Good! FDA to crack down on supplements makers

Now, thanks to Congress in general and former Sen. Orrin Hatch in particular, the FDA's power over supplements is limited, but it sounds like it plans to fully use the powers it has, at least on the new claims that supplements can fight Alzheimer's

About time.

I'm sure this will piss off many (other) Greens who think supplements are pure and pristine and natural (they're not, and you're committing the naturalistic fallacy) or else less capitalistic than Big Pharma (also not true; why do you think Orrin Hatch got the industry such a regulatory pass?)

On the capitalism side, the NY Times reported 3 years ago, based on government research, that Merika spends $30 billion a year on supplements. Note to FDA Commish Scott Gottlieb: I partially blame the gummint, including Orrin Hatch, with the founding of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health — i.e., the alt-med wing of the National Institutes of Health.

It's true that this is only about 1 percent of what we collectively spend on pharmaceuticals. That said, allowing for research replication viability and related issues, pharmaceuticals are prescribed to actually do something that they normally do. Supplements are self-prescribed by people for things they have not been proven to do and, on the deregulation, don't have to try to prove they can do.

And, because they're not regulated, supplements have a lot less overhead than pharmaceuticals.

The NYT piece also adds this. The biggest supplements users are generally the healthiest people already. In short, the supplements world feeds off of, and further feeds, a low-level hypochondria.

Did you know there are TWO Green Party organizations in the US (updated)?

Indeed. And, kind of like splits between various Socialist groups in the last 50 years, the interlocking parts of the histories of the Green Party USA and Green Party US (the folks that you're normally voting for if you vote Green) is fairly contentious.

(Update, Aug. 6, 2020: This may be a "was" now as the GPUSA website doesn't load. Could just be a Net problem, or it could mean a functional GPUSA is dead.)

Wiki, in its piece on the GPUSA, has a bit more on this split, and its fallout, and more on its piece on the history of the GPUS.

The GPUSA, in turn, has a long, fairly bitter piece on the split. The GPUS, in its history piece, only refers briefly to "tensions." It details more to the split between Naderites and others in 2004. (From what I know of that issue, there were problems on both sides. The GPUS had established a more formal nomination process in 2004; if Nader didn't want to go through that, that was his problem. On the other hand, even more with more insight and more backstory, David Cobb's, er, "accommoGreen" strategy isn't one I totally agree with. It's no surprise he's close to 2016 Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein, who carried the idea to new, generally bad, levels. The GPUSA, in turn, alludes to some of that, noting the GPUS formed out of the previous Association of State Green Parties in 2001 and alleges that this was in part due to reaction to the Nader campaign.

If the GPUSA piece is correct, the GPUS, or "Green Party," has some transparency issues. Of course, so did the gentlemen in Philadelphia 1787.

I understand some of the GPUSA bitterness. On the flip side, it had done nothing to organize a national party, from what I can tell. On the flip side to THAT, the GPUS would probably argue that a national party wasn't necessary.

On the third hand, and related to that, Green Pages News, the GPUS official newsletter, in its generally good history of the US movement from 1984-2001, notes that many Greens, over the issue that state parties differed on the issue of requiring dues payment or not, felt the GPUSA was non-representative by excluding some state parties.

In turn, re Nader, that piece notes that he ran a limited-funding campaign in 1996 under a Green invite in order to avoid Federal Elections Commission campaign finance filings. (The more and more I've read about Ralph, and even more, what I've heard from his own mouth on things like lamenting low interest rates in his investment income, the more I say, I'm glad he's not a Green. And, related to that, in my judgment call, the GPUSA might have an extra degree of rigor, but I think it's also butt-hurt over 1996-2004 political and organizational events.)

The above pieces combined also shed more light on things like the "Ten Core Values" of Greens. Those are listed on Wiki's GPUS page.

1. Grassroots democracy
2. Social justice
3. Ecological wisdom
4. Nonviolence
5. Decentralization
6. Community-based economics
7. Women's rights
8. Respect for diversity
9. Global responsibility
10. Future focus

One alleged factor in the increasing split between the two, according to the GPUSA, has been that GPUS officials and candidates, over things like the Iraq War, haven't fully honored the nonviolence principle.

Although admitting that the "just war" concept can itself possibly be a slippery slope, nonetheless, if nonviolence is an absolutist principle ... I don't totally back it.

The other principles?

I support decentralization only to the degree it's actually beneficial, and definitely not as a one-size-fits-all policy. After all, another phrase for "decentralization" is "states' rights." Or, per the top half of this piece, yet another phrase for "decentralization" is "GPUS vs GPUSA discord."

Beyond that, things like air and water pollutants cross city, county and state lines. Deregulation, beyond the degree where it's actually beneficial, can't address the needs of the modern regulatory state.

I support many of the key ideas of "community-based economics" even less. Many communitarian organizations fail, for various reasons, first. Second, the use of local currencies means that you're self-isolating. Nobody will accept anything like that, whether it's "Community Bucks" or Bitcoin, if it's not accepted by banks. Third, contra organic-world myths, organic farming promoted by such groups can't outperform conventional agriculture.

