Posts Made By: James Brown

Instead of attacking my intelligence or my level of informed-ness how about trying to rebut the points I made in my original post:

1. "Since WWII the press has relished in the free reporting of news disfavorable to the government. The coverage of the Vietnam war, Watergate, Monica Lewinsky and most recently the coverage of our inevitable setbacks and failures in Iraq come readily to mind. I am not naive enough to believe that the government is never able to keep a secret from the press, but what has that got to do with the press not being free? Also, I think that such well kept government secrets are the exception, with leaks being the rule."

2. The only alternative to private enterprise and market forces is public ownership (government ownership of the press ) or government regulation and support in contravention of market forces. Such a course would hardly be the route to an unencumbered and accurate press which is free to be critical of the government. To paraphrase someone, our press may not be a perfect solution to the need for an informed public, but it is the best solution. Sure quite a bit of garbage gets published. Certainly some truths get obscured. Caveat Emptor!

- Jim -

"The stem cells were taken from the child's own body."

In which case these cells were absolutely adult stem cells. Adult stem cells have successfully been used therapeutically for several years now. Adult stem cell therapies are not politically controversial. Adult stem cell therapies present no ethical concerns.

Are you actually ignorant of the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells? Or are you merely trying to make a political point with facts you know to be bogus? Shame on you. - Jim -

That story is both an oldie and a goody. You can read about the roots of this particularly entertaining legend here:

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp

- Jim -

There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there on this whole issue. The first thing to keep in mind is that the “Canadian” drugs of concern are made in the USA by US pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical R&D is phenomenally expensive. The pharmaceutical companies must recover the R&D plus profit or there is no incentive to develop new drugs. Since the risk of a failure in pharmaceutical research is extremely high, the ultimate profits received on a winning drug have to be correspondingly high or investment will occur in less risky ventures instead.

Once a drug is approved, the pharmaceutical company must recover its costs (R&D + marketing + basic research + overhead + the huge administrative & legal approval process costs) for both the new drug plus a share of these costs for the many dead ends and failures that never make it to market. This is the unavoidable nature of the pharmaceutical business. The costs are recovered by selling the new drugs with a substantial mark-up. Not everyone negotiates the same price though.

The Canadian government negotiates an extremely favorable price from the US drug companies because they can. They are a large buying group. The drug companies could say no, we will not sell to you at that price; however the drug companies do make some profit on the Canadian transactions. The drug companies do a cost benefit analysis and agree to sell because the Canadian deal is deemed more beneficial than foregoing that market. The Canadian deal is negotiated based upon the relatively small size of the Canadian market though. The terms of the Canadian deal do not mean that the drug company can be profitable if a new drug is sold to the entire world at the Canadian price. The drug companies are also contemporaneously negotiating better prices with the U.S. insurers and wholesale pharmacies. It is the whole worldwide income stream on a new product that determines the profitability of a pharmaceutical company.

It is indisputable that if the drug companies sold to everyone at the price negotiated by Canada, profits would go down and R&D investment would be curbed. How much? No one knows for sure.

It is also indisputable that across the board price fixing will curb US pharmaceutical R&D. How much will it curb R&D? It depends where the price is fixed, no one knows for sure.

Similarly, large scale re-importation of drugs sold at a very favorable price to Canada will cut into the profits made in the US, resulting in the pharmaceutical companies’ refusal to sell to the Canadian government at the deflated price. Canada could then negotiate a higher price, or deny its citizens (socialized healthcare) the benefit of a new drug. Either option is viable.

So when McCain calls for laws allowing the importation of cheap Canadian drugs he is playing pure politics. He has to know that large scale importation will result in either the elimination of the key drugs from Canada, or a rise in the price Canada has to pay, such that re-importation is a non-issue. Similarly, when Bush raises the “We don’t know if those drugs are safe” canard, he is simply lying. Both sides should understand the basic economics of the situation and acknowledge that the only way the pharmaceutical companies can afford (and continue) to sell new drugs to Canada at a deflated price is if this market remains small and does not dilute the more profitable US market. - Jim -

If Mike cared at all about the Democratic Party (as opposed to his ego) he would lay low. {Ha! like that's gonna happen!}

His propaganda piece swayed more voters to the Pres. than otherwise. Mike arguably cost Kerry the election. - Jim -

I love my Teegul for my PST. I have it set up with a stationary eyepiece (as will hopefully be shown in this link):

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=219129&poll_id=&news_id=&page=


- Jim -

Ray, thank you for the second chance. Even though I am sure some press self censoring occurs, you are sort of correct about my beliefs. Self censoring is certainly not the rule. We can identify two broad ways in which the press errs:

1. The press self-censors and buries a story that should have been published. I am not sure what is the benefit to the press in doing this. It is against their own economic self interest. As you know, I do not buy all of the "evil-corporations control everything" conspiracy stuff you have linked to in the past.

2. The press publishes a story that is false or misleading. mistakes are made in the rush for a scoop etc.

I think that #2 is a vastly more common error than #1.

- Jim -

Jim Babcock said:

It must be a hoax by the far right wing conspiracy and the biased right wing press

Now I think you and Patrick have hit the nail on the head. I know for a fact that the press intentionally ignores our illicit covert operations and buries such stories. I know this because I have read it HERE ON ASTROMART! In addition, it is common knowledge that the press is owned by "corporations" You know what that means. Wink-Wink-Nudge-Nudge. Not that I'm a conspiracy nut or anything. But I certainly don't see how anyone with more than a pea brain could honestly disagree. - Jim -

Rod Kaufman said:

Would it not have been appropriate and timely to offer a olive branch to nations alienated by our decision to go to war in Iraq?

"And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom’s enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies’ defeat."

GWB 1/20/05

Rod Kaufman said:

Bush never used the word,"Iraq" in his speech yesterday. Not one single reference to it.

The word Iraq, no. Reference? Most certainly.

"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.

My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America’s resolve, and have found it firm."

GWB 1/20/05