Mickey

I made a case for why sound economic reasons existed for the pharmacy policies that, in essence, requre pharmacies to dispense medicines. In response, I was called a fascist, advocating state control of all businesses. Somewhere in there I made the point that powerful corporations can exercise undue power over individuals just as much as a government can. From there things just took off. Bottom line, I think pharmacies like Wal Mart should have to dispense medicine that sick people need regardless of whether it is not the most profitable drug around just like hospitals can't refuse to set broken legs because their profit margin is better on liposuctions. This is really politics disguised as business and as usual, it has to do with abortion so everyone is speaking in codes and losing their minds.

I am not sure the pharmacy issue has anything to do with labor vs. management. It's sick people who need medicine vs. Wal Mart. In that one I am going with the sick people. I know, I'm just a crazy fascist.

That doesn't mean that Eichmann was innocent nor does it mean that Krupp and other convicted industrialists weren't guilty. Don't confuse an anecdote for truth. Eleven Krupp directors found guilty out of twelve. Is that not enough? Thirteen out of twenty four tried at IG Farbin were convicted. Is that not enough? Is there an acceptable number of war criminals working for these companies before we consider them to have been willing nazis? Six were tried and three were found guilty. How is that "largely acquitted"? As for how profitable it was for these companies, I note that military spending in Germany in 1932 was 1.9 million marks and by 1939 it was 32.2 million. I'm thinking that maybe steel and armament concerns did quite well during that period, quite well indeed. Flick started donating money to right wing political parties that wanted to install an authoritarian government starting in 1929 and that included the Nazis. Flick maintained that the Jewish companies he acquired after Hitler attained power were obtained by negotiating legitimate business deals. Convincing evidence indicates that his position is untenable. Flick KG did not operate in a vacuum in the 1930s; its executives were not ignorant of the racial persecution that was forcing German Jews to sell their businesses. Between 1937 and 1939, Flick KG energetically involved itself in three Aryanization projects that increased Flick's coal and pig iron supplies, so that his company was less dependent on outside producers (thereby reducing production costs). The Flick group acquired Hochofenwerk Lübeck, a blast furnace operation; the lignite mines Anhaltische Kohlenwerke - Werschen Weissenfelser AG (AKW-WW), owned by the Julius Petschek family; and select lignite mines located in central Germany belonging to the Ignaz Petschek family. Flick acquired those concerns because it improved their bottom line. Cry the beloved Wal Mart. I am not "conveniently ignoring" anything, I don't even know what you are talking about in that last paragraph. What institutions are those? Should I be including Ford and General Motors whose subsidiaries were filling defense contracts for Hitler even after 1939 in that list? I am sure that Carnegie and the like have established many a charitable trust over the years but that doesn't erase those aspects of their past of which even they would be ashamed. Hitler was kind to his dog. Maybe that makes him a hero with the ASPCA, on the whole though, I don't think that kindness really gets him off the hook. I don't get the nostalgia for the days of yore where robber barons and trusts made it possible for us all to enjoy 23 hour days, child labor, lungs full of coal dust and a life expectancy hovering near 12. Oh for the good old days. Before we go off on a long discussion of the history of corporations, maybe its too late to stop that, but let me try. The issue here is pharmacy regulations that, long and short of it, don't let a pharmacy decide to refuse to dispense a perfectly legal medicine ordered by a doctor for his or her patient. Agree or disagree and if you disagree, am I a "fascist" for thinking its a good idea? That is how this little adventure started. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading up on the history of Flick AG and the Krupp Werks but I don't think I'm in any danger of Wal Mart Aryanizing condom sales in the northeast any time soon.

I think he eve worked in the mail room. German industry enthusiastically and without anyones gun to their heads, bought up Jewish owned factories and equipment at a fraction fo their worth. Careful on the slave labor stuff. The Germans considered non-Aryan civilians working under contracts they signed under threat of being sent to penal camps to be "free" labor. Such labor was available long before war broke out. From 1933 on, Krupp and others were good little nazi industrialists. Were they following orders? To some extent, sure they were. "I was just following orders" is not a defense anyone but a fascist recognizes as valid. Besides, they had lots of choices within the framework of what the Reich wanted built. They chose what to feed or not feed their slave laborers. Do you really equate pharmacy regulations in the US with Hitler and his war criminal industrial sycophants?

