radioactive material, poison gas, deadly germs, etc. in a shipping container, 95 times out 100 it would reach its destination in the U. S.

2) On Sept. 6, six years after 9/1, the national newspaper USA TODAY published a report by the Homeland Security Dept. Inspector General. The report “blasted” the Transportation Security Administration for air cargo security. Passenger airlines carry 7,500 tons of cargo daily in storage areas under the passenger cabins. The report said passenger planes are vulnerable to attack.

The report said the TSA has too few cargo inspectors, an ineffective database to track violations and vague regulations for screening cargo. Only a small % of airline cargo is physically inspected. Inspector General Skinner said the TSA system ”increases the opportunities (to put) explosives. incendiaries and other dangerous devices on passenger aircraft.” Further research reveals that Fed-Ex, UPS, and USPS parcels are not examined.

3) Airport checkpoints remain a weak link in the security chain more than six years after 9/11 according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY. Two million airline passengers travel each day in the US. At O ‘Hare airport in Chicago 60% of the simulated explosives carried by agents of the Transportation Security Adm were undetected, in Los Angeles it was 75%. Other airports do better but overall there are large security gaps at airport checkpoints.

Checkpoint difficulties are the high volume of fliers, the small amount of time, 30 sec, at O’Hare, to examine the flier and his carry on luggage. the slow pace of in deploying costly new screening technologies to replace 1950-era x-ray machines, privacy concerns about gov’t gathering intelligence information on fliers, and high employment turnover in the screener ranks.

4) About 21,000 people who should not have been allowed to enter the US came thru the 326 legal air,land and sea entry points from Oct 1, 2005 to Sept.30, 2006, according to Jayson Ahern Custom and Border Protection Commissioner. This figure is based on a statistical estimate as we don’t know the exact number. 200.000 people were refused entry to the US.
.
Robert Diogenes believes that fixing these gaping holes in our security system should have first priority. All the information gained thru illegal wiretapping and various intelligence methods will NOT DO US ANY GOOD IF TERRORISTS CAN EASILY ENTER OUR COUNTRY BY LAND, SEA, OR AIR.