'Against The Grain's' Inbox
Like to read other people's mail? Well, have at it. The Against the Grain inbox is open for your perusal. And by the way, this is not a blog.
Campus Sex, Wolfe Style
This one was weird. Our high-tech, heavy duty software tells me a lot people read this column. But hardly any mail. What gives? Guess I laid an egg this time.
Thank you for your intelligent article on teen culture. I haven't read Wolfe's book, but it sounds as if he is just catching up to movies, young adult novels, and TV (e.g. the 1989 movie Heathers, in which high school girls perform oral sex on frat boys that they don't know). I listen to Love Line, a syndicated call-in show hosted by Dr. Drew and Adam Carolla. The stories I hear there are beyond belief, yet the mainstream likes to pretend that this stuff isn't going on. A little abstinence is all you need, they say. What makes me angry is, as you said, that girls have ceded their "ancient powers" to men. The way we are genetically programmed to work is that men give love for sex. In my opinion it is impossible for a girl to treat men the way men can treat women. They will be unhappy and won't know why. Girls who don't wait for the love are cheating themselves.
Another thing that angers me -- perhaps more to the point -- is the hypocrisy of our culture. These magazines you mention -- Self, Cosmo Girl, Elle Girl, Jane -- are not exactly hard to find. They are staring at you from the end caps of displays at the grocery store. They wouldn't be there if people weren't buying them. Who is buying them? I doubt it's exclusively the "liberal elite."
Cynthia Crise
As you know, the literary establishment today mostly holds Wolfe in contempt. He's never hidden his conservatism, and that's no more popular in the literary world than in Hollywood. I don't think his take in "I Am Charlotte Simmons" (which I have NOT read but certainly will after your review) is exactly a departure; what people liked in "Radical Chic & Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers" or "The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test", I would argue, is the sympathy for these absurdities that they read into his reportage. But in fact, with hindsight, it was fairly critical reportage, not exactly "gonzo journalism". "Bonfire of the Vanities" was also a critique of a bubble in the culture (and as an investment banker I always marveled at its accuracy. The idea that they get rich by taking a few crumbs from every cake that's passed is priceless), and popular with the critics because it dissected something conservative. But I suspect that if you take the sympathy away in a book that deals with cultural icons near and dear to the liberal/academic establishment, and from what you say he may have done that in his latest work, it would strike a very raw nerve -- or perhaps a boil that needs lancing.
Chris Wyser-Pratte
Older people feel very alienated by so-called rutting youth in our society. Television advertisers portray girls and women as hip-twisting, mindless, sexual adventurers intent on knocking 'em dead and satisfying their lustful impulses without regard for feelings or consequences. Our society is coarsened by such advertising. It plays around in the unconscious of our youth until they begin to think this is the way to be. And the message is even more subverting...one must act this way or feel as if there is something wrong. I feel sorry for young people who are so mislead by greedy advertisers, film makers, music makers, authors and magazine editors. Our youth really haven't the fainted notion on how to behave or feel. They are swirling in subliminal cultural sexual images flashed at them inexorably from every angle.
This is nothing new! Think back on the '60's and 70's. I'm sure the older generation must have been aghast at our shenanigans.
I have not read Wolfe's book but I don't like preachy, anti-intellectual formats which take aim at females in particular. Yes, Wolfe is going to make a lot of money, but is he going to send a message that all college students are indeed acting this way and a student is not hip if he doesn't?
Sally Sanders
Give Sleaze A Chance
A few readers laughed and agreed with my commentary about giving sleaze and dirty tricks a chance to shape the Social Security debate. But it seems -- shock, shock -- like there were some readers who didn't pick up on my sarcastic tone. And one reader fell asleep.But only one!
Give Sleaze A Chance" is hilarious! Wait...on second thought, maybe you're right...hmmm.
James J. Manning, Jr.