Sure it was planned, a plan those corporations had little or no objections to. I don't see why there would be any problems with the development of a new engine pre-nazi. Not so Degussa proccessing the gold pried from the teeth of millions of concentration camp victims. By the way, numerous German industrialists were tried for war crimes after the war. Eleven of twelve Krupp directors were convicted and sentenced to prison. Alfried Krupp himself was froced to sell all of his possessions. Here is what he had to say about Krupp and the Nazis: "We thought that Hitler would give us such a healthy environment. Indeed he did do that. ... We Krupps never cared much about [political] ideas. We only wanted a system that worked well and allowed us to work unhindered. Politics is not our business." Three officials of Flick KG were also convicted and sentenced in another trial of German industrialists after the war. They used concentration camp inmates and other slave laborers in their factories and mines. They helped found the Nazi friendly "Circle of Friends" in 1932 which became the Circle of Friends of Himmler in 1935. Before we get too far afield, do you agree or disagree that government is far more dangerous when it intervenes on behalf of the largest institutional interests in society than when it intervenes on behaltf of the interests of individuals as against large institutions? That is really the issue in this particular debate. I am for more comfortable with a government that stands up for the little guy than I am with a government that stands up for Wal Mart.

There was a deep bond between those corporations and the Nazi's. The resistance they offered was nil. Many enthusiastically accepted slave laborers by the hundreds if not thousands. Hitler needed them to re-arm and they needed the government contracts. The Nazis dictated a lot of prices but since they were supplying slave laborers, the corporations could afford lower prices and still make very tidy profits. The fact is that many American Corporations were only too happy to do business with the Nazis and did so for quite awhile. Hitler wasn't dictating anything to them, he was just a good customer.

Your understanding of the exercise of power and the role of government seems to be quite limited. Even more limited is your inability to understand the difference between selling hoola-hoops and life saving medicines. Worst of all is your inability to see that there are occasions where protecting individuals, real live people, is more important than protecting large corporations. If hospitals and pharmacies were treated simply as businesses with profit being the only legitimate goal, there are quite a lot of live saving procedures and medicines that would not be available. Fortunately, the world isn't run by idiots who see fascism in government protecting individuals but not in powerful corporations deciding which people will have access to which medicines regardless of medical need and the opinions of actual doctors. Since government is such a terrible thing when it comes to requiring pharmacies to make drugs available inorder to have a license, I have a sound solution for the poor embattled Board of Directors at Wal Mart. No federal dollars, none, not medicaid, not medicare, zip for any prescriptions purchased at Wal Mart so that Wal Mart can be entirely free of government "interference". Those who want to buy their drugs there can do so with their own money and at prices far exceeding what would be otherwise paid at other pharmacies. Nobody is asking my politics when they take my tax money to pay for those prescriptions You might want to expand your understanding of fascism a little bit. In Nazi Germany, the government was so pro-business it was hard to tell the two apart. The government didn't force businesses to do its bidding, the government volunteered to help the businesses do anything they wanted. There were no better allies to the Nazi's then the largest business interests in Germany, the Wal Marts of their day (Corporations collaborating with the Nazis included Krupp, Daimler Benz, Opel, Mann, Volkswagen, BASF, Degussa, Siemens and IG Fargen to name just a few). When government intervenes against the interests of individuals, real live people, on behalf of large businesses and to their benefit, that is true fascism. The result is a combination of the largest, wealthiest and most powerful institutions in society working in concert. Against such an alliance, individual freedom doesn't stand a chance. Government is at its least fascist when it intervenes on behalf of individuals as against powerful institutions be they businesses or some other breed. Every concern you have raised has been over the much abused "rights" of poor old Wal Mart. As for people, real live people, the kind with arms and legs and medical problems requiring medicinal treatment, you apparently don't give a rat's a$$. An imaginary, inflated threat to Wal Mart's profits have you in conservo-salivating overdrive about fascism but the plight of actual people, doesn't merit so much as a syllable of concern from you. But you aren't a fascist are you? IG Farben would have loved you.

