Pre-Obama Pharmaceutical Care

Wow. Totally blown away. I have a prescription that's 120 pills a month. No matter what it is, it's generic. Without insurance, the pricing is:

• Wal-Mart: $8
• Costco: $10
• Walgreens: $90+

As a far left socialist, I have no problem with government price controls. As someone living in the United States, I have no problem with market-based economies (IMHO, socialism doesn't scale to 300 million citizens).

I understand a $2 price difference in a medication. An eleven-fold increase in a prescription? It's either a rip-off, or the #2 drug store company in the United States is hell-bent on ignoring reality.

I'm not a fan of Wal-Mart, and I am a card-carrying Costco member. Their prices seem reasonable, given their size and reach. And, given the size and reach of Walgreens, it is absolutely clear to me that not only do they not want my business, but they are willing to rip folks off to get it.

We'll see what they say when I call 'em this week. The holiday should put them in a good mood.

When NIMBY Becomes a Perversion

Certain sex offenders should be segregated from society, sometimes permanently. Unfortunately, the puritan streak in our society has been labeling a portion of people engaging in criminal lapses of judgment with the scarlet letter for life, in violation of the Constitution's 9th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Should a 19-year-old person who committed the act of statutory rape with a 15-year-old girlfriend be permanently barred from any contact with any child, and shunned from communities, permanently branded (digitally, now that sex offenders can be looked up online).

Having connections to my state's protective services for children, I've heard my share of stories where it ends well for no one. The branding seems permanent: there's no common legal process for getting the restriction lifted across the different states.

Aggravating this is the paranoia of the scarlet letter syndrome: "Oh my god! There's a sex offender in our neighborhood? Call out the parents! Break out the pitchforks! Picket their house! Harass them in public!"

I've got kids. I worry about sex offenders, and if someone were to attack my kids, I don't know that I'd show civil restraint. Hopefully I won't get to that point. But the fact is many of these "offenders" are paying for their entire lives for a SINGLE indiscretion. While this information is available online (at the same places where you can find fancy maps, like the one above), it's misleading. Not the offenses: while I've found lots of single-offenders (blue on the map). Behind each conviction is a sad story, an offender who was only caught once... the stories number more than the blips on the map. The point is that these people are all tossed in the same, tainted pile. Chased from address to address, neighborhood to neighborhood.

And when someone does the right thing, providing a legal space for them to exist, the neighbors are up in arms. Yeah, having a bus stop near a sex-offender neighborhood is tough. But they need a way to get to work. Do the neighbor thing and walk your children to and from school. Do they (delusionally) think that dispersing the sex offenders will solve anything? It just increases the odds of a drive-through pedophile snatching a child. We've had two attempts near where my kids live -- odds are they weren't from the neighborhood.

We live in a dangerous world. But repeatedly punishing people who've already been through the system and are keeping their word and legally registering should not be further punished. It only increases the chance they'll simply drop out of the system, live wherever they want, and be lurking dangers in many neighborhoods. Or, more likely, just live their lives, glad to be temporarily free of the cloud over their lives.

Stimulus Reporting: Clouds Amidst a Silver Frame -- I Mean, Lining

Finally, someone's come up with a way to tell the American People about how the amazingly incalculable $787 billion stimulus package is being disbursed. Truth: as a socialist, as an American, I was against it. "Too big to fail" isn't part of the capitalist equation, and helping the poor and starving is infinitely more profitable to society than helping the mega-rich not wear rags. Humility's a good thing, especially for those who've forgotten it.

So the recovery.gov report, complete with impossible errors and gaffs found in any draft report (and I've drafted many of those over the decades) are just symptoms of something else, something wonderful: the ability, the strength, the bravery of an administration to show data, and not just information, about something critical to and criticized by the American public.

Most Americans probably don't listen to the monthly reports from the government on the Beige Report, or GDP listings. They're published one month, then updated and amended over the next few months, reflecting errors, omissions and updates from information not available at report deadline time. Information at www.recovery.gov should be given the same level of (a) initial acceptance and (b) critical regard and auditing. So that the next release of data is more accurate, and reflects the input not just of a cabal of cabinet insiders, but of every citizen economist and kibbitzer in the Unites States.

The Bush/Cheney days of hiding information behind lawyers and layers of bullshit are over. The truth is never instantly accurate, instantly obvious, or even instantly right. But having data and enough background to understand the genesis of errors in the data is infinitely better than not having access to anything but sanitized data. (Remember the USSR and its "data" and five year plans?)

