They Did What !

Are we becoming a nation of intelligent ignoramuses? Sounds like an oxymoron but maybe it isn’t.

The dictionary gives a definition of intelligent as: to have the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. It also gives definitions of ignorant as:unaware, unenlightened, uninformed, or oblivious. Based on these definitions it seems possible to be intelligent and ignorant at the same time.

Exercising the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge only from sources that agree with our preconceived notions is also exercising the choice to remain unaware and uninformed. Filtering out information that is contrary to what we believe, ignoring information that goes against our chosen mindset, or simply dismissing without consideration whatever those who believe differently have to say, produces ignorance regardless of our intelligence.

The latest catch phrase on news shows is The War of Words and there is a lot of that going around these days with the entire political spectrum fully engaged. Liberal politicians rant and rave about conservatives, ignoring whatever good they do and making much of anything they can call wrong. The conservative politicians insult and condemn liberals as if nothing they think or do could possibly have merit. Both sides indulge in name calling. With vitriolic puffery they accuse and blame. They all seem to see themselves as taking the righteous high road when in reality the road they are on is paved with hypocrisy. Then there is “we the people.� We seem to choose up sides and echo this divisive rhetoric in Op-Ed columns, letters to the editor, call-ins to talk shows, and internet blogs.

I started to wonder what, if anything, we are accomplishing with this type of communication, or rather, lack of communication. Our world seems filled with monologues and sadly lacking in dialogues. These musings caused me to ask myself some questions. When was the last time I was persuaded to change or even modify my point of view? Have I stopped looking at both sides of a question? Do I engage in civil discourse? Honest debate? Do I actually consider what is being said instead of just counting the seconds until I get to fire back? I wasn’t happy with some of my answers and I wondered, how did I get here? And more importantly, how do I get out of here?

I thought about it and then taped a sign on my mirror that says, IGNORAMUS? Now I see it every morning as I prepare for the day and hopefully it will remind me to keep an open mind, to listen to other points of view, and to actually consider that they might have some validity. It’s a start.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Back in early August I lamented the fact that all of Medicare’s leverage for reducing drug costs was just given away by the legislators when they included, in the prescription coverage bill, a provision that prohibits them from negotiating lower drug prices. Recently, reading the September AARP Bulletin, I discovered that our Homeland Security department is now confiscating prescriptions mailed from Canada. They started the confiscations last November 17.

The difference between the cost of drugs in Canada and the U.S. is considerable. For instance based on a 90 to 100 day supply:

Zocor is $4.63 per pill in the U.S. and $2.02 per pill from Canada
Fosamax is $2.53 per pill in the U.S. and $1.28 from Canada.

These are big savings, especially for the elderly, the most common users of these drugs, many of whom are living on Social Security. When Homeland Security seizes the drugs, they do not get their needed medications, and on top of that they are out the cost of the prescription, something they can ill afford.

Officials, In an attempt to justify their actions, (and no doubt appear noble at the same time), claim the new enforcement policy is intended to protect consumers because the drugs may not be safe. This is the same excuse given for defeating efforts to make importing these drugs legal. This ridiculous claim is made in the face of a 2004 Government Accountability Office study that concluded the composition of drugs from Canadian pharmacies is comparable to drugs bought in the U.S. In the majority of cases, they are made by the same manufacturers.

It is interesting to note that the November 17 start of the confiscations was just 2 days after the deadline (November 15) to sign up for Plan D prescription coverage (to start January 1, 2006). There were reports in the news that the number of sign ups was below expectations. Somehow that sounds like a more plausible explanation for the sudden start of the confiscations doesn’t it – to force people to join Plan D?

Something else mentioned previously was the lost leverage of the Medicaid program because Medicaid people were transferred to Plan D. Since then I have learned that the government is now paying 20% to 30% more for those Medicaid prescriptions and they are doing that with our tax money!

So… let’s see if I have this straight. Our elected officials set it up so they are spending 20% - 30% more of our tax money for Medicaid prescriptions, and agreed not to negotiate for lower prices for Medicare prescriptions. Now wait a minute, what am I missing here? The pharmaceuticals make more money, the politicians get bigger donations from the pharmaceuticals, and we… well we join the program they set up or pay big time for our drugs, or have them confiscated when we try to save on them.

If you would like to rub a little salt into these wounds, look closely at how prescription costs are added up to reach the $2250 which throws us into the “gap� where we pay 100%. That $2250 total includes not just what the insurance pays for our prescriptions, but what we pay as well and if they cover nothing on a prescription then the whole amount, paid by us, adds into our total.

Way to go congress, stick it to them – your constituents – but be sure you don’t cut into the profits of the pharmaceuticals or the insurance companies! For this kind of wonderful “public service� and mismanagement of our tax dollars, you expect us to cheerfully increase your salaries every year and re-elect you when your terms expire.

If we do, we are just plain stupid and deserve exactly what we get!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There was a report in the New York Times earlier this month and then in Russ Neal’s column in the 9/14 Paradise Post, that Dick Chaney’s power is waning. I wonder what took so long. It has been totally baffling to me why Cheney seems able to do and say whatever he pleases without accountability to anyone. When an effort is made to look into what he is doing, it inevitably fails.

A case in point was the Government Accountability Office (GAO) attempting to obtain factual information regarding the process by which the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) was carrying out its work. This attempt to obtain information from NEPDG, which Cheney chaired, was blocked at every turn with delayed responses, passing of useless documents, and outright refusals. How can the Vice President of our country block the efforts of one of our government agencies, interfering with the very purpose for which the agency was created?