The issue regarding Wal Mart pharmacies actually takes this dispute to another level beyond individual pharmacists. The issue had been whether or not an individual pharmacist could refuse to dispense a given medication based on moral grounds. That particular issue has a lot more room to allow for both patient care and the pharmacist's moral purity. A pharmacy can simply have another pharmacist on duty whose morality is not so offended fill the order. Here you have the pharmacy itself not refusing to dispense the meds but refusing to even stock them. I am not sure what religion Wal Mart is or whether there is such a thing as corporate conscience worthy of protection over and above a patient's health. If we are going to permit Wal Mart executives to have their collective morality (how in the world that would be determined I don't know) protected, will we also protect the individual morality, the conscientous objectors if you will, among Wal Mart Pharmacists? If a Wal Mart pharmacist disagrees with the Wal Mart executives, will we make Wal Mart allow that pharmacist to dispense the drugs? I am not even sure it would be proper to let individual pharmacists refuse to do their jobs. I think it is even less defensible to permit the entire pharmacy, let alone a nationwide chain of them, to decide this issue not just for patients but even for their own pharmacists. I have no desire to protect the ability of the Wal Mart Board of Directors to serve as a philosophical and moral tribunal deciding which medications are ethically pure enough to be dispensed.

Let me speculate. Given the horrific record of this Administration, people sense that the end is near and are humping like rabbits before its all over.

Actually, no I didn't dumbass, I just made an observation about God and death because I felt like it. Thanks for all the flattering attention though.

I don't know, I'm thinking God is not all together happy with anyone who is killing human beings no matter who is killing or being killed.

If it sounds too stupid to possibly be true, maybe it isn't. The premise is that everyone in gitmo is a terrorist. If so, let them rot. But, is it so? I don't know. Are they POW's, soldiers of the Afghan government at the time of the Afghan war, invasion, police action, whatever we should be calling it? I don't know. Have they all been caught red handed defending AQ in Afghanistan? I don't know. Who are they? What are they? I don't know. I haven't posted anything taking the administration to task over the gitmo detainees or whatever they are being called these days. I have been pretty much trusting that the administration is holding them because they are too dangerous to let go but I am running out of trust where these people are concerned.

What is up with you lately? That is around 7 or 8 posts in a row that were either funny, made sense or both. Cut it out.

Just another missunderstood genius going unappreciated in his time.

*Whoooooooooop* (sound of Sarcasmatron being activated) I'm perfectly comfortable leaving the issue of access to needed medications up to Wal Mart executives because I am sure they have my best interests at heart. *ffffffwippp* (sound of sarcasmatron being deactivated).

Apparently the food at the Bronx Zoo is better and the accomodations more luxurious so perhaps us lefties would be satisfied.

I disagree, I don't see Saddam becoming either at the moment. A nice humiliating trial followed by a humane execution would do quite nicely. Just as sound an argument could be made that he in fact continues on as an inspirational figure the longer the most powerful nation in the world is unable to apprehend him. Rather than try and figure out something we can never really figure out, ie, whether we are better off with him alive and at large or in custody, I say we just do what is right which is to bring him to justice for his crimes against humanity. Maybe that would not be the best move in a Macciavellian sense, maybe it would be, I don't know. I could pull a Bush here. I think he often said, "Some people think we are not better off with Saddam having been removed, I think we are" or words to that effect. I could just as easily posit that "some people think we are better off with Osama Bin Ladin, the man who butchered thousands of Americans on 9/11, still a free man, I disagree..." I could but since my name isn't "Rove", I will refrain.

It is an interesting dichotomy for those who profess to be anti-government. The reason for being anti-government isn't that its simply fun or lets you get dates with all the cool chicks. There is a logical basis to it along the lines of government action inhibiting individual freedom. Protecting and enforcing the rights of powerless individuals as against large and powerful institutions like governments makes sense. Wal-Mart is not an individual for one thing. Their customers are individuals. Government isn't the only entity whose actions can negatively impact individual freedom. Politico-religious groups with their endless bundles of cash and armies of lobbyists working hand in hand with a business entity as powerful as Wal-Mart can do the job of inhibiting individual freedom just as effectively as a government can. Here, the anti-government crowd might, in a fit of self flattery as the defenders of freedom, end up supporting Wal-Mart, a large and powerful entity with tons of cash, political power and shady connections to shadier politicians against the needs of solitary individuals to get medicines they and their doctors have decided they need. Thank God someone is watching out for poor Wal-Mart against the nefarious interests of these individual, politically unconnected, pay check to pay check living customers. Cry the beloved corporation. I understand perfectly the Libertarian impulse to favor the rights of individuals such as with gun control and tax collection but I don't understand their tendency to treat corporations as "individuals". They are not, they are institutions, organizations, etc. In this particular case, the power of government is not being harnessed to take away rights of individuals but is instead being harnessed to give individuals and their interests a fighting chance in dealing with institutions that would otherwise have a field day at the public's expense.