Kudos to the Obama administration for putting its collective glutea maximi on the line, and getting something out to the light of day, flawed and miscalculated as it might be.

Yet Another Ugly Word of Hate

Quick note: I was at one of my usual haunts, chatting with a pair of women in the new house sales business. Oregon came up, as a nice place to live. "Oh," one woman said, tossing her hair aside, "I couldn't live there."

"Why not?" I asked.

She looked around (the empty place). "Well," she confided, across four bar stools, "it's the rats."

I looked puzzled.

"You know," she said, throwing her shoulders back a bit. "'Rats. DemocRats."

It's nice to know the quality and level of political discourse hasn't changed much since '96. Scorn and hate are legal tender in this modern American debate on "traditional values" and the future of our children, our country and the planet. And hate-mongers who get paid to rile, not solve problems, benefit more than anyone else.

Of course, we're not the only victims here: just ask Tom Delay about his portrayals.

I guess there's enough hate to go around. How sad.

Code ID10T

I'm starting to get puzzled. Athlete after hip-hop star after athlete keep getting involved in "accidental" shootings. (Check out the latest goober's story here.) As a gun owner I'm confused. After all, there are a few common-sense rules, aside from state requirements, regarding firearms:

1. Keep them safe and safed
2. Don't take them where alcohol is served or when you might be impaired
3. Use them only when your life is in immediate lethal jeopardy
4. Be legal.

Apparently folks just don't want to read the rules. Or maybe think the rules don't apply to them as they've had more than two column inches in which their name is mentioned. It's idiotic, but there you are. My confusion lies in the punishment: does a public sports figure get a pass on the old NYC "one year minimum" for weapons possession? Are we going to continue to treat our bread and circuses stars better than the plebes that watch them?

I'm not sure. And that scares me almost as much. Not because I want punishment for everyone or anyone, but because justice needs to excoriate the guilty pandered to elite as much as the ignored working folks.

And simple homilies about the joy in abject power (qua violence) don't quite work.

You must, as my son put it, have "this many proteins to have an opinion."

Most, sadly, don't qualify.

So put those guns away, put on your dancing shoes, and get out and boogie. And let the professionals worry about your security, instead of giving your egotistical paranoia full reign.

On Religion, Politics and the GOP

Politics = Power.

Power is an Aphrodisiac.

Power Corrupts.

Powerful Politicians Sleep Around.









Well, three out of four ain't bad. There is, unfortunately, more than a grain of truth to that last. The latest example, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, is less of a surprise than it should be. There's a long history of politicians having their way with all manner of constituents and others. I don't condone, excuse, or in any way want to mitigate what's done by people in power.

That said, it really is a fact of life. And, if the person in office is married, it's an act of betrayal between the spouses (assuming they don't have any understandings allowing for such behavior).

American politics, in the spirit of our puritanical past, have embraced the idea that our politicians must somehow be holier than all the rest. And that their personal choices (or mistakes) imbue or sully their ability to lead. It's an absurd stretch at best, prudish priggery elsewise.

On Gays, Sikhs and a Fundamentalist Christian U.S. Military

Two Items crossed my screen today. The first was a post through a friend, urging support for Lt. Colonel Victor Hehrenbach, a decorated Air Force officer drummed out of service, because an acquaintance outed him as being homosexual. No one asked, and he certainly didn't tell. But out he goes, much to the detriment of his unit, and at extreme cost to the military's readiness and capabilities.

The second involved a ban on Sikh beards and turbans. A ban ostensibly put in place during the 1980s but not enforced until last year. This ban damages the American notion of diversity in our nation, and violates the rights of citizens, and soldiers, to practice their faith. The absurdity of this is borne out by Army Colonel Gopal Khalsa, who is retiring later this year after serving 29 years as a practicing, turbaned, and bearded officer.

According to the United States military, there are shortages in Jewish chaplains specifically because Orthodox Jewish requires men to wear beards as part of their prohibition against certain forms of barbering.

The fact that there is a grandfather clause to this requirement (men in service before January 1, 1986 are exempt from beard, turban and other religious requirements), it's clear this is an administrative, and not rational, ruling. (Colonel Khalsa and one Jewish rabbi are the exceptions.)