I am not sure if your article sends the right message. It looks rather funny to me but some may take it seriously. The dumbing down of the political process in this country has reached an all time high. I worry that in the kind of sleaze fest you propose the Republicans are more skilled at it and will win the propaganda war as they have been for the last 25 years. The combined sleaze campaigns of the Swiftboaters, the religious right, and FOX news have been instrumental in getting Bush elected and re-elected. Back in the 90's I believed that as a result of Rush Limbaugh's sleaziness and growing popularity, the Republican Party was headed toward total defeat. I could not have been more wrong. The pitting of one American against another; young against old, the insured against the uninsured, whites against blacks, and straights against gays, has been an integral part of the right wing technique everywhere. In the past sleaze was appalling to Americans. Recently, however, it has become mainstream here in America. Slander works. Lies work. Sleaze works.
Dave Argall
I was going to respond to this article, but got bored out of my gord, waiting for substance. I should have clicked off sooner, knowing liberals never mix substance with emotion. Well, as soon as I saw only bitching, however boringly brilliant the disguise, I should have zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz oh (yawn) seen the 'CBS' logo...Zzzzzz...excuse the sleep talking...
Frank Weinholt
Dick Meyer's piece titled "Give sleaze a chance", was wonderful. I laughed the whole way through it, but also understood his point.
Wow, I wish all news could be presented this way!!
Please give him an award for this!!
Doug
What a jackass! Is this the best CBS could come up with!
Jim Moseley
Was this supposed to be funny? Satirical? Tongue in Cheek? I cannot tell. Not only that, bringing up molestation, to wit:
"Finally, the Republicans need a Willie Horton ad. I suggest they consider the case of Wilmer Snizeman of Hull, Massachusetts. Snizeman, according to reports published on bureaucratichellblog.org, was so upset when Democratic bureaucrats in his local Social Security Administration office told him he couldn't open a private account that he went out and molested 16 pre-teens boys in a bowling alley."
This is beyond the pale and disappointing. I generally like CBSNews and rely on it for the truth but this is sickening to say the least.
Arthur T. Bottorff
Don't Vilify Drug Companies
Some interesting chemical reactions here, and not quite what I expected. Many readers accused me of literally being on the take of drug companies. I should be insulted and offended, right? In fact, after having fielded so many thousands of "liberal bias" arrows, I was amused. Mostly I was heartened that there was more agreement with my general thrust than I expected.
Excellent article on Pharmaceutical companies. I applaud you. One addition, not only might the doctor be responsible, but the reality is the individual should be. I worked as an RN in a coronary care unit and we were thrilled if the patient knew the name of the medicine he/she was taking...most didn't. Most Americans take NO responsiblity for anything related to health care; however, the CONSUMER should be responsible for the medicine and the cost. The CONSUMER should ask the physician for an alternate agent if cost is an issue. However, most Americans want the newest agent as they tend to offer conveniences (take less often, easier to take, etc.) regardless of "shopping" for cost, because of course they think it should be free anyways. And many politicians have fueled this idea. Doctors know the cost of these medicines. I also use to work for Pfizer as a rep to docs, we told them the prices, they know, they can pass the price info on to the patients and offer less expensive, basically equal alternatives. Ultimately, it's the CONSUMER who should be responsible for their health care. Americans need to wake up and take responsibility! Thanks for a well-written article.
Jennifer S.
Not much to criticize here, I'm basically in agreement, but I did want to congratulate you for writing it - in the current climate of opinion you describe, I think it was brave of you to put it out there, forcefully and without a lot of qualifying hemming and hawing.
