I really confused about this. I thought they did NOT want their tax dollars to be used in such a way. Am I wrong? I am going to go out on a limb and say that they (the conservatives) would likely be extremely outraged and incencesed if a Democrat had done this with their tax dollars. Especially considering how it was done secretly to appear like "real" commentary and during an election campaign (possibly making it illegal).
Can someone explain or show me were I am mistaken?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/08/bush.journalist/
I think it sucks, personally. I don't care about the tax dollars: Most federal departments have a use it or lose it mentality. That money would've just gone to a PR firm had it not gone to Williams.
I do fault the DOE and, by association, the White House. No, I don't think Bush should be impeached nor at this point does it question my confidence in his fitness for office. Now, if this stuff continues or is proven to be more widespread, then we can have a conversation.
I mostly fault the press (conservative and liberal) which continues to walk this fine line between objectivism and agenda. Ironically, once someone gets caught, everyone abandons him and claims higher ground...until the next guy gets caught. Reason number 1001 to read a diverse array of news sources (make sure one of em is international) and form your own opinions.
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 4:55:06 PM
What the guy did is wrong and he is being punished for it. I'd love to use it as another excuse to abolish the Dept. of Education, but that ain't gonna happen.
His explaination made sense, I got paid to say things I was going to say anyway. (If the NRA starting paying me, I'd be happy!) But I'd need to start each NRA column with the fact that they paid me. He fucked up by not disclosing being paid. The Education Dept fucked up because, they are the Govt. and THEY ALWAYS FUCK UP.
It was probably high-level stupidity by a mid-level beaurocrat.
RLTW
1, I'm glad to see you coming to your senses whern it comes to government misusing taxpayer money. I look forward to your consistency on this point goping forward. As an example, and why I called attention to 25, this is what is going on on a much largwer scale at that liberal porktank known as NIH....
David Willman of the Los Angeles Times writes about conflicts of interest at the National Institutes of Health:
NIH Director Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni has told Congress that outside work should be allowed if “the scientist is giving advice in an area … that is not part of his official duties.”
Information gathered by a congressional committee, in addition to company records and 15,000 pages of government documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that NIH researchers have repeatedly crossed Zerhouni’s line.
For example:
• Dr. P. Trey Sunderland III, a senior psychiatric researcher, took $508,050 in fees and related income from Pfizer Inc. at the same time that he collaborated with Pfizer — in his government capacity — in studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Without declaring his affiliation with the company, Sunderland endorsed the use of an Alzheimer’s drug marketed by Pfizer during a nationally televised presentation at the NIH in 2003.
http://www.thescoop.org/archives/2004/12/27/nih-conflicts-of-interest
LATimes is my home paper. I've been following the reports on this one quite regularly. Its appalling, but not really surprising in todays world, and points out a major problem in the rise to power of the pharmaceutical industry. The arrogance and conflicts of interest are staggering.
Please please PLEASE don't let these mutherfuckers off with a wristslap.
BTW - I didn't know the NIH was a liberal organization, I thought they were just liberally collecting pork and dispensing favors.
Our reactions are similar. NO SIDE can claim the high ground on rthis one. What is perhaps most disturbing of all is the extent to which we as a nation have become dependant upon drugs. What did they say, 125 million perscriptions out of 250 million people? Hundreds of billions of dollars??
Bush's big pharma bill, (and his Big Farm(a) Bill) were 2 of the reasons I did not vote for him.
And yes, NIH is a pigbaby borne of the liberal mind....
""Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."""
--Thomas Jefferson
NIH is nowhere to be found....
BK
... I have never seen this agency as having a political slant Bill, please explain.
Do any of you really want to stop clinical trials for drugs or eliminate government oversite & review? There may be a whole lot of things that need to be changed about the way drugs are developed, marketed, and sold in this country, but I don't think the solution is to do away with regulation.
I agree that the NIH is going to have to enforce it's own rules about conflict of interest. Given the $$$ available to the people involved, that won't be as easy as it looks, but it has to happen.
Sorry Harry, but his time, I agree the NIH needs to be completely revamped. We definitely need oversight for the pharms, serious, intensively rigid oversight. But the NUH, the FDA, and other regulatory agencies have become almost as bloated with corruption and pork as the recent spending bill that authorized $4 million dollars for the study of how hurricanes affect shrimp.
Maybe what we need to do is simply eliminate K Street. Lobbyists representing their chosen special interests are pretty muich writing all the legislation already.
Personally, I think this government is as corrupt as any third world druglord financed junta. Just because the drugs have names like Levitra and Xanax instead of cocaine and marijuana, whats the real difference at this point? Its still government of the pharm, by the pharm and for the pharm.
Good thing we have the oil lobby and the neocon lobby to distract from the drug pharm lobby.
And just think... with all our problems, we're still the most envied country in the world. Hated, but envied.
The Chinese curse is truly upon us all, for we do indeed live in interesting times.
... & (2) How would you fix this?
There are differences between recreational drugs and drugs for disease (as you know) and I disagree when you equate the two.
Regulation is tough. When you do it right then everybody should hate you. I agree that the government needs to inforce regs stopping regulators getting $$$ from people they regulate. However, it's harder than you think. The best people for these jobs come out of the drug industry and they will have connections that won't be severed. It's one of the reasons why they are good (and one of the reasons why we have problems). Remember that these people may see the gov side as a stop in their career rather than a goal.
The congressional policy to "save" money by having drug companies pay for their part in the regulatory process hasn't worked out particularly well.
I don't know of any "first world" country that doesn't take a similar approach as the US and have similar problems. Do you?
-- Modified on 1/13/2005 10:40:01 AM
All administrations have spent money in varying ways to sway the public to their policies, but this seemed like a STUPID way to do it and I believe Armstrong Williams credibility is now right up the with Mary Mapes.
Personally, if he was on a station I owned, I would drop him like a bad habit.
since I don't know ANY conservatives who aren't outraged about it. I would align myself with most responses which point out that this is just one more good reason to abolish the Department of Education, but it just won't happen.
Williams should and will pay a price for it.
Of course, Williams is also not a journalist, and doesn't pretend to be; he is a commentator. The wrong here is passing one's self off as independent, and giving the appearance of being bought and paid for.
As an attorney, I don't have a problem with someone being paid to advance a cause, so long as that fact is disclosed. Unfortunately, here, it was not.
However, I'll save my "outrage" for journalists who pass themselves off as "objective" and act as advocates (see Dan Rather).