The explosion in Evangelical Christian activities in the U.S. military, including proselytizing activities by active duty, uniformed superior officers before those under their command, prayer is in direct contravention of the separation of Church and State. There are documented cases (check out Harpers Magazine, May issue) of Christian zealots in the military violating and number of regulations, not to mention inhuman, inhumane behavior usually attributed to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Before the military gets involved in the bedrooms and innocent rituals of patriotic, dedicated and humble servants, it must first cull from its midst the religious zealots proselytizing in its midst. A closeted gay combat pilot is not a problem, and beards and turbans draw attention but do not change the work of an officer. But Crusade-style practices carried out by the military, and the bug-eyed, hysterical Bible-thumpers who egg them on and add to their numbers must be banished before the military can call its justice evenhanded.

You Gotta Love the North Koreans

Cute as buttons, aren't they? The Charlie's Angels of North Korea -- more properly, the Kim Jong Il's Angels. It's a great sight, perfectly staged for the cameras. Healthy looking women, with thighs, buttocks and breasts. Well-tailored outfits, for a country with almost no resources to spend on things like... food?


The depths and breadths of delusion in that country is amazing. The UN reports that over 40% of Korean children are chronically malnourished. It's a hall of mirrors, illusions facing all directions. And it's almost as if the leaders of this country have been staring into those mirrors way too long.

I doubt anyone, possibly including Pyongyang's leadership, know what the game is. Flexing nuclear muscles against the United States is, ultimately, stupid. But wisdom, like food, does not seem to be plentiful north of the 38th Parallel. Let's just hope Iran's Ahmadinejad isn't interested in Kim's playbook.

Support the Republican Party!

Okay, this isn't the usual blog for that sentiment, but hear me out. Especially in light of former Vice President Dick Cheney's comments. But America's strength is in the wide spectrum of its views, and the ability of almost all views to get at least some discussion time in our society.

What makes American politics powerful is the breadth of expressions accepted in our society. It's been wildly across the board: as wild as the Civil War in the 1860s to the frightenly uniform McCarthy Era of the 1950s. The time of the Whigs of the 1830s-1850s, the Wobblies in their heyday of the 1920s. the time of the The Oneida Community (1840s). I believe we thrive when multiple, even conflicting views are part of the general landscape.

America of the first decade of the 21st century has been too monolithic. The conservative conquering of Congress, and then Bush's "election" in 2000 and "re-"election in 2004 gave a very narrow segment of the US population a voice. The fallout from the downfall of this pinnacle is the creation of a chasm. On one side are the religious and ideologues. On another are the social and, on yet another side, fiscal conservatives. The last side of this chasm (which reassuringly resembles a set of mesas in the desert than a single divide) is of the moderate or liberal political and social wings.

The Republican party is in the process of giving birth. Or expelling a demon. It's become so internally polarized that the only clear solution is for it to expel that which poisons it. A Republican party home to a wide variety of religious views would be theoretically far more attractive than the wild-eyed fanatic it's become. (Of course, if Limbaugh's version of secular fanatacism takes the helm, all bets are off!)

But the glimmer of hope to create a fuller spectrum of thought, even as the country makes its next pendulous tilt to the left, is as important as the leftward shift is personally for me.

Shoot First, Straighten it out Later

Well, the pro- and anti-gun folks are getting their underwear twisted in little, painful knots again. Couple tries to steal man's SUV. Man shoots one of them dead on his property. The other, when caught, gets charged with murder (since someone died during the commission of a felony).

On the gun control side, this is a problem because deadly force was used in the commission of a grand larceny auto. Not a carjacking, just a brazen robbery. And while lethal force could have been an option, the farmer could have let them drive off with his car, called the insurance company, and a woman would still be alive. A criminal, yes. Deserving execution? No.

On the 'no retreat' side, this is an example of the law working correctly. The criminals went onto his private property to commit a crime, confident that they could steal this SUV from this old man. Had they understood that stepping on someone's property and having that person feel endangered might result in them getting aerated, they probably would move on to other, less dangerous activities. But they didn't, and now one's dead and the other's going to jail for a very long time.

So where's the Right in the situation. People have property rights, the right to defend themselves, and also the right to remain alive and not worry that even a small wrongdoing might result in their violent deaths. (Eight shots to stop someone? We call that emptying the magazine where I come from.) How's the right to keep one's SUV greater than the right not to worry about being killed for theft?

The philosophy is for the courts, and this gentle reader, to decide. But consider that while the potential for deadly force might be a deterrent for some, it might also cause criminals to use overwhelming force when committing crimes for which they might otherwise have used none. And every life, crook or victim, is precious.