Last week Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army doctor, went on a shooting rampage and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas.
As the first reports came in, I fought the temptation to jump to any conclusions about a man with a Muslim name. There were many possible explanations, but the most obvious one, the one I thought of first, was religion. And as the investigation continues, the shootings do seem to have been another example of killing in the name of religion.
Today, in his speech at Fort Hood, President Obama also invoked religion:
It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.
I could only shake my head. In the wake of a violent act of religious extremism, Obama responded with still more religion. To an act condoned and encouraged by radical Islam and promising reward in the afterlife, Obama replied with the righteous condemnation and eternal hell of Christianity.
No, it’s not “hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.” It was born of religion. And though the killer will most assuredly be met with justice in this world, in the next who’s to say whether he’ll meet Christianity’s hell or Islam’s paradise. Or anything at all.
© 2009 Pied Type
I’ve written before about the evils of Big Pharma and expressed my outrage at President Obama’s behind-the-scenes deal to leave Big Pharma’s big profits out of the planning for health care reform. But until now, I’d only seen bits and pieces of the total picture.
Now comes David Evans at Bloomberg.com, with his excruciatingly detailed account of how far Big Pharma is and has been willing to go to make a buck. Or a billion. It can’t have been easy compiling all those numbers (really big numbers) into a history of Big Pharma’s profits and penalties ($7 billion in penalties and fines just since May 2004).
It’s a long story and tough, discouraging reading. The drug companies keep breaking the laws. The courts keep levying fines. Yet even as a company is settling a suit and paying a fine, it is launching some new campaign that intentionally violates the same laws. The fines are simply part of the cost of doing business, and a relatively small part at that.
The violations almost always involve aggressively, knowingly promoting a drug for “off-label” uses — those not approved by the FDA. That’s illegal. But the drug companies do it anyway because there are huge profits to be made; the fines and penalties incurred are mere speed bumps in comparison.
Evans reaches a conclusion that no one wants to hear:
One reason drug companies keep breaking the law may be because prosecutors and judges have been unwilling to use the ultimate sanction — a felony conviction that would render a company’s drugs ineligible for reimbursement by state health programs and federal Medicare.
This would be a potential death sentence for a drug company.
Evans warns that busy doctors often don’t or can’t keep up with the latest information on approved vs. off-label uses of drugs and that some don’t even know the difference between “on-label” and “off-label.” Worse, many get their information from the drug company reps.
Until someone, somehow puts the brakes on Big Pharma, the only thing consumers can do is be aware of the problem and educate themselves about the drugs they are taking. Always ask the prescriber whether a prescription is for an FDA-approved use, and if not, whether strong evidence supports using the drug, particularly if it can be dangerous.
Meantime, health care reform marches on through Congress while Big Pharma execs keep marching to the bank, undeterred by warnings, fines, penalties, adverse court rulings, professional ethics, or personal conscience.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment, an eleventh-hour addition to the health care reform bill passed yesterday by the U.S. House, prevents any plans in the proposed health insurance exchange from receiving federal subsidies if they cover abortion, and prohibits abortion coverage in the new public option. In other words, millions of women will be denied coverage for a legal medical procedure, and many who have it now will lose it if their plans are included in the exchange.
Supporters of the amendment presented a twisted logic about how women could buy separate insurance riders for abortion coverage if they wanted it. Never mind that such riders don’t exist.
If you are so inclined, there’s a letter on the Planned Parenthood website you can send to President Obama, urging him honor his pledge and to stand up for women’s health care as the reform debate moves to the Senate. Or you can go to Congress.org, a great website that makes it easy to write to your elected representatives anytime about anything.
The anti-abortion activists won’t stop their efforts to restrict women’s rights and freedom of choice. They will insinuate themselves into anything and everything they can in an effort to impose their religious beliefs on every woman in the country. If you disagree with them, go send that letter to the president and urge others to do so. This particular fight’s not over till a final bill leaves the Senate and goes to the president’s desk.
And don’t bother coming back at me with the argument that you oppose abortion and shouldn’t have to support it with your tax dollars — not until you figure out a way to exempt my tax dollars from supporting faith-based initiatives and wars I oppose.
Dr. Nancy
How do you address your doctor? Say her name is Dr. Nancy Smith. Do you call her Dr. Smith? Nancy? Or Dr. Nancy?
I may be in a tiny minority, but that Dr. Nancy thing drives me nuts. If you’re not on familiar terms, Dr. Smith seems the proper form of address. If you know her well, or socially as well as professionally, then Nancy seems quite acceptable. And certainly fair’s fair if the doctor calls you by your first name. After all, you are both adults.
Dr. Phil
But Dr. Nancy? No, sorry. To me that’s either a silly affectation adopted by the doctor or a form one would suggest a child use. You can imagine my distress then, at Dr. Nancy Snyderman’s show on MSNBC being called “Dr. Nancy.” The adults she interviews often address her as Dr. Nancy. Ugh. Ditto Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura. Ugh. Ugh.
Dr. Laura
Maybe the usage is a regionalism I’ve not encountered and it sounds perfectly proper and acceptable to large segments of the population. Or maybe it’s the result of an adult clinging to a childhood habit. Or maybe it comes when an adult patient is trying to be friendly but still show some respect.
Whatever the reason, to my ear it sounds silly and childish. Sorry, I can’t help it. That’s just the way I roll.
The woods are made for the hunters of dreams,
The brooks for the fishers of song;
To the hunters who hunt for the gunless game
The streams and the woods belong.
– from “The Bloodless Sportsman” by Sam Walter Foss
I prattle. I ramble. I babble on … and on … and on. I know I do. And I apologize for doing it here just because I can. You can’t imagine the number of posts that never got posted, just because some inner voice screamed, “Enough, you stupid old woman! You’re doing it again.”