Something like your basic premise occurred to me a few years ago after reading a Newsweek "My Turn" column by a woman whose daughter was gravely ill with a life threatening condition that her doctors could not identify. The woman (who clearly had good health insurance, it was not written from the perspective of someone outside of our medical insurance system) wound up doing a lot of research on her own, and eventually found some good information that helped her doctors diagnose and (as I recall)cured the illness. However, the point of the article was actually negative -she used the story as (what she must have thought was) an obvious example of what was wrong with our health care system (because the docs didn't catch it, and she had to step in, etc), saying something to the effect of, "if this is the best the system can do, then we are in trouble". I was astounded - I mean, thank god her daughter lived and more power to her, but, the woman was basically describing a situation where her daughter was cured of a terrible condition, because she had access to a) health care and b) information, and used both to full advantage to help her highly trained medical experts reach a successful outcome, and this showed how rotten things were with American health care. What an American attitude!
Mark Hebert
I just read Dick's defense of the drug companies and was not only appalled but offended. To be labeled infantile because we're failing to see the good in the pharmaceutical industry, is like the pot calling the kettle black. Nobody said that prescription drugs were not beneficial. What critics are saying (including myself) is that drug companies have severely shifted in recent years their objectives. What is their source of motivation today? To keep the share holder satisfied and the FDA happy, any way it knows how, all within the framework of clever legislation. No longer is the motivation to cure cancer, HIV, heart disease etc.
Instead, the real money is in the act of convincing the American consumer that symptoms are more valuable than cures, all at the expense of the uninformed and desperate, along with the FDA's stamp of approval. This "you need this drug because your life depends on it" marketing approach spawn a barrage of ads that promise far more than they can deliver, with the exception of a few breakthrough drugs. Then, with a little help from the FDA, who appears to be suspiciously over-eager to approve new drugs, the consumer feels protected as it has in the last 50 years. Unfortunately, this is a market strategy driven only by profit, not human compassion. After all, if drug companies truly cared about human health instead of only the health of Americans, then they would no doubt be concerned about the millions of Canadians who are buying and taking the same brand drugs we are, but acquired from sources deemed "dangerous".
Barry U.
Holding drug companies accountable when their product causes harm is not "scapegoating" them. As a society we place risks on those who are best able to avoid them. The drug companies are usually better able to avoid the risks associated with drugs than are people taking them. As for doctors being to blame, the doctors are likely prescribing drugs that are marketed to them by aggressive pharamaceutical sales representatives.
Melanie
Excellent article!
I have been making these same arguments for some time. I have an ill son who I hope will benefit with research, in time. I expect it to cost, if I am expecting results.
By the way, there are systems in place for the disadvantaged to get help with their medicines. The complaints come from people who have money in
the bank, but do not want to spend it on the better and newer medicines. Funny how our society has come to think that the government should be picking up the tab, but they don't realize that socialized medicine would set us back so far.
Thank you for presenting this well written article. It's about time the
drug companies get someone in the media to present a fair opinion.
Ann
I just finished reading the article by Dick Meyer titled "Don't Vilify Drug Companies." This is an amazing article that offers a sobering and counter point-of-view to the typical headline grabbing garbage that in effect has been demonizing the Pharmaceutical Industry for several years now.
I applaud Mr. Meyer for writing an article that is informative, objective, unbiased, and one that directly challenges the often unrealistic mindset that we Americans have. I only wish that this article could somehow find its way onto the front page of every newspaper and that it become mandatory input to the debate amongst our political leaders.
Brian Henderson
I am a 70-year-old man who has undergone quintuple by-pass open heart surgery and am now living an active life. My wife is an active 68 year old who has survived stage 3 breast cancer, undergoing a mastectomy, chemo, radiation, etc.
We are alive today first of all because of the grace of God. There were no generic drugs, no drugs from Canada involved. I am thankful for BIG Pharma and their continuous life-saving discoveries.
Thanks for writing your timely article so seldom seen but badly needed!
Richard Sink
You have what appears to be a reasonable argument, but a few holes that I see in it are:
Should the doctors and hospitals have a share in the responsibility for suggesting a cheaper over-the-counter alternative? Might be a way for the "Big Pharmas" to save some money and perks, because the doctors and hospitals are all given perks by the drug companies to help advertise and "push" their drugs. Virtually everyday of the week there are doctors' offices and hospital staff all over this country that are treated to catered lunches and dinners, some physicians have been sent on Caribbean cruises expenses paid for by the drug companies for their valued services for BIG PHARMA.
