All modern art begins to appear comprehensible and in a way great when it is interpreted as an attempt to instill youthfulness into an ancient world.
Categories
We want safe foods and drugs. But should we want the Food and Drug Administration? Or more regulation from it?
We can use third-party investigations of the nature and effects of pharmaceuticals; but a government agency doing the investigating sure has its drawbacks. The bureaucracy’s coercive regulations and costly mandates should certainly not trump individual judgments about whether one may use a drug.
The FDA exists, however, and its massive presence in modern medicine isn’t going away any time soon. Luckily, some of its decisions are better than others. And now that it has authorized sale of the painkiller Zohydro ER, we can say it made the right call here.
The rightness of the decision is highlighted rather than contradicted by mounting political pressure to reverse it.
U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, a Republican, are among those demanding that Zohydro be outlawed. Their main complaint seems to be that the drug’s very effectiveness makes it more addictive, and more prone to abuse, than other painkillers. Officeholders from 29 states have chimed in to demand a ban.
I don’t know the ratio of benefits to risks in taking this drug. I know that if I’m writhing in pain, and other painkillers can’t do much to alleviate it, but Zohydro ER can, I want the freedom to decide for myself whether the benefits are worth the risks.
We have the right to make such decisions about our own lives.
In the meantime, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg deserves credit for resisting political demands that the agency rescind its approval.
My prescription for her? Don’t back down.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Estonian blow-up, Hayek’s birthday
On May 8, 1899, Austrian-English economist and philosopher Friedrich August von Hayek was born. He signed the bulk of his books written in the English language as “F.A. Hayek,” and is best known for “The Road to Serfdom,” “The Constitution of Liberty,” “The Fatal Conceit,” and many essays, several of them which are widely cited, including “Individualism, True and False” and “The Use of Knowledge in Society.”
Years earlier, on the same date in 1873, English philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill died. Now best known for “On Liberty” and “Utilitarianism,” Mill’s letters were edited into book form by Hayek.
On May 8, 1946, two Estonian school girls (Aili Jõgi and Ageeda Paavel) blew up the Soviet memorial which stood in front of the Bronze Soldier in Tallinn.
Categories
José Ortega y Gasset
Life is fired at us point blank.
Categories
27th Amendment, Germany surrenders
On May 7, 1992, Michigan ratified a 203-year-old proposed amendment to the United States Constitution making the 27th Amendment law. The amendment had been written by James Madison and was part of the original twelve amendments that became the ten amendments making up the Bill of Rights. It bars the U.S. Congress from giving itself a pay raise until after the next election, so that voters have a chance to decide whether those voting for the raise will be in Congress to receive it.
On May 7, 1945, German officials signed an unconditional surrender to the Allies at Reims, France.
Categories
José Ortega y Gasset
The metaphor is perhaps one of man’s most fruitful potentialities. Its efficacy verges on magic, and it seems a tool for creation which God forgot inside one of His creatures when He made him. All our other faculties keep us within the realm of the real, of what is already there. The most we can do is to combine things or to break them up. The metaphor alone furnishes an escape; between the real things, it lets emerge imaginary reefs, a crop of floating islands.
Sick and tired of “too much money” in politics? Worried the average citizen’s voice is being drowned out?
Thirty-six Democratic U.S. Senators have just the thing: a re-write of the First Amendment.
They’ve co-sponsored a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Senate Joint Resolution 19.
“We would give the power back to the Congress,” says chief sponsor Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).
Wait. That’s amending reality. Congress never had any such power. The instructions in the Constitution are quite clear: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
These 36 solons reverse course with the wording
… Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on —
- the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
- the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
Our brand new constitution would not contain a single word of restraint. Instead, powerful congressional incumbents would wield complete and total control over all money to be raised or spent by their competitors.
And note: they already enjoy a tremendous name recognition advantage over their challengers. What happens when incumbents limit campaign spending too low for challengers to compete?
Its negation of rights is so sweeping that the amendment actually states, “Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.”
No worries for the New York Times, then. But just how much of the First Amendment do the rest of us get to keep?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Thoreau born
On May 6, 1862, American author, philosopher and abolitionist Henry David Thoreau was born.
“There are really no limits on the amount of money you can give to a campaign,” explained Chuck Todd on his MSNBC program, The Daily Rundown. “We could claim there are limits, but they don’t really exist because of the way the system works.”
Todd isn’t talking about you and me. We have limits. By law, each person in each election can give no more than $2,600 to any single candidate.
He’s focused on billionaires. You know, the Koch brothers we hear so much about, or gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson. And, on the Democratic side, the super-rich Tom Streyer, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and others.
But billionaires have limits, too. Their advantage is simply being able to afford the work-arounds. They can hire lawyers to advise them through the maze of speech and finance regulations. They can fund a SuperPAC or an independent expenditure or start a whole new organization if necessary to get their message out.
I’m not complaining. Billionaires have an inalienable right to flap their jaws and spend their money.
I’m only saying that we merely aspiring billionaires — the great American mostly washed middle class — should also be free to flap our jaws, to make our big political contribution and to have our say.
But we don’t. It’s a federal crime for you or me to donate one dollar more than $2,600 to the general election campaign of a congressional candidate we deeply believe in.
That it is a crime is the biggest campaign finance scandal of all.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Categories
Magna Carta Libertatum, Clause 41
All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.