Daniel R. Levison, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, is expected to release a report on Friday about the practices of the F.D.A. regarding clinical trials. Federal health officials don't know how many clinical trials are being conducted. They audit less than 1 percent of trials, and when they do show up, it tends to be after the experiment has been completed. The F.D.A. has about 200 inspectors on its payroll, and about 350,000 test sites.
There isn't much interest in our guinea pigs. Well, there is, but only in their results and numbers, not in their welfare.
A few studies proclaim that test animals are treated better than people and are far more closely examined. Institutes that use animals need to register with the federal government, keep track of subjects' health, and are frequently inspected without forewarning.
The fuzzy guinea pigs seem to have a leg up on the human guinea pigs.
Or maybe two?
I am struck by the anomaly, that in every conceivable American forum in which human rights are so slightly endangered, there is a protest, a petition, public backlash against the endangerers, except for the F.D.A. I wonder if it has anything to do with who the guinea pigs usually are--sickly, inadequate people, the kinds of people who need drugs. They function improperly and offensively much of the time and need to be suppressed, stifled, or cured. And a drug will either do that, or it won't do anything at all, in which case there aren't any real repercussions.
If the drugs works and allays the disease: "Well done, corporation. We can make these afflicted victims normal now."
If the drug fails and impairs the person: "Shame on you, corporation. But thanks for making the victims less weird."
So I suppose society is a bit less obnoxious, a bit more socially acceptable, with drugs, because they make the uncommon tendencies less conspicuous.
Oh, no. That can't be right.
But maybe it is.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
A Cartridge Shoots Cynicism
"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw
Disillusionment comes in waves, because for me it always fades in the calm months following some incident. I forget how little it takes for some people to start fights. I forget that some of them are really quite stupid.
But every once in a while, I am reminded that my whimsical notions of global solidarity and the paramount necessity of compassion in our daily lives is simply a notion, a velvet curtain with a pleasant mirror of the world created by peaceful months. But the idyll of those months is eventually curtailed by some disasted, and the mirror breaks and the curtain falls to reveal our human tendency toward brutality.
Two students were shot at Delaware State University early this morning, around 1:00, because someone was too obtuse to resolve an argument without guns. Resorting to guns and other devices that have potential to mortally wound a person is the surest indication of stupidity that I know, barring incidents of self-defense. On a fundamental level, it signifies that the shooter willfully refuses dissent and that he or she cannot live knowing that someone will not adopt their convictions. It reveals the unrivaled insecurity of someone too foolish to reason through their anger, too foolish to admit that difference is okay. In place of a discussion, there is the swelling volition from the barrel of a gun. There is a bullet that represents one's frustration when he or she knows that they are in error, but won't accept the other person's ideology because of habit, or whatever. But not because of reason. It's never rationally justified.
Wars are rooted in that same stupidity, whose potential is magnified by the power of the stupid person's capacity to control others.
"I want your land."
"I want your riches."
"I want your opposing beliefs to vanish."
I can't think of any other causes for war. Retaliation is only a response to one of those catalysts. So, setting aside the arguments of hideous grammar, vacuous assertions, and unwavering faith, I contend that George Walker Bush is a stupid person, or at the very least he is stupid enough to be influenced by stupid people.
Every warship launched, every missile fired, every bullet shot, signifies the American government's inability to coexist with something different. I think that "War on Terror" is an intentional misnomer. "War on Opposition" would be much more accurate, because all of the turbulent animosity that we're familiar with springs from our government and Middle Eastern governments having a rather stupid conversation.
"I'm right."
"No, I'm right."
"Agree to disagree?" (optional dialogue)
"Nope."
"Then I'll kill you. And take your oil, too."
The mirror breaks and the curtain falls.
Stupid.
George Bernard Shaw
Disillusionment comes in waves, because for me it always fades in the calm months following some incident. I forget how little it takes for some people to start fights. I forget that some of them are really quite stupid.
But every once in a while, I am reminded that my whimsical notions of global solidarity and the paramount necessity of compassion in our daily lives is simply a notion, a velvet curtain with a pleasant mirror of the world created by peaceful months. But the idyll of those months is eventually curtailed by some disasted, and the mirror breaks and the curtain falls to reveal our human tendency toward brutality.