I have a similar problem with conversation, what little I engage in these days. Once I finally do start talking with someone, it’s like a dam breaking! Argh. Later I get so embarrassed about having done it, I swear never to open my mouth again. If only I could throttle it while I’m talking. I used to do it with my dad and he’d just laugh and say I was excited. Hmm.
Anyway, what was it I was going to write about? Oh, yes — discipline. Writing discipline. I need some. I should impose some. Maybe by trying to adhere to certain writing forms, by making a game of it, a challenge. Limit my posts to x number of words (probably better readership than the long posts anyway). Stick to a certain poetry form, maybe. Haiku! (I blame Sank for the idea.) Now there’s some discipline!
I ran a little experiment the other day. How long would a 100-word post be? What would it look like? I pulled up an old draft and chopped chunks off the bottom until the WP counter showed 100 words. (If you’re curious, the first two paragraphs of this post total 124 words.) Nope, not likely to try that very often.
Then sometimes, like right now, it occurs to me that maybe I’m not really writing here. Maybe I’m just thinking out loud. Or talking to “imaginary friends.” Uh oh. Or maybe … doh! … maybe I’m talking to myself! That’s supposed to be the first sign …
“Enough, you stupid old woman! You’re doing it again.”
The USS New York steams into New York harbor
The USS New York, with 7.5 tons of salvaged World Trade Center steel forged into her bow stem, sailed into New York harbor today.
I had no idea she was coming. Or that she’d been under construction in Louisiana since 2004. But she arrived “home” today. I cried when I heard about her.
Magnificent, isn’t she?
Her motto is “Strength forged through sacrifice. Never forget.” Her crest includes the Twin Towers, a ship’s bow, a phoenix, the colors of NYC’s first responders, and drops of blood for those who perished on 9/11. Her official website is here and the website for her November 7 commissioning is here. Both are chock full of information about the ship and how she came to be.
She’ll be open for free public visits while she’s in New York. Wish I lived close enough to go see her.
_________
Note: I dug around for more than an hour, trying to confirm exactly what the “bow stem” is, if it isn’t the bow itself. I finally found this picture of New York’s bow stem on a shipbuilding site. The red part sits below the waterline. The white-primed section, according to another site, is the actual bow stem containing the WTC steel.
USS New York's bow stem
Wolf 716 during a check-up in Yellowstone
The last time I wrote about the gray wolves, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had upheld the Bush decree removing them from the endangered species list. He spared only those in Wyoming, the ones in Yellowstone. After May 4, 2009, the wolves in Idaho and Montana would once again be legal prey for hunters. I was deeply disappointed, despite thinking the Yellowstone packs were safe and knowing that legal challenges to the hunts were being pursued.
Somehow the bureaucrats thought state lines and park boundaries would protect the wolves. Hunters and ranchers knew better, and all over Idaho and Montana, they began preparing for the fall hunts.
A few days ago, on October 27, the LA Times reported that the southern Montana wolf hunt had been stopped just one day after it started because the quota had already been exceeded. Two days earlier, they reported that despite the protection extended to the Yellowstone wolves, four of the famous Cottonwood pack’s ten wolves, all the breeding adults, were dead. They had strayed into Montana, into a wilderness area bordering the park on the north. The alpha female, known as Wolf 527, and her daughter, Wolf 716, were shot despite the fact they were near the park and wearing radio collars. They were, after all, in Montana. Shooting them there was perfectly legal. Even if it meant the destruction of the pack and an abrupt end to years of ongoing research, study, and data gathering.
Reporter Kim Murphy’s story is long, detailed — and heartbreaking if you care about the wolves. To her credit, she balances her story with comments from hunters and ranchers. How you interpret them is, of course, up to you.
And in closing: Wolf 716 is being mounted for display in the hunting lodge of the “sportsman” who (with his wife’s help) shot her, a man who happens to be a Montana hunting guide. Great publicity, that. I wonder how he’ll spin the story. Will he tell visitors the big black wolf he bagged was one of Yellowstone’s famous Cottonwood pack? Will he tell them she was so used to the presence of humans, she showed no fear and openly approached him? Will he, for the sake of accuracy and realism, leave her radio collar in place?
___________
Please join the Defenders of Wildlife and thousands of others in asking Washington to reconsider their misguided policies and put the wolves back on the endangered species list. You can sign the petition here.
Okay, what’s the delay with Obama’s decision about troops in Afghanistan? He’s been getting his Afghani ducks in a row for months. I’m all for careful consideration, a gathering of facts, a seeking of advice, and all that. But enough is enough. While we’ve waited and he’s cogitated, Americans have continued to die in Afghanistan. And for what? Will 40,000 more American targets in that country stop the dying?
I hope the president isn’t doing what I’ve sometimes done myself — delay a difficult decision in the hope that some external event will make the decision. And I hope he doesn’t do something else I’ve sometimes done — not commit fully to either option, but try to take a middle road between the two. Or, as some have framed it in this case, send some additional troops to Afghanistan, but nowhere near the numbers asked for by the generals. Just enough to appear to be doing something.
History — very recent history, unfortunately — shows that halfway measures can be worse than none at all. A partial commitment, some troops but not an overwhelming force, is worse than nothing. People die, and keep dying, because the goal — if one was ever defined — is simply unachievable without the necessary manpower. (I hope the president has studied the Powell Doctrine.)
Just a few days ago, 18 more dead Americans were brought home from Afghanistan. The president, to his credit, was there to honor them. Maybe, finally, he understands the situation.
Enough, Mr. President. It’s time for a decision. And it seems to me it’s pretty simple. Even the kids understand. Go big, or go home.