If everything the NEPDG was doing was on the up and up, then why the secrecy? One of Dr. Phil’s sayings is “Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.� That being the case, the opposite is likely to be just as true - those who have much to hide, hide everything. Hmmm…might that be the explanation for Dick Cheney’s excessive secrecy?

Speaking of secrecy - I read in the August Hightower Lowdown that between 2001 and 2004, there was an 81% increase in the number of government documents declared secret. 81% - that’s huge! If the secrecy doesn’t bother you, what about the cost? At $460 per document, the 15.6 million documents declared secret in 2004 cost $7.2 billion to classify… and remember folks, that’s our tax money paying for it!

Cheney claimed he has the same inherent authority as the president to mark “secret� any document he chooses. He further claims he does not have to report the number of documents he marks secret to anyone, not even the president. Article II of the Constitution lays out the Executive Branch of our government and its power. The first line reads The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Note that it does not say the power shall be vested in a President and Vice President. So where, exactly does Dick Cheney think his “inherent� powers come from?

No other Vice President in the history of our country has claimed inherent authority such as this. Why is this man allowed to refuse accountability to anyone for his decisions and actions? Why is he allowed to declare information secret for no reason other than because he says so… and at such huge costs to taxpayers? Why is he allowed to make statements in interviews and speeches that are blatantly untrue and when called on it, get away with simply saying, as he so often does, “I disagree� as though his disagreement is sufficient explanation? And all this is from a man who has racked up an extraordinary number of mistakes and misjudgments in his career and especially in the past 5 years. Is his arrogance so intimidating that no one is willing to stand up to him? Who is this man? Or more to the point… just who does this man think he is?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So said George W. Bush in July 2000. Listening to the news and reading the papers, it sounds like, in this instance at least, he has been true to his words. Why then, do we hear so many people complaining about the economy? Let’s take a look at some of the figures.

* Congress increased their salaries by approximately $32,000 over the last six and a half years.
* During the same period they repeatedly refused to raise the minimum wage.

That means that, those making minimum wage, working full time, earn about 1/3 of the increase Congress got. Not 1/3 of congressional salaries, just the increase. A minimum wage salary is slightly less than 1/16 of a congressional salary, (minus perks of course!).

* The cost of living increased 8.1% since 2000.
* Wages for 80% of the U.S. workforce (blue-collar and service workers) increased 0.00% since 2000.
* The share of national income going to corporate profits grew from 7% in 2001 to 12.2% today.
* The share of national income going to 80% of the workforce decreased from 58.6% in 2001 to 56.2% today

That means that corporate profits grew by 5.2% while workers’ income fell by 2.4%.

* The ratio of average CEO pay to average worker’s pay has changed dramatically.
In 1982 the ratio was 42 to 1
In 2003 the ratio was 300 to 1
In 2006 the ratio is 431 to 1

That means while us common folk are loosing ground, those CEO’s, many of them responsible for cutting pensions, laying off workers and outsourcing jobs, are living high on the hog.

* The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million since 2000.
* The total number of Americans living in poverty today is 37 million or 12.7% of the population.
* Known as the “richest country in the world� the U.S. poverty rate ranks #1 among developed nations.
* Most of today’s poverty-stricken Americans have jobs. Many have 2 or more jobs.

That means that the oft repeated “you can become anything you want if you are willing to work� is no longer true. And if that is no longer true, that pretty much kills the idea of the American Dream for our children and grandchildren.

Based on these figures, it seems economic growth is just for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. Doesn’t sound like the American way does it? Doesn’t sound like family values at work either. Actually what it sounds like is the old days of the robber barons; before workers had rights, before the unions formed to fight for those rights.

Yes, the unions became corrupt, as organizations inevitably do when they become powerful, but first they started America on its climb to prosperity and a strong middle class. Perhaps we need a resurgence of the unions before we become a nation of two classes – the very rich and the very poor – you know, like the third world nations.

The source for the figues in this blog is the July issue of The Hightower Lowdown. More information and sources can be found on www.hightowerlowdown.org .

Posted by Trish Purcell at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

History is, by definition, a record, usually chronological, of important or public events. When the event is a national tragedy, as 9/11 was, rewriting the facts to serve the purposes of ideologues, political parties, or personal agendas is an abomination. The scheduled ABC “The Path to 9/11� docudrama is just such an abomination. Anyone who is not outraged by this manipulation of a tragedy that affected us all cannot claim to be a patriot. How dare anyone play politics with a national tragedy! Such an act is totally contrary to the spirit of America.

Our political scene has become so ugly that we tend to just shrug off each new nasty tactic with a kind of boys will be boys (or politicians will be politicians) attitude. But, for me at least, this is one step too far. An attack against our country that killed almost 3000 innocent people is too horrendous, too wounding, to allow it to be twisted and spun for political gain.

Conservatives claim to be the guardians of “family values.� Which of those values says it is alright to lie? Which of those values says the end justifies the means? No matter how many euphemisms are used – spin, slant, interpretation – a lie is a lie is a lie. It is appalling to think a political party that is supposed to represent the good, solid, god-fearing part of our population would allow such a thing to be done in their name

This program is a lie that hurts us all if we allow it to be aired and shown to our children at school without a deafening outcry. I do not know how many conservatives were involved in this production but if those who were not do not denounce the perpetrators of this deceitful representation of 9/11, then they too are guilty.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 03:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)