Two students were shot at Delaware State University early this morning, around 1:00, because someone was too obtuse to resolve an argument without guns. Resorting to guns and other devices that have potential to mortally wound a person is the surest indication of stupidity that I know, barring incidents of self-defense. On a fundamental level, it signifies that the shooter willfully refuses dissent and that he or she cannot live knowing that someone will not adopt their convictions. It reveals the unrivaled insecurity of someone too foolish to reason through their anger, too foolish to admit that difference is okay. In place of a discussion, there is the swelling volition from the barrel of a gun. There is a bullet that represents one's frustration when he or she knows that they are in error, but won't accept the other person's ideology because of habit, or whatever. But not because of reason. It's never rationally justified.
Wars are rooted in that same stupidity, whose potential is magnified by the power of the stupid person's capacity to control others.
"I want your land."
"I want your riches."
"I want your opposing beliefs to vanish."
I can't think of any other causes for war. Retaliation is only a response to one of those catalysts. So, setting aside the arguments of hideous grammar, vacuous assertions, and unwavering faith, I contend that George Walker Bush is a stupid person, or at the very least he is stupid enough to be influenced by stupid people.
Every warship launched, every missile fired, every bullet shot, signifies the American government's inability to coexist with something different. I think that "War on Terror" is an intentional misnomer. "War on Opposition" would be much more accurate, because all of the turbulent animosity that we're familiar with springs from our government and Middle Eastern governments having a rather stupid conversation.
"I'm right."
"No, I'm right."
"Agree to disagree?" (optional dialogue)
"Nope."
"Then I'll kill you. And take your oil, too."
The mirror breaks and the curtain falls.
Stupid.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Being Too Important
Earlier this week, a large picture of an Asian man in a suit that boasted the black panache of the wealthy caught my attention, either in the front section or the Business section of the L.A. Times. I forget.
He is the C.E.O. of Hyundai, and he was brought up by the Japanese government on charges of fraud, I believe. As history goes, those Eastern countries never grant much leniency to delinquents. Lots of floggings and beheadings and such--not too many pardons. Anyone can forgive someone else, so why use a Mandate of Heaven for that? No, no. Mandates of that caliber are for immunity from public backlash of capricious, unwarranted slaughter.
Of course, the Mandate of Heaven or similar derivations of authority haven't been invoked in first-world countries since Tojo Hideki, the emperor of Japan during World War 2, shamefully surrendered to the wrath of amoral Americans and their good physics--you know, nuclear fission and all that. Speaking of physics, which is closely related to trigonometry, please excuse my tangent. Yes, it's a silly joke. But maybe you'll like it.
The C.E.O. of Hyundai wasn't flogged, or beheaded, or even imprisoned. His violations were overlooked, because he plays such a vital role in such a massive company that his incarceration would directly impact Japan's economy.
How would you like to be told what his pardon tells him? If you do not know what his pardon implies, it is this: he is too important to be missing, even when equality demands his removal. He has attained a position powerful enough to subvert principles of equality and justice.
Imagine if that were to happen in our country:
"Oh, hey there George. You really should be laying off of the kilos, don'tcha think?" the Chief Justice would say. "Good thing you're president, or you'd be fucked."
"Yep," George would say. "Good thing."
He is the C.E.O. of Hyundai, and he was brought up by the Japanese government on charges of fraud, I believe. As history goes, those Eastern countries never grant much leniency to delinquents. Lots of floggings and beheadings and such--not too many pardons. Anyone can forgive someone else, so why use a Mandate of Heaven for that? No, no. Mandates of that caliber are for immunity from public backlash of capricious, unwarranted slaughter.
Of course, the Mandate of Heaven or similar derivations of authority haven't been invoked in first-world countries since Tojo Hideki, the emperor of Japan during World War 2, shamefully surrendered to the wrath of amoral Americans and their good physics--you know, nuclear fission and all that. Speaking of physics, which is closely related to trigonometry, please excuse my tangent. Yes, it's a silly joke. But maybe you'll like it.
The C.E.O. of Hyundai wasn't flogged, or beheaded, or even imprisoned. His violations were overlooked, because he plays such a vital role in such a massive company that his incarceration would directly impact Japan's economy.
How would you like to be told what his pardon tells him? If you do not know what his pardon implies, it is this: he is too important to be missing, even when equality demands his removal. He has attained a position powerful enough to subvert principles of equality and justice.
Imagine if that were to happen in our country:
"Oh, hey there George. You really should be laying off of the kilos, don'tcha think?" the Chief Justice would say. "Good thing you're president, or you'd be fucked."
"Yep," George would say. "Good thing."
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
A False Dilemma
At dinner, my friend, Andy, told me about the extent of the government's dominion over our mouths and our wrists.