To the degree such communities fully succeed, do you really want to be like them? To put it another way, do you want to be Mennonite? 

Also, communitarian groups are ripe for exploitation by gurus. And, while that, or other leadership issues, don't always become a problem, they do at times.

On the other hand, this piece on the Ten Key Values offers a somewhat different look at them. I don't agree with everything there, but it's worth a read.

Overall, I've learned more about the Green Party in the last 12 months than I had, or tried to, might put it better, in the previous 12 years. That said, per Sergio Leone via Plato through Dostoyevsky and The Brothers Karamazov, it's certainly been a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly on what I've learned. We'll see what the next 12 bring, up until about the 2018 Texas state convention, and then the next 18-24 after that.

==

Update: Finally, at The North Star, somebody totally gets it!

The Green Party US, as in the national party, is nothing more than another state party. That's why the GP has disorganization, not decentralization, with state parties acting like the equivalent of British parliamentary rotten and pocket boroughs of 200 years ago.

Are Greens Luddites?

At least in the U.K., an argument is a definite ‘yes,” according to Sir David King, the government’s former chief science advisor. The main issue to prompt this complaint? Nuclear power.

Now, I agree that, whether in the U.S., the U.K., France or elsewhere, nuclear waste disposal is a question that still needs a more permanent answer than it has. That said, I know nuclear waste, or even nuclear power plants, has a selfish NIMBY background to the issue.

Assuming the public, to focus here on the U.S., can either be persuaded, led, or if necessary, legally enjoined to deal with NIMBYism, I don’t have a lot of other environmental problems with nuclear power myself, while holding to the idea that is going to have to be a continuing part of the answer to global warming.

That said, just like the military power that should be counted as part of a premium on oil prices, we need to address more clearly the issue of nuclear power subsidies, the energy and environmental costs of uranium mining, etc.

That said, to partially address the mining cost side, I’m OK with breeder reactors.

Green Party presidential candidates announced

1. Jared Ball, independent journalist; radio host (WPFW 89.3 FM Pacifica Radio in Washington, D.C.), hip-hop scholar, assistant professor of communications studies at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Md.

2. Elaine Brown, 2005 Green candidate for Mayor of Brunswick, Ga.; former leader of the Black Panther Party; organizer of Mothers Advocating Juvenile Justice and National Alliance for Radical Prison Reform.

3. Jesse Johnson (YouTube clip, not official website), 2006 US Senate candidate and 2004 gubernatorial candidate for the Mountain Party in West Virginia (now affiliate state party of the Green Party of the United States); filmmaker.

4. Kat Swift, Kat Swift, Texas Green organizer; former Campus Greens leader; activist with Clean Money San Antonio and San Antonio Democracy Now.

5. Kent Mesplay, 2004 candidate for the Green presidential nomination; former president of Turtle Island Institute; environmental engineer, alternative energy activist; California Green organizer.

6. Cynthia McKinney, former member of the US House of Representatives (Georgia), 1993 to 2003, 2005 to 2007; former member of the Georgia House of Representatives, 1988-1992.

7. Ralph Nader, 1996 and 2000 Green candidate for President; 2004 independent candidate for President; consumer advocate (Howie Hawkins of the Green Party of New York State has consented to serve as a 'placeholder' candidate until Mr. Nader announces his intentions for the 2008 election).

I’m going to offer my take, as a 2004 Green Party voter, and financial contributor once since then.

I’m going to start with the bottom two candidates on the list, intentionally put there by my precisely because they’re the only two known to non-Greens.

I doubt Nader will get the nomination, just as an official Green caucus denied him the 2004 nomination. However, I would be shocked if he actually harnesses his ego enough not to run an independent campaign.

Cynthia McKinney? Stereotypes and smears related to 9/11 aside, her temper, and sense of entitlement, do concern me. She also (and this coming from someone who doesn’t come close to supporting the Israel lobby) can flirt with the boundaries of something approaching anti-Semitism.

So, let’s look at the not-so-famous candidates.

I’ve already seen a copy of Brown’s platform. She tries to out-Sweden Sweden by calling for a $25/hour minimum wage. Given that, even for full-time employees, U.S. per capita income isn’t a lot more than that, and is a lot below that in the heartland, this isn’t close to realistic.

I have a bit of familiarity with Swift. Clean money is a good emphasis and I don’t see anything wrong with her.

Mesplay, with his background in alt-energy, has a strong “core Green” issue, and one of importance.

I know less about Ball (though a real journalist from Pacifica Radio can’t be too bad, IMO) or Johnson.

More info on all candidates is here.

Does the current state of most Democrats demand less idealism, or MORE?

Here’s my take on my willingness to vote third-party in 2004, and again in 2008, or in future midterm elections, even should I live in a swing state like Ohio:

Is it a “test of ideological purity” to say that I won’t vote for candidates that support remaining in Iraq, or a political party, too?