They can express it all they want, just not when they are performing and being paid to perform, a public service. I don't care what your religion or political beliefs are, if you are an EMT, you can't arrive at the scene of a car accident and refuse to treat a victim who is gay or black or whatever. If you don't like it, get a job where other people don't suffer so your beliefs can remain pure. The notion that christians, the vast, vast, vast majority of people in this country who are running the show from dawn 'til dusk from coast to coast are some poor picked on minority who is in danger of being herded into concentration camps is beyond average paranoia, it boders on the pathological. The party they support controls both houses of congress, the Presidency and has just placed two hand picked judges on the Supreme Court and vetoed a third. Christians are far more in danger of becoming an oppressive majority than an oppressed minority. I understand though that to keep the cash donations flowing from christians, those who rely on their support need to keep them perpetually up in arms by fostering the myth that they are victims of a large, powerful and anti-christian culture. The result of that twisted logic is that rarest of all breeds: a persecuted majority. Makes sense. Kind of like tall short people, rich poor people and alive dead people.

If someone in the chain doesn't think you are a bad guy, they aren't goint to tap you anyway. That is the same result under the law or outside of it. If the NSA tells Alberto its a bad guy, he puts that into the certification and signs it and off you go. If the NSA says the target is clean, that would be it under any game plan. The alternative for them would be to tap people they think are good targets and to also tap people they don't think are good targets thus, they end up tapping everyone from Marv Levy to Willy Wonka. Well, if Willy Wonka weren't a fictional character that is.

It is even worse than that Johnny. Of the 4, two were modified and approved as modified and the other two were appealed successfully so that they were ultimately issued exactly as requested so in essence, all 1226 requests were granted. FISA Annual Report 2002 I ran the numbers going back to 2000 which I took right from the yearly congressional reports and posted all the results including links to the reports not to long ago so I don't know why this kind of disinformation is still floating in the toilet bowl. The essential number was something along the lines of 96% on the whole and if you toss out warrant requests that the government withdrew itself, warrant requests that were made at the end of the year but not approved until after January 1st (thus making it look in the yearl stats that a request was denied) and the like, the number was, if I recall correctly, 99.5% of all warrant requests by this administration were granted by the FISA Court between 2000 and 2004.

Also, I don't think letting a guy get away with killing thousands of Americans sets a very good example to our enemies or our friends. Afteralll, he is the man most responsible for the worst crime ever committed against our country. Seems to me it is or should be a priority to get him.

There are sound reasons for such laws. Some medications are not very profitable to stock and if you didn't make pharmacies stock pretty much all the basics, those unprofitable meds would not be available. That could be a real issue in a rural area where the nearest pharmacy is a long way away. Another problem is that if one pharmacy stocked only the profitable meds, it could undercut the prices of its competition in the area assuming they are selling those unprofitable meds. In theory, they would drive the competitors out of business so now those meds are no longer available in the area and the ones that are, are more expensive because there is no longer any competition.

I keep resisting the urge to take the speculative leap that the reason they didn't do it according to FISA is that Alberto took a look at some of the targets and refused to sign his name, to certify, the tap as involving a bad guy. Under the FISA statutory scheme, the AG basically puts his butt on the line by giving his word that it was needed and involved a bad guy which means he is the guy in trouble if there are abuses. Hopefully, that is the check, the balance that keeps things from getting out of hand. If the AG started balking on some of these, that would explain the need to move outside of FISA. Like I said, its just speculation which is going to run around quite a bit in the absence of a credible alternative explanation.