He told me about a story he'd heard recently, one about a graffiti artist whose canvases-of-choice were billboards and who became wealthy by means of his glistening beacons of counterculture. With the money he amassed, he purchased his own blank billboard, which he planned to tag up legally. But the art he chose to create and display to the thousands of early-morning commuters supported homosexuality in one way or another, and was consequently deemed illegal.
My father asked, "What, you thought we had freedom of speech in this country?" He smirked with the restrained grin of someone who wants to laugh at their own joke, but refrains from doing so because of the social stigma.
If I actually pursued his provocative remark, I doubt he would be able to substantiate his perhaps facetious contention that we don't have freedom of speech. But there are other liberties upon which organizations or important persons infringe by their claims of strategic sacrifices and desired security. I don't feel that our freedom to assemble and protest is genuine, and I am inclined to believe that the people who attend leftist protests and watch their license plates being scribbled down by cops will agree. If the will of the people has such a capacity to militate, I wonder why these liberties are not forcibly retracted with vehement cries of moral desecration accompanied by nonchalant middle fingers.
And I think it's because many people don't know they don't have everything that is promised to them in the brittle papers of passed eras, or because they have bought into the deception that sacrificing such rights is judicious.
On Facebook today, the poll asks, "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?"
76% of the 1,000 who replied, most of whom are between 18 and 29, declare that it is half-full. I find it curious that so many optimists--or perhaps dumb people, unaware of their legal manacles--presented themselves, amidst a backdrop of opprobrious abrogations and regressive environmental and social policies.
Is America a land of optimists, or a land of people contented by their own ignorance?
Or, more likely, for those of us who are familiar with fallacious arguments, is it simply a land of false dilemmas, a place in which we ignore the fact that there very well may not be a cup at all, and instead only a petrified dedication to seeing something positive about a situation that is irrefutabley negative, and ought to be seen as such?
I suppose sometimes, we can't afford to be optimistic. Sometimes, optimism creates a faith in our own ingenuity that isn't warranted. It can devolve into a form of escapism, a subversive conviction that suicidal attempts won't lead to suicide because we're too happy to die.
Yes, sometimes optimism can be boiled down to idiocy.
But don't lose hope, because the pessimists are even dumber.
He told me about a story he'd heard recently, one about a graffiti artist whose canvases-of-choice were billboards and who became wealthy by means of his glistening beacons of counterculture. With the money he amassed, he purchased his own blank billboard, which he planned to tag up legally. But the art he chose to create and display to the thousands of early-morning commuters supported homosexuality in one way or another, and was consequently deemed illegal.
My father asked, "What, you thought we had freedom of speech in this country?" He smirked with the restrained grin of someone who wants to laugh at their own joke, but refrains from doing so because of the social stigma.
If I actually pursued his provocative remark, I doubt he would be able to substantiate his perhaps facetious contention that we don't have freedom of speech. But there are other liberties upon which organizations or important persons infringe by their claims of strategic sacrifices and desired security. I don't feel that our freedom to assemble and protest is genuine, and I am inclined to believe that the people who attend leftist protests and watch their license plates being scribbled down by cops will agree. If the will of the people has such a capacity to militate, I wonder why these liberties are not forcibly retracted with vehement cries of moral desecration accompanied by nonchalant middle fingers.
And I think it's because many people don't know they don't have everything that is promised to them in the brittle papers of passed eras, or because they have bought into the deception that sacrificing such rights is judicious.
On Facebook today, the poll asks, "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?"
76% of the 1,000 who replied, most of whom are between 18 and 29, declare that it is half-full. I find it curious that so many optimists--or perhaps dumb people, unaware of their legal manacles--presented themselves, amidst a backdrop of opprobrious abrogations and regressive environmental and social policies.
Is America a land of optimists, or a land of people contented by their own ignorance?
Or, more likely, for those of us who are familiar with fallacious arguments, is it simply a land of false dilemmas, a place in which we ignore the fact that there very well may not be a cup at all, and instead only a petrified dedication to seeing something positive about a situation that is irrefutabley negative, and ought to be seen as such?
I suppose sometimes, we can't afford to be optimistic. Sometimes, optimism creates a faith in our own ingenuity that isn't warranted. It can devolve into a form of escapism, a subversive conviction that suicidal attempts won't lead to suicide because we're too happy to die.
Yes, sometimes optimism can be boiled down to idiocy.
But don't lose hope, because the pessimists are even dumber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