Sorry, but that fact (especially my mentioning Greens “too often”) was one of the two reasons I got banned from Daily Kos — proudly banned, I’ll ad.

BG makes my point exactly, but with a different conclusion: the older I get, the more I see there’s too much at stake for half measures on a number of issues. I voted against Kerry, and for David Cobb, not only over the Iraq War itself, but, the imperialism-lite of too many Democrats. (It's too bad Kevin Drum didn't tackle this issue at Political Animal in his otherwise excellent post about the “foreign policy establishment.”

To me, the “we gotta support the Democrats in the end” exemplifies not just what’s wrong with current Democrats/Democratic Party, but what’s wrong with the deep structure of U.S. politics.

First, to look at the Democrats.

Where’s a bill for federal public financing of Congressional campaigns, including reasonable provisions for financing third-party campaigns? Before the midterm elections, a federal Congressional campaign finance bill, but one that would squeeze out third parties, was rumored to be in the mix. I found it appalling that such a thing would even be considered under the guise of campaign reform.

Where, at state or federal levels, are Democratic supports for things like Instant Runoff Voting? Nonexistent, that’s where.

At an even deeper level, and even more idealistic one, though, I’m convinced our Constitution itself needs reform. Not at the edges, though, right at the center.

The only real way for third parties to have a chance in the American process, AND the only way to adapt the speed of the American government to the nuclear/computer age, is to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy.

I heartily recommend David Lazare’s “Frozen Republic” as the best writing I’ve seen on this subject. (Reviewed by me on Amazon.)

Short of that, though, I won’t hold my breath on either Democrats or Republicans doing anything at all at the federal level, and precious little at the state level, to make it easier for third parties to get more of a purchase on the political process.

Beyond that, I hope that as I get older, I become less apologetic for being idealistic.

Update: Per Broken Ladder’s comment in the Google comment box (I need to strip that out so that people use only Haloscan, now that Haloscan is updated for Blogger “beta”), I used IRV as a sample of a voting alternative to straight voting.

I’ve read about alternatives to IRV. Fact is, ALL alternatives to straight voting have some disadvantages. Mathematical word-problem type illustrations have shown that. As for which alternative to straight voting is the best, I’m non-committal at this time.

I would consider a partial use of proportional representation, such as the German Bundestag having a majority of single-member seats (whether we would use plurality voting, as it does, range voting, IRV, or something else) combined with a “national list” elected by proportional voting. Such a national list, in fact, would be one of the things to help move us more toward a quasi-parliamentary government emphasizing more national, versus, federal features to boot.

Now available: Metroplex Green Party candidate space

After Congressional Democrats’ relatively tepid response to the Petraeus PR flackery, I’m ready to offer space here to Metroplex-area Green candidates for Congress. (I’ll also include true antiwar Democrats challenging incumbents in the Democratic primary. Yes, that means somebody stepping up to EBJ, among other things.)

Amen to Lynn Woolsey: Let’s have some Dems get anti-war primary challenges

That’s what California Democratic Congresswoman Woolsey says herself:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is encouraging anti-war activists to find challengers to centrist Democrats, with the aim of moving the party to the left and ramping up opposition to the war in Iraq, to the chagrin of top Democratic aides.

“You folks should go after the Democrats,” Woolsey said in response to a suggestion from an activist during a conference call last month organized by the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

“I’d hate to lose the majority, but I’m telling you, if we don’t stand up to our responsibility, maybe that’s the lesson to be learned.”

Democratic leaders have yet to punish Woolsey for her stance, but their aides were irked by and dismissive of Woolsey’s remarks.

“The political reality is that the real targets of the outside groups should be Republicans who have so far refused to join the overwhelming majority of Democrats in voting for a change of course in Iraq,” a top aide said.

Ahh, the current Democratic Congressional leadership: shoot the message as well as the messenger.

Oh, let’s take Ms. Woolsey’s call one step further.

Let’s have more liberal bloggers beating the drum for Green Party or socialist candidates for the general election, too. I intend to do so.

That’s what California Democratic Congresswoman Woolsey says herself:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is encouraging anti-war activists to find challengers to centrist Democrats, with the aim of moving the party to the left and ramping up opposition to the war in Iraq, to the chagrin of top Democratic aides.

“You folks should go after the Democrats,” Woolsey said in response to a suggestion from an activist during a conference call last month organized by the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

“I’d hate to lose the majority, but I’m telling you, if we don’t stand up to our responsibility, maybe that’s the lesson to be learned.”

Democratic leaders have yet to punish Woolsey for her stance, but their aides were irked by and dismissive of Woolsey’s remarks.

“The political reality is that the real targets of the outside groups should be Republicans who have so far refused to join the overwhelming majority of Democrats in voting for a change of course in Iraq,” a top aide said.

Ahh, the current Democratic Congressional leadership: shoot the message as well as the messenger.

Oh, let’s take Ms. Woolsey’s call one step further.

Let’s have more liberal bloggers beating the drum for Green Party or socialist candidates for the general election, too. I intend to do so.