This country has more drug companies than any other country in the world - bigger competition - more effective cost control for themselves? Not here! In fact, the American people pay more for their prescriptions than any other country in the world.
Even with the so-called Medicare reform - giving retirees a break on their prescriptions - Big Pharma got what they wanted - the government can't create a bidding war for a better price - they aren't allowed. The Government gave that option away to them. Aren't they supposed to be for the people, by the people??? Seems like Big Pharma has carte blanche to do just whatever it is they want to do - whether they victimize people or not. How is it when they decide not to manufacture a drug, became it is not "cost effective" for them - because there is only a couple of thousand people afflicted with the disease their drug can control?? That's not victimization?
I do enjoy your articles - they are always though provoking - this on just happened to provoke me!
Julie Mroz
While perception may be skewed somewhat, based on a couple of good points you made in your commentary, you not only grazed by something obvious, but the bullet kept going and found its target in the absurd.
You wrote:
[There are many in this country who do not get the medicine they need because they are too poor or uninsured. We also scapegoat drug companies for this. They should make the drugs cheaper or give them away to the poor or the old. But the decisions about how medical care is distributed in this country are our decisions, collectively, through elections, laws and government. "It is only by a spectacular feat of cynicism that our political system's moral negligence has become the fault of the pharmaceutical industry," Gladwell wrote in "The New Yorker."]
First of all, a surely-rooted problem exists when you can cross over the border to Canada, and get drugs at a better price. Obviously, there is a significant difference in price if people are crossing the border,
right? Is this really happening, or is this something that's being blown way out of proportion by the media?
I don't mean to be combative, indeed I'm trying not to be, but I really was incensed at your attitude toward people's perception in this matter. You sounded like a drug company spokesman. It's hard for me to listen to
you with an open mind when you take an extremist tact by saying "...They should make the drugs cheaper or give them away to the poor or the old..." Hey! snap out of it. We're Americans. We don't want a handout. We don't want everything handed to us on a silver platter. We just want to be treated fairly and not be taken for a ride.
You also dogpiled the complexity of our need for drugs, oversimplifying it grossly. Let me give you a real-world example: A man with a heart or serious
vascular condition, who needs to take drugs is not a Viagra user, right? These are two very different people the vast majority of the time. You managed to heap everyone together like we're all the same, and we're not.
What are our politicians doing? Either supporting the Pharma industry or trying to pave the way to Canada for purchases. Notice that they're not going to even try to fix the problem, just either deny the symptoms or apply a band-aid solution. Sounds like they're in someone's pocket to me.
...a lot of help we're getting there.
You mentioned all the achievements the drug companies have made. Of course they have accomplished a lot... that's what they're supposed to do! If they didn't, then someone else, somewhere else would. This is all just common sense.
Frankly, I think your article made a lot of broad-brush assumptions, was surprisingly biased and was generally insulting the intelligence of many
readers.
Sorry, I wasn't so civil, but I held back as much as I could.
Ted Berner
I agree with your article on not vilifying the drug companies, but I don't think you went far enough.
We as drug"consumers" can smoke, overeat to the point of obesity, not exercise and then it is the drug companies fault for not making a cheap(maybe even free) drug to cure our "illness".
It is always someone else's fault. How often have we been told to stop smoking, quite eating the double meat burger and fries and exercise…. but we don't.
Oh well…..
