Author Archives: eehines

For Whom Does He Work

Posted on by
Reply

For whom do they work, come to that? “He” is Dr Marty Makary, the FDA Commissioner. “They” are the bureaucrats of the FDA.

[C]hanges are coming so swiftly, and often without input from career scientists, that Makary faces declining staff morale threatening to stymie his efforts. He must also contend with the administration’s staff cuts at the FDA….

Career scientists—that’s the press’ euphemism for entrenched bureaucrats who happen to have medical or science degrees.

Lowering employee morale, as opposed to bureaucrats’ morale, is an important problem. It is, however, most optimally solved by either or both of two items:

  1. the bureaucrats figure out that they’re not the ones in charge, they must work within an operational hierarchy and either follow the instructions of those placed above them or resign their positions
  2. the remaining bureaucrats and those newly hired, the latter whom lack the habits of entrenchment, get actually productive and do their jobs more efficiently, which can be facilitated by astute use of AI
  3. That last, of course, requires that Makary implements AI as a tool and not as a decision maker itself

Regarding the opening question, “he,” Makary, works for the HHS Secretary, who in turn works for the President, who works for us American citizens. Makary, thus, works through his chain of command for us average Americans and for our benefit, not that of those bureaucrats. Neither the FDA nor government at large are jobs welfare programs; the incumbents are there for our weal, not their own benefit.

I’m not too worried about the morale of entrenched bureaucrats. I’m concerned about their actual performance of their duties.

California’s Problem

Posted on by
Reply

Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law a resolution rescinding the Biden administration’s EPA’s last-minute waiver for California to mandate more stringent rules for gasoline and battery cars than the Federal government’s—and that EPA’s—rules. That Biden EPA waiver allowed California to mandate only battery cars to be sold in California; average Americans who also are citizens of California would be required to buy battery cars after 2035 if they wanted another car, whether they wanted a battery car or not. The interstate market for transportation vehicles being what it is, that would have been tantamount to a requirement for all of us average Americans all across our nation to buy only battery cars after 2035.

Hours later, California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom led a lawsuit against the Trump administration asking a Federal court to find the waiver rescission…unconstitutional.

Newsom called it “the latest illegal action by a president who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

Newsom’s Progressive-Democrat State AG Rob Bonta:

We will continue to fiercely defend ourselves from this lawless federal overreach[.]

How dare our elected representatives act against the wishes of California? That’s illegal.

It’s plainly unlawful for Congress to pass a national law of which the State of California disapproves.

Newsom and his syndicate bleat about an allegedly lawless Trump administration. The real lawlessness, though, is Newsom’s claim that a waiver granted by a government agency cannot be rescinded by the elected representatives of the United States, the Congress and the President.

That’s lawlessness, and it’s instructive of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s use of a Newspeak Dictionary to cloak their claims. This is what we can look forward to the moment the Progressive-Democratic Party returns to power.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

This quote isn’t the main point of the Power Line post, but it’s spot on in its own right.

Trump had said over and over again that he would not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. He said he’d prefer to do it the easy way, through diplomacy, and he let Steve Witkoff offer the Iranians the most generous terms they were going to get. He held the Israelis back until he had given the talks a chance to run their course. But he gave the Iranians a clear deadline, and he also said again and again that if they didn’t agree to his deal, he’d have no choice but to do things the hard way.

The Tablet article from which the above is cited in Power Line is behind a paywall, so h/t Power Line for bringing this much out.

In any event, Park MacDougould, the author of the Tablet piece, is spot on.

Bad Idea

Posted on by
Reply

Socialist Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Angus King (I, ME) are proposing a new law that would

ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.

This is a bad idea. Not just singly bad; it’s bad on three grounds.

One is the ground of free speech. We don’t get to ban speech based on who’s doing the speaking any more than we get to censor speech based on what’s being said. That includes pharmaceutical companies that want to advertise their wares, so long as they don’t misrepresent them. Truth in Advertising laws, though, are agnostic regarding both advertisers and products.

Our nation went over who is allowed to advertise when lawyers wanted to engage in direct advertising, including via television ads, lots of years ago. Our courts, and we as a nation, came down on the side of free speech when we all decided lawyers advertising was entirely jake. The worst that got us is ads like The Texas Hammer‘s.

It’s a bad idea because it’s insulting to us average Americans. We are not as droolingly imbecilic as these two Wonders of the Left insist that we are. We are fully capable of deciding for ourselves whether we want to take pharmaceutical company’s word at face value or our doctor’s advice. Certainly the advertisements can lead us to peppering our doctors with questions, but we should be doing that, anyway, regarding his diagnoses and proposed treatments. That some of us are foolish enough to remain willfully ignorant about our own health and blithely (and blindly) accept our doctor’s word unquestioningly is between us and our doctors. It’s no excuse for government censoring other parties.

That brings me to the third reason this is a bad idea. It’s not government’s role to protect us from ourselves, or even from each other except on criminal matters. Government’s role is to protect us from external criminal elements and threats to our nation as a whole. It’s not even the Federal government’s sole role to protect us from domestic criminal elements—that is primarily the role of each of our several State governments, with help from the Feds only when invited in by the States.

This is a move that only Socialists and their monarchist Progressive-Democratic Party ally could love.