otium cum dignitate

Plan B

The pervasive abortion debate has brought much attention to Otium in the past, so I thought I would once again continue the discussion with a post about the recent news that the FDA has approved the so-called morning-after pill for over-the-counter sales.  The approval carries a limitation which forbids OTC sales to minors under the age of 18 without a prescription.  Also, the drug, which is named "Plan B" by Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., can only be sold in pharmacies and will be made available by pharmacists after making sure that the buyer is over the age of 18.

To discuss, let's start with the name "Plan B."  I think it's pretty interesting that Barr would choose to name the drug with a such a suggestive phrase.  Usually, people don't need to resort to a plan B unless plan A fails.  So what is plan A?  Condoms?  Abstinence?  Deciding to have a child but then suddenly changing your mind?  The idea that the hormonal deluge involved in taking the morning-after pill should be reserved for a "plan B" scenario is probably in line with the political mainstream.

The question, of course, is whether "Plan B" will actually become plan A for teenagers and other sexually active couples.  After all, it doesn't seem as if it would be especially hard for a teenager's friend or older partner to walk into a pharmacy and buy "Plan B" for them.  Will increased availability of the morning-after pill lead to, dare I say, more promiscuity in American culture?  Is this even possible?

I liked the idea of using the morning-after pill for isolated situations, such as rape or the more common drunken hookup.  But people respond to markets, and when the rewards outweigh the risks to engage in a certain activity, human nature usually demands that people will do so.  I understand from a public health standpoint where the liberals are coming from on this issue, but is it so wrong to have some concern for moral values in contemporary American society? 

Flaming Batteries

I couldn't believe this story that Dell is recalling 4.1 million laptop computers after numerous reports of batteries exploding into fireballs.  The lithium-ion batteries, made by Sony, reportedly can smoke and catch fire, obviously creating something of a safety hazard for people nearby. 

Beyond these affected laptops, the scarier issue is that lithium-ion batteries are used in all sorts of everyday electronic devices, including cell-phones and blackberrys.  I've heard rare instances when cellphones have blown up, but if these lithium-ion batteries are really a problem, an innumerable amount of devices could be effected.

After accidentally kicking my Sony Vaio laptop off the bed, the battery has made a funny noise whenever I pull out the A/C plug.  Maybe I'm due for an explosion. 

Catastrophic thinking has always been a specialty of mine.  But after getting stung by a scorpion in my bed at 3:30am two nights ago (true story), it seems anything can happen.  Needless to say, that was a bit traumatic, but clearly not as dangerous as a self-combusting laptop.

Lieberman Goes Down

The Democrats seem primed for yet another debacle in the upcoming mid-term elections.  Backed by a massive  "netroots" effort, no-namer Ned Lamont successfully challenged Senator Joe Lieberman and won the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary by a small but indisputable margin yesterday.  Lieberman became one of only a handful of incumbents in United States history to lose a primary leading up to an election.  In Lieberman's case, this is even more shocking given the Senator's national reputation after his failed candidacy for Vice President in 2000. 

Although Lieberman's decision to run as an independent this fall has many in the Democratic party questioning their allegiances, the more important question is what this defeat means for the the Democrats in general. 

In the characteristically level-headed approach that has impressed me all year, the Washington Post backed Lieberman in the lead editorial today and argued that he was the "better candidate" for Connecticut.  The Post editorial aptly explained this position:

"Becoming beholden to orthodoxy is not healthy for either party. Compromise is not the equivalent of weakness, and Mr. Lieberman is no sap. He is a person of strong views who believes in listening to those who disagree with him and, if possible, finding common ground. The alternative is gridlock. Mr. Lieberman's brand of centrism and bipartisanship is a needed salve for a divided country, which could use more such lawmakers, not fewer."

In a column of his own, Eli Pariser, the Executive Director of the infamous MoveOn.org PAC declared that Lamont's victory signaled a triumphant end to "Triangulation," a movement begun in the early 90's by Bill Clinton in an attempt to capture the middle-ground for the Democrats in American politics.  According to many, Lieberman was a Senator who often shared the middle-ground with Republicans and was willing to break with his party on several important issues, such as the Iraq war.

Pariser seems to be confused.  The Democrats were successfull BECAUSE OF Triangulation, not in spite of  it.  Despite the public torment of a sex scandal, Bill Clinton excelled as President for two terms and his star only continues to grow with every passing year since his presidency.   Triangulation was a successfull approach to garnering a majority of the electorate, and then applying Democratic ideals in a way that appealed to most Americans. 

The 2004 election indicated that the Democrats are out of touch with a majority of Americans.  This doesn't necessarily mean that Democratic values are out of the mainstream, but the approach and strategy being employed by Democratic candidates was not clicking.  Pariser evidently wants a return to a Howard Dean-style of electioneering.  I agree with many of the ideals and theories of so-called "liberals," but I know that the "net-roots" campaign style of Howard Dean and now Lamont will not work.  It only appeals to a small cross-section of Americans (18-25-yr old shaggy-haired rich kids), and it will not work on the national stage. 

Simply yelling that the war is bad may inflame the passions of many, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.  This has been the Democrats' problem for a while now.  They are quick to criticize, but slow to offer viable alternatives.  I'm pulling for Lieberman, and I wouldn't be surprised if he won.