Tyson Kirksey

Every once in a while I’ll read a book.  I know, that shocks some of you.  I’m trying to read more, though, and watch less TV.  Currently I’m in the middle of a book I got for Christmas called The Nine.   I’m really enjoying it, and recommend it to anyone who’s interested in the judicial branch or constitutional law. 

Toobin does a good job examining each justice in detail in the last 20 or 25 years, and he spends a lot of time on critical court issues like abortion, civic rights, civil liberties, federalism, etc. 

Here’s a quick fact I didn’t know: Senator George Mitchell, who just completed an investigation for major league baseball, was asked to serve on the court by President Clinton. He turned it down, preferring to focus on policy and legislation, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ended up taking the seat. 

Tyson Politics

You smell that??  Smells like Clemens is getting grilled…he’d better hope that this first congressman is the meat and not the appetizer. 

………………..

Whew…with a side of McNamee (sounds like fast food). 

………………..

Roger Clemens is barreling through, making clear his intentions for anyone in his way: GET UNDER MY BUS!

…………………

Well, it’s over and here’s how I see it.  Clemens was a good witness, but still couldn’t escape or explain some obvious inconsistencies and improbabilities in his testimony. McNamee looked bad and got caught in some lies of his own, but he has much less to lose and so he probably wasn’t as prepared to answer the hard questions. 

Andy (and Laura) Pettitte provided the most incriminating testimony, one which Roger could not explain away.  As a congressman pointed out early in the hearing, if Andy spoke with Roger about HGH in 2000 and Debbie Clemens didn’t take HGH until 2003, it would have been impossible for Andy to have mistaken Clemens for his wife in their first conversation in 2000 as Clemens suggests.  Were Ms. Vito there, she would have loudly pronounced that the defense’s case does not hold water.  (Incidentally, it seems unlikely that Debbie Clemens would have considered taking HGH without first talking to her husband.)

Secondly, prior to the hearing, the Clemens camp paraded the fact that Clemens was not at the Conseco party as remembered by McNamee.  McNamee was able to provide very specific detail about specific individuals at the party, including Clemens young child and nanny.  As the hearing proceeded, the possibility arose that Clemens did in fact stop by the Conseco house late after a morning golf game.  Furthermore, it hurt Clemens case that he tried to speak with his former nanny before turning over her contact information to Congress.

In the end, there may or may not be a perjury case brought by DoJ. I happen to believe that many people are so burned out on Barry Bonds and Marion Jones and such that these cases and getting old and uninteresting.

As for my personal opinion, if this were a court of law and I were a juror, I say Clemens is convicted under the balance of probabilities standard, but not beyond a shadow or a doubt.  That basically means Clemens is O.J. 2.0. 

Tyson News, Politics

John Stossel wrote a great peice today about using Health Savings Accounts for general medical care and limiting health insurance to major health events like cancer or heart disease.

Stossel uses the example of Whole Foods grocery chain, who switched to HSA’s five years ago for all its employees. Not only did company expenses go down, but some employees have racked up thousands of dollars in savings. Furthermore, the company has seen behavior change with regard to personal health care. “[Employees] may not want to go to the emergency room if they wake up with a hangnail in the middle of the night. They may schedule an appointment now.”

In fact, studies have shown that people who have high-deductible health insurance take better care of themselves. Stossel notes that when consumers have to pay for health care out of pocket, they are more inclined to shop around, ask about prices, comparison shop, which in turn drives down costs for everybody.

Makes sense to me…

Tyson News, Politics

It’s really quite interesting to watch the cult following of Ron Paul…I may have to do some reading and writing about him in the coming months.  Could he be a running-mate for the ages, or just a fly in the ointment?

Tyson Politics

I love investigative reporting, and I love reading about CIA operations, so when Brian Ross and his investigative team at ABC broke the story that President Bush had authorized a covert destabilization operation against the Iranian government, I was all ears. Brian Ross is one of the best investigative journalists in the country, and has broken many stories of great magnitude in the past. However, the sensitive nature of this news piece once again brought to the surface the question of journalistic responsibility when making news. This CIA operation is of course classified and not meant for the public, or Iran, to know. The question is:

Is there some information that journalists should not report because of potential danger or backlash?

