Date posted: April 11, 2008 - Friday
Title: TW3 04/11/08
Current mood: Irritated
Sure It's A Bad Deal, But So What?
Apparently being in a bad deal doesn't seem to faze the State Department.
What do I mean? Well, the State Department announced recently the contract with Blackwater to provide security in Iraq would be renewed.
You remember Blackwater? The folks that gave us killing of 17 Iraqis including women and children last September. The incident is still under investigation by the FBI.
The State Department signed a five-year contract with Blackwater in 2006 and the contract has to be renewed each year. The renewal comes due next month. No new provisions would be added to the contract.
There is an agreement in place between the State Department and the U.S. military that calls for a higher level of coordination and supervision of contractors.
Sure, that makes a lot of sense. Give the military that is already stretched to the limit providing services it was never intended to deliver another task to watch over a bunch of loose-cannon privateers.
A standard procedure for any law enforcement agency in the U.S. is to put someone in an officer-involved shooting behind a desk until an investigation is complete. Guess it's too much to expect the State Department to put a hold on Blackwater until the investigation is complete. And knowing the speed with which these investigations proceed (can you say snail?) we probably can't expect a resolution of the investigation before the date to renew Blackwater's contract.
There are an estimated 25,000 civilians providing security in Iraq. They operate under an agreement that says they are immune from Iraqi law. The total number of American civilians involved in Iraq is said to outnumber the amount of U.S. military troops involved.
In a country where we started making progress towards peace when we started paying Iraqis to "like" us does it make any sense we are putting American prestige and good will in the hands of civilian contractors operating under a get-out-of-jail-free card?
The Seal of Approval That Limits Your Liability
The Supreme Court will rule next term on the concept of legal pre-emption and it doesn't look good for the consumer.
The case involves Johnson & Johnson and its' popular Ortho Evra birth control patch. For years the company "obscured" evidence the patch delivered much more estrogen than standard birth control pills and exposed the user to increased risks of blood clots and strokes.
Now the company is being sued by women who claim they were injured by using the patch.
The company is arguing, even though its' label inaccurately descried the amount of estrogen being released, because the FDA approved the patch that legally pre-empts them from liability. It is a legal argument which has been dismissed by the courts for decades, but now appears to be on the verge of success.
The Bush administration has argued strongly for the doctrine, which holds the FDA is the only agency with expertise to regulate drug makers and its' decisions shouldn't be second-guessed by the courts. Essentially the administration is arguing the agency is infallible in its' decisions on drugs.
An independent assessment of the FDA has concluded the agency is poorly organized, scientifically deficient and short of money.
Given the checkered history of the FDA's approval record, and the pressure over the last few years to rush its' decisions on drugs, granting it the mantle of infallibility seems questionable at best; and damn dangerous.
In the case against Johnson & Johnson evidence has shown internally the company knew the patch released more estrogen than lower-dose pills and reduced the numbers by 40 percent before releasing them to the public. The FDA didn't warn the public about the risks until six years after the company had conducted its' study of the drug.
After the warning use of the drug fell by 80%.
The Court has already ruled in favor of pre-emption in cases involving pacemakers and other medical devices. So, it doesn't look good for the women suing Johnson & Johnson. Or for anyone else relying on the government agency to protect their interests against companies who don't mind fudging figures and obscuring facts in the quest for profits.
Yes, Officer, Your Rating Is Poor
Uses for the Internet continue to expand.
The latest is a web site created by a Culver City couple that allows people to rate police and sheriff's deputies across the country. Needless to say, police agencies are not happy about the web site and want it closed down.
Police argue the site exposes officers and their families to "grave danger." Some law enforcement officials are seeking legislation to close down the website and prohibit others from starting up.
The founder of the site says it only lists information which would be available from a traffic ticket. A constitutional law professor, himself an ex-policeman, says it would be difficult to prohibit the web site if it is using information which is available in public records.
But the site has already faced trouble because at least two companies it used as a web host have stopped carrying the site, forcing it to find a new host.
RateMyCop.Com has a database of some 500 departments around the country focusing on major cities, with the majority being in California, Texas and Florida. The average rating for officers is 3.7 out of a possible 5 stars.
One San Diego police spokesperson worried about the lack of transparency as to who had posted information about an individual officer. "There are many sites out there where people can put information up," said Monica Moica Munoa, “and there is no method of verifying if that information is accurate."