Richard Chance
Healthcare isn't like other businesses. It's a monopoly for drug companies, hospitals etc. When you are ill you have no choice, you have to buy their product, it's not like choosing to have cable tv or not. The only people who should be making good money in the healthcare system are doctors, nurses and research people. The truth is capitalism and healthcare don't mix. Granted there is a ton of waste in the system, for instance the redundancy in the record keeping system, these problems need to be addressed. But another major component is simple greed. Drug companies hire salesmen to sell there product to doctors, that's BS. A doctor knows if he needs to prescribe a certain drug, he doesn't need someone selling it to him. Right there is an example of a cost that isn't required to keep someone healthy or get them back to health after they are sick. Profit margins for these companies are outrageous as well as the profit motive. The truth is that as long as we treat health care like any other field of business we will have a rotten healthcare system, it'll be a great moneymaking system for some, but a rotten HEALTHCARE system.
Right now our healthcare system isn't about healthcare, it's about making a ton of money. Until we find a way to balance out these discrepancies and find a way to motivate people without raping patients pocketbooks the system will continue to be broken. Drug companies may not be all of the problem, but as long as they continue to do business like they do now, they will continue to be a LARGE part of it. These people KNOWINGLY put products on the market that caused strokes, heart attacks and the like all in the name of maximizing profit. The good that's been done by these companies is meaningless when you compare it to the damage caused by the level of greed that controls their decision making. People died because they allowed those products on the market when they knew they were dangerous, simply because they didn't want to take the hit in their profits. How you can defend that is unbelievable.
Kevin Abbott
With regard to your article on the price of drugs: personally I think you need to investigate a little further. The Pharmas are killing us; they are making drugs for the symptoms which cause more problems because the real problem is not addressed. This causes you to go back to the doctor (the legal drug pushers of our country) to get more medicine to treat the new symptoms caused by the last medicine he prescribed for you. It is a vicious circle.
I find it utterly repugnate that the Pharmas sped so much money on advertising with their tasteless ads, enticing you to call your doctor for the new drugs.
Sam
Not so fast Dick. CBS News just did a broadcast on something more and more people are starting to realize. Doctors, drug makers and the FDA have a self regulated and self controlled industry....very lucrative and very ripe for maximizing profits at the expense and well being of the general public. I was shocked to learn exactly how the system works. Drug companies do their own research, educate doctors on their products and slide in and out of the FDA....the very watchdop that is supposed to be looking out for consumers and patients. How can this be allowed to take place?........profits......huge profits. Of course the drive for profit is expected. However, huge profits arranged in part through a biased FDA, biased studies, and a bought and paid for monopoly of a health care industry controlled by forces of profit maximization (via supply and control of the profession by the AMA . Monopolies of this sort in the private sector were outlawed a long, long time ago. What's taking place today in the connection between the drug industry, the FDA and the tightly controlled and self regulated health care profession (i.e., the AMA) is a colluded monopoly unlike anything this country has ever experienced.
There are legitimate reasons for government regulation in a free market economy, where in a perfect world the forces of supply and demand work in the best interest of and for consumers. The MD, drug, FDA connection, and the incredible greed that drives it, is precisely why the health care costs continue to rise far and above every other sector of the economy: it's a rigged, biased, monopoly taking advantage of consumers for what can best be described as unfair profit maximization.
One last point: now I just found out there is another huge effort underway to try once again to bring supplements into system of regulation to further maximize profits in a unfairly protected industry. Enough is enough.
Terry Lohr
As an academic biological researcher, I applaud your article, "The Scapegoat Stops Here." Medicine is not free or risk-free and consumers should have a better appreciation of the reality of the products they are consuming (which do mostly make their lives better).
The one criticism I have of the pharmaceutical industry is its opposition to free trade (drug reimportation). If the pharmaceutical industry is not a charitable industry running social policy in America, it shouldn't be in Canada or Europe or Africa either. If it can sustain its research programs on international prices, then Americans should be able to buy drugs at those prices. If it can't, then the cost of research should be part of the price of everyone's medicine. Private charities (or socialist governments) can then subsidize medicine for poor people.
David Liberles
If you still want to send in an e-mail, you'll have to read a real column to find the address.