Archive for January 1st, 2004

Be Reasonable – Part 2

Posted January 1, 2004 By Dave Thomer

Picking up on our discussion of deductive logic, the five basic operations we discussed last time have certain properties that make one statement identical to another – there are multiple ways to express the same basic idea. This is important because one way of phrasing a statement might suggest or make clear a way of developing the argument that a perfectly equivalent phrasing might not. Some of these are very basic, such as the property of commutation – ‘p v q’ is the same thing as ‘q v p.’ Others are obvious, like the rule of double negation: ‘~~p’ is the same thing as ‘p.’ But others are slightly more complicated.
Read the remainder of this entry »

Filed in Philosophy

All Natural Is Not Always All Good

Posted January 1, 2004 By Pattie Gillett

Though some might not agree, it cannot be a coincidence that less than a year after the death of Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler, the Food and Drug Administration finally succeeded in doing what it had been trying to do for ten years – getting the herbal supplement ephedra off the market. Bechler’s death from heatstroke in 2003 was linked to his use of the diet pills containing ephedra. Though doctors had known for years that the active ingredient in ephedra supplements could cause dangerous increases in both heart rate and blood pressure, putting users at increased risk of heart attack, stroke, and related ailments, Bechler’s death gave the media a high profile casualty to link with the drug.

Some might say that it is too cynical to presume that without a martyr, the FDA ‘s case against ephedra might never have made it this far, but history tells a different story. In fact, due to the double standard in how supplements and drugs are regulated, it might actually be surprising that the ban has happened at all. Read the remainder of this entry »

Filed in Public Policy

Profit and Loss in the Marketplace of Ideas

Posted January 1, 2004 By Dave Thomer

When Dr. Laura Schlessinger made comments that many claimed denigrated and disrespected homosexuals, offended individuals quickly boycotted the show and its advertisers.

When Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines made comments that many claimed denigrated and disrespected President George W. Bush, offended individuals quickly boycotted the band, its albums and its concerts.

These and other boycotts just as quickly spawned a backlash of their own. By threatening media figures with a loss of income, boycotters attempt to stifle the expression of certain unpopular ideas, and thus deprive these figures of their right to free speech. Author Peter David, for example, has repeatedly criticized such efforts on his blog, including one entry where he writes: “I’m talking about pure, simple, appropriate, proportional response. If you disagree with someone, say it with words, because saying it with punitive, retaliatory measures proves nothing except that you are petty and intolerant.”

I applaud the sentiment behind David’s position, but as I have thought about it, I can’t help but feel he’s not quite on the right track here. In certain situations in a market-based economy, boycotts and economic pressure are a wholly legitimate method of political and social discourse. Read the remainder of this entry »

Filed in Special Order Speeches

Better Supplement Controls No Great Loss

Posted January 1, 2004 By Pattie Gillett

The public response to the recent ephedra ban (which is also this subject of this month’s Public Policy article) puzzles me to no end. Reminiscent of the Today sponge episode of Seinfield, people have responded to the FDA’s banning of the potentially dangerous supplement by hoarding the stuff.

ABC News reports that health food stores were cleaned out of products containing the supplement within hours of the announcement of the impending ban. Though GNC, the nation’s largest retailer of supplements, stopped selling products that contain ephedra in June 2003, there are still hundreds of thousands of pharmacies, health food stores and gyms who are more than willing to sell Metabolife, Speed Stack, Ripped Force, and others, by the case, if necessary.

Longtime users credit ephedra supplements with helping them to stay in shape, fight fatigue, perform better in sports, and, of course, lose weight. More than anything else, ephedra supplements are marketed as weight-loss aids. On its web site Metabolife International claims its Metabolife 356, one of the most popular ephedra products on the market, increases the body’s metabolism so users burn fat faster. A well placed asterisk warns the reader that these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA and that the products is not intended to cure, prevent, treat, or diagnose disease. It’s a catchall disclaimer that supplement manufacturers use to remind users which side of the DSHEA Act of 1994 they are on. Read the remainder of this entry »

Filed in Life in Practice