Monday, July 7, 2008

Advertising, Bribery and the First Amendment


I have almost stopped watching network TV. Once in a while I'll catch an important sports event, but that's about it. Network news is marginally interesting at best, scheduled programming is boring to revolting, but the real reason I have stopped is advertising. Not only are the advts. creeping
up on program content in length and number (most egregious is the number posted just before the weather forecast on the news) but their material is more and more nauseating. One of the reasons that I watch international soccer is that there's no stoppage of play and thus no advts. can sneak in.

Advts. are not only upsetting of themselves but they destroy the carefully crafted mood of good drama. How can you follow a demonstration of major grief or anguish or terror with a smarmy housewife pitching floor wax with a stupid grin?

Anyway, commercials are here to stay. And anyone who can stand them should be able to watch. But, then, why the ineffectual and ludicrous regulations about content? Take the clearly mandated ones about automobile leasing. First, the hype. Then come the legally required facts about the lease, printed in dirty grey, 10-pitch lettering, scrolled at unreadable speed. Or on the radio, spouted by a trained pitchman at half volume like a tobacco auctioneer. No wonder our government is regarded as a toady to commercial interests. Here's proof all can see or hear every day. Whom are we kidding? It's literally nauseating.

And drug ads. As a retired physician I have been as guilty as most in accepting largesse from Big Pharma and believing some of what I am told without confirming through scientific studies and double-checking the claims. But I'm not proud of it, and would be delighted if all ads. for prescription drugs, and all pitches to physicians were to stop. It's dead wrong and it's dangerous.

But there is the First Amendment. Corporations are as free as individuals to speak out on any (well, almost any) subject. I would love to see a law banning marketing of prescription drugs, both to patients and to physicians. But I fear that such a law would be unconstitutional.

I would love to see the FTC really force advertisers to comply with the spirit of regulations, not just their letter, and stop the hypocrisy. But as long as the electoral process is like an auction of influence and power to the highest bidder, that ain't gonna happen either.

Comments?

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Second Amendment thoughts

I have been reading some ideas from the second amendment debate. Those who favor gun control use the argument that if the framers had intended free use of guns by the citizenry regardless of participation in a militia, they would have left out the first part of the sentence and just stated that "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". But they didn't leave it out.
Opponents of gun control use legal precedent to bolster their argument that the courts have largely favored individual rights, starting with the Reconstruction when freed slaves were allowed to arm themselves against lethal Klan aims. They favor the right of law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for hunting and self defense.

To me, the problem comes down to this: what do we do about law-abiding citizens who buy arms and then become non-law-abiding? And what about non-law-abiding citizens who haven't been caught yet? I don't hear much debate on this question, which is buzzing along just beneath the surface. Just yesterday an employee in Henderson, KY blasted away at work, killed 5, then himself. Up until the moment of his action, he was law-abiding.

What do we do about him and his ilk? Do we treat him like a tornado or a lightning strike? Shrug, and say that there is no way to protect us against him? Or do we all start carrying concealed weapons, so that if he shows up at work or on the campus and pulls out his gun, there's a slim chance that one of us will plug him before he opens fire? Why is this dilemma so egregiously American? We don't read about this in Sweden or France or Germany (gang violence excepted). Why is it such an exclusively American phenomenon?

I'd love to have a dialogue on this.