Advocacy and regulation in the Bush administration

Published Tuesday, 25 May 2004 8:36PM CST by in Politics

0

Anne C. Mulkern reports in “When advocates become regulators” in the Denver Post that President Bush has appointed more than 100 officials in his administration who were once lobbyists, lawyers, or spokespeople for the industries they now oversee on behalf of the citizenry.

Although a White House spokesman said that administration officials “must abide by strict legal and ethical guidelines…” Mulkern points out that six administration officials have been subjects of ethics investigations or resigned after being charged with conflicts of interest and that at least 14 more are singled-out by public-interest groups.

Why I won’t accept a kidney transplant

Published Sunday, 23 May 2004 3:16PM CST by in ESRD

0

I’ve angered close friends and my sister by rejecting their offers of a kidney donation. When confronted about why, the best I’ve been able to manage is to mumble something incoherent about “ethics” and “not a cure anyway.” It’s been a very interesting self-exploratory journey, and it doesn’t mean that I won’t change my mind next year; hell, I’ve completely reversed my position on embryonic stem cell research after deconstructing the spin from both sides. Larry Rother’s “Tracking the Sale of a Kidney on a Path of Poverty and Hope” in this morning’s New York Times doesn’t offer much insight into my situation, but it does provide some solid numbers that help solidify my present feelings.

Brazilian organ brokers used to pay a decade’s wages—US$10,000—for a kidney, but now the market rate has dropped to about US$3,000, presumably because supply is starting to catch up with demand in a multi-million dollar black market. The Brazilian market is getting quite sophisticated, with Israeli organ traffickers orchestrating medical exams to eliminate unqualified donors and providing transportation to South Africa where the transplant actually takes place. Gone, apparently, are the mythical days of Western tourists waking up minus a kidney in ice-filled Bangkok bathtubs. Still, nobody bothers to tell the donors that what they’re doing is illegal.

The most disturbing revelation of Rother’s piece is that the profiled kidney recipient “described herself as deeply religious and concerned with the ethics of transplants.” That and the fact that a disturbing number of the Brazilian donors lost both their kidney and their money.

Six Apart and transparency

Published Thursday, 20 May 2004 9:27PM CST by in Business

0

Transparent business processes—what a concept. Today, Anil Dash reveals that he’s moving to San Francisco and was mostly responsible for the recent licensing dustup surrounding Six Apart’s roll-out of Movable Type 3.0.

To use the requisite automotive analogy, if Six Apart were a shiny new car, I feel like I was the person who put the first dent in it, and then a couple thousand people stood around pointing and saying “It’s totalled!”

Two things stand out about this incident. First, that Dash got the support he needed from his management and second, that the whole process was transparent, albeit after the fact. The only thing that could have made this better is if the transparency had come before, rather than after, the licensing announcement.

Good for Dash and good for Six Apart. They’re learning and there’s a lot in this for all of us to study.

The turning of AARP

Published Thursday, 20 May 2004 12:46AM CST by in Politics

0

The Medicare drug bill would never have passed without the support of AARP. Progressives of all stripes—as well as most AARP members—were shocked, shocked I tell you, when the country’s largest senior-citizen lobbyist threw its collective weight behind the Republican-sponsored legislation. It didn’t take a rocket scientist (or an insurance actuary) to sort through the spin and figure out that the bill was a giant step toward fulfilling the Republican wet-dream of privatized Medicare and that millions of citizens would lose employer- and state-run benefits.

I mean, dating back to my Grandma’s membership days, AARP if not a progressive force, at least always leaned in the right direction on healthcare issues.

My wife and I let our membership in the organization lapse, thinking the reason behind AARP’s startling move was pure greed: AARP, after all, started as an insurance business in 1958 (which explains the organization’s initial opposition to Medicare), and still turns a tidy profit—about 24% of operating revenue in 2002—selling health insurance. Turns out we were wrong. The turning of AARP was a long time coming, according to Barbara Dreyfuss’s “The Seduction: The shocking story of how AARP backed the Medicare bill,” published earlier this month in The American Prospect.

“To those few who were really watching closely, however, AARP’s actions were not a surprise at all, and the group’s conversion was anything but sudden. The story of the Republicans’ seduction of AARP unfolded over nearly a decade, as GOP leaders cajoled, seduced, and occasionally threatened the group’s leaders into changing their ways and accepting the reality of Republican congressional control. Today, with bad policy already law, the stakes are incredibly high, as regulations to implement the law loom, along with bills to repeal some of its worst aspects. And they will grow higher still if President Bush is re-elected and Republicans can continue toward their ultimate goals. As the battle to preserve Medicare unfolds, Democrats who were surprised by the bill’s passage last November should understand a key part of the story, which has not been told, of how it happened.”

According to Dreyfuss, former House speaker Newt Gringrich spent the last decade shepherding the AARP into the Republican camp by socially engineering his friend Bill Novelli, who became AARP’s executive director in June 2001. Novelli, quickly realizing which side of his bread was buttered, centralized AARP’s policy making activities in the hands of a coterie of corporate aides-de-camp, limiting input from local leaders who were, generally, much more progressive than the national organization.

Substance in Moore-Disney rasslin’?

Published Wednesday, 12 May 2004 8:19PM CST by in Media

0

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)‘s Peter Hart opines that a member of the Saudi royal family, Al-Walid bin Talal, owns a sizable stake in Eurodisney, one of the more financially troubled of the Disney properties, and that’s why Disney is refusing to let its Miramax subsidiary distribute Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.

“This particular member of the Saudi royal family [Al-Walid bin Talal] has been a big supporter of Disney. I think he’s the fifth richest man in the world according to Forbes last year. US$300 million he has invested in the so far failed Eurodisney project,” Hart said in a Democracy Now! interview.

The FAIR website carries additional information along these lines in its “Activism Update: Eisner’s Fantasyland Excuse for Censorship.”

“It’s not unprecedented for Disney to respond favorably to a political request from its Saudi business partner; when Disney’s EPCOT Center planned to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an exhibit on Israeli culture, Al-Walid says that he had personally asked Eisner to intervene in the decision. That same week, Disney announced that the pavilion would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (BBC, 9/14/99).”

Page 154 of 256 pages ‹ First  < 152 153 154 155 156 >  Last ›