I see both sides of this debate. On the one-hand, as an investigative journalist, to publish a story exposing corruption or secret plans or cover-ups is the top of the mountain – after all, this is the goal of the profession. Ross did not break any laws; he only reported what his sources were willing to pass on to him. Shouldn’t the leakers ultimately be responsible for this, not the journalist?

On the other hand, should value for nation or fellow citizens sometimes trump personal accolades and career objectives? If so, where do you draw the line? There was backlash after the abuses at Abu-Ghraid prison in Iraq, should that not have been reported? The New York Times famously broke the story on the NSA wire-tapping program, which no doubt tipped off the terrorists regarding phone communications, should that have been kept under wraps? Obviously this story did not have to be reported, and we can probably assume that many other stories dealing with sensitive information go unprinted by other news agencies.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that if there’s super-sensitive information that the public should never hear, you’d better tell as few people as possible and threaten Jack Bauer-like techniques towards everyone if any leaks occur. Of course if you know Jack, you know he’ll do “whatever it takes”.

Tyson Politics

Wow…this Senate testimony with AG Gonzalez is killing me! I’m not making an opinion on the issue at hand, it’s just amazing that Gonzo seems to have forgotten ALL the relevant information, meetings and discussions that pertain to the case. “Senator, I don’t recall…Senator, I can’t recall…Senator, I do not recall…” That pretty much sums up the hearing.

I guess I’m old skool, but I still take notes at most of my meetings. Further, even without notes I can remember pretty well almost every meeting of importance at the office in the past 3 years. Why is it that this guy can’t remember mega-important meetings and discussions from last November!?

Oh yeah…that’s why.

Tyson Politics

I guess I’m going to create a new category for pharmaceutical posts…it’s just so stinkin’ interesting and maddening, I gotta keep writing. I’m in the middle of a book by Dr. Marcia Angell called The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. Just stumbled upon it while perusing the library between the political section and the industry section.

Of course I was already convinced that our current system is broken, but this book just drives home the points. Americans are getting screwed by pharmaceutical companies, and then lied to about it. This is a classic DBH – Don’t Believe the Hype! Here are some nice facts you should know:

• The Pharma companies operate basically risk free because of all the government grants, funding and insurance they receive. In return for those favors, their profit margins are WAY above average, and the pharma industry is repeatedly the most profitable industry in America.
• In general, the industry IS NOT innovative – far from it. Most drugs put out are merely bought from government or educational labs and then manufactured and marketed. It is rare for a drug to have its origins in the labs of pharma companies. These guys act more like opportunists than researchers.
• Pharma companies are 90% marketing and manipulation, and only 10% research and innovations. It’s a profit driven industry.

Now, I’m usually all for free market and capitalism and all that good stuff. I just think a line has to be drawn we it comes to public health and safety. The public needs to be able to trust doctors and pharma companies to have their best interests in mind, and frankly that’s just not the case. Pharma companies would rather you think you had a disease and buy drugs for it than tell you the truth. Beyond that, we pay enormous amounts of money, and, as Dr. Angell argues, are not getting our money’s worth from big pharma. (Ever wonder why you can go to Germany and buy the exact same drug for 1/4 the price?)

Yes, we need big changes and regulations, that’s for sure. Get this – in many cases, we actually pay double for our drugs. Not only do taxpayers fund the initial research done at universities of the NIH (National Institute for Health) to develop a new drug, but then taxpayers pay for Medicaid to pay exorbant prices for the new drug that a pharma company paid royalties for and then patented. So, yeah, the pharma company gets rich, and we get Pwned.

OK – surely somebody has an aunt or mother that works at Pfizer and can straighten me out, right? Where am I going wrong?

Tyson Politics