Yep, that's true. But then it has been shown information from police sponsored web sites can be inaccurate as well. One database at one point listed complaints filed against people, but there was no disposition ever listed if the complaints were upheld or the person was ever convicted of a crime.
The Internet is a place where a lot of information is placed. Accuracy has never been a requirement for anyone to sound off on just about anything they want to. Yes, there could be some unfair postings on a cop rating website, but that's the price of living in a free society.
Quickies
Testifying before Congress recently FEMA Director R. David Paulinson said, "the FEMA of 2008 is not the FEMA of 2005."
Well, let's hope not!
While a watchdog agency says FEMA has made progress in instituting reforms, it was only rated as having made "moderate" progress in five of the nine areas which were said to need improvement. It did not receive a "substantial" improvement rating in any one of the nine areas.
Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu expressed frustration at the lack of apparent urgency in the FEMA reforms. "I'm not sure we are actually any better off today than we were 2 ½ years ago," she said.
Citing the document that established FEMA, Paulinson said it was too restrictive and limited innovative things the agency might want to do to help people in an emergency. Paulinson was praised for his attitude which was described as, "If it is legal and will help someone, do it."
Decision by committee rarely works out well. Let's hope FEMA really has its' act together when it is needed the next time.
No big surprise the recently released annual survey of airline quality showed declines in every area. The biggest change was in the rate of consumer complaints; up 60 percent. The rate rose for 15 of the 16 airlines surveyed.
The biggest complaints came in the area of late flights, lost bags and, of course, higher prices. On-time arrivals dropped for the fifth straight year. The rates of passengers bumped from overbooked flights and bags lost, stolen or damaged also jumped in 2007.
Major airlines have slashed jobs and passenger amenities while adding fees for second bags, traveling with pets and booking tickets by phones and three smaller airlines have stopped flying because of financial pressures.
And with a major airline canceling thousands of flights in the last week to conduct safety inspections it doesn't look like next year's survey will get any better.
Another sign the economy is in the dumper and people are sticking close to home -- The top 12 movies currently playing only took in $80.9 million dollars last week, down 27 percent from the same weekend last year.
Want to be known as a sea slug? Well, here's your chance. Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla is offering you the chance to have your name on a new species of sea slug. For a tax deductible donation, bids starting at $15,000, you can put your name on a new species of nudibranch, a pleasantly plump hermaphrodite mollusk with bright orange speckles.
If a sea slug isn't your favorite the institute is also offering naming rights to a hydrothermal vent worm, a bone-eating worm and a kelp forest worm.
Well, sports teams get tons of money for letting companies put their names on facilities so I guess helping raise money for science through naming a sea slug is at least a better use for the money.
A story came out today (Friday) about how the software being used to run some of the gaming machines in Indian casinos was outdated and inaccurate. No surprise the machines had a tendency toward errors that took money away from the bettor and not the casino.
The software also made mistakes in tabulating the total intake of money from gaming and the amount paid to the state.
We all know, and have probably experienced, software from major manufacturers (can you say Microsoft) that is issued with glitches and bugs that need later fixing from patches. And we may have experienced some software that just plain didn't do what it was supposed to.
So, is it any wonder people are skeptical about placing their voting and the progress of democracy, into the hands of electronic machines that are just as fallible?
Oh happy news at tax time.
A report released this week says because of poor controls IRS computers are vulnerable to disgruntled employees, agency contractors and hackers who could gain access to your confidential personal information.
The report doesn't cite any specific examples of this happening, but says there is no oversight process in place that would even alert the agency such an event had taken place.
Gas prices have already hit all-time highs across the country and are expected to climb again as the summer driving season approaches. The current average price in the country is $3.30 a gallon and the government agency which predicts prices says it could hit $3.60 by June.
In my neck of the woods, the San Diego County area, prices hit $3.73 a gallon this week up from $3.63 last week. Statewide in California the average is $3.72.
POST NOTE:
There was a lot of stuff I could have included here this week. If fact, if I had worked harder, this could have been twice as long as it is.
I pointed out earlier in the week the latest issue of "Newsweek" for articles on green technology. I think it is an interesting read, but it's up to you.
I'm looking for some personal feedback on this weekly blog. I appreciate the comments and the interaction and hope it will continue and possibly even expand, but I would also appreciate if you would drop me a note on your thoughts about the continued posting of this blog every week. Does it make an impact or inform you at all? Am I off base? Just a little feedback would be appreciated from those of you who comment and those of you who usually
