Liberals for Giuliani

When I first saw the title “Liberals for Giuliani” in my RSS reader I was wondering if there was actually a group of liberals who are foolish enough to support this authoritarian warmonger. After reading the post, I like the idea:

I’m talking about not just another You Tube video, which would be great, but an assembly of dedicated Giuliani critics dressed up as supporters, who could wave “Liberals for Giuliani” banners at his campaign appearances in early primary states where he is courting social conservatives.

Giuliani’s liberal credentials include, of course, his embrace of much of the gay community agenda as New York’s mayor, as well as his support of illegal immigrants, gun control and, of course, the legal right to an abortion.

Keith Olbermann To Air on Prime Time Network Television

Keith Olbermann is getting a shot at the big time. The New York Times reports (via TV Newser) that Countdown will be shown be shown by NBC on a Sunday before a preseason football game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Pittsburgh Steelers:

Countdown’ is rocketing right now over at MSNBC — its ratings are going through the roof,” said Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News. (In July Mr. Olbermann’s show averaged 721,000 viewers, an increase of 88 percent over last July, according to MSNBC.) Mr. Griffin added, “The world has changed, and I think people have come in line with the smart, focused approach he has on the show.” No immediate plans for additional network appearances of “Countdown” have been made, but Mr. Griffen did not rule them out. “It may be the first of several times you see Olbermann on the network,” he said.

Has the world changed in that people want the smart, focused approach, or are people getting smarter and want to hear views other than the conservative views normally spread by Tim Russert on NBC? Regardless, it will be nice to get more balance from NBC. I’ve always suspected that the turn to the right by NBC and MSNBC was more because of a perception of greater income potential than simple ideological bias. As modern conservativism continues to lose favor, maybe even Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch will make changes to avoid having their viewers limited to an aging fringe audience. The bias for profit will generally win out over ideological bias in the media.

Ronald Reagan on George W. Bush?

Did Reagan really write this?

“A moment I’ve been dreading. [Vice President] George [H.W. Bush] brought his ne’er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I’ll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they’ll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work

This quote is being sent around the internet, reportedly from Ronald Reagan’s diary entry from May 28, 1986. I’ll be stuck in the office for several more hours and cannot verify this. Anyone have a copy of the book handy to verify it?

Update: As suspected, the quote is a hoax.

Pain Medication Use Increased 90%

AP is running an article today on a ninety percent increase in sales of major painkillers between 1997 and 2005. The article wavers between whether this is a good or bad thing. There are a number of factors which might cause this increase. More people are living longer and more are living longer with problems such as cancer. Another factor not discussed by the article is that attitudes have changed in the medical profession. Not long ago the prevailing attitude was that narcotics should generally be used short term and should be avoided for problems such as chronic back pain. Medical recommendations gradually changed to include more use of pain medications when more conservative measures fail with physicians adopting these recommendations. Attitudes on dependence have changed where it is no longer felt necessary to avoid dependence on narcotics at all costs if the narcotics can result in an improvement in the patient’s quality of life.

is running an article today on a ninety percent increase in sales of major painkillers between 1997 and 2005. The article wavers between whether this is a good or bad thing. There are a number of factors which might cause this increase. More people are living longer and more are living longer with problems such as cancer. Another factor not discussed by the article is that attitudes have changed in the medical profession. Not long ago the prevailing attitude was that narcotics should generally be used short term and should be avoided for problems such as chronic back pain. Medical recommendations gradually changed to include more use of pain medications when more conservative measures fail with physicians adopting these recommendations. Attitudes on dependence have changed where it is no longer felt necessary to avoid dependence on narcotics at all costs if the narcotics can result in an improvement in the patient’s quality of life.The down side of more prescription pain medications being available is that more can be diverted for illegal use. There are rare cases of doctors who open store fronts to sell prescriptions without actually practicing medicine. The problem is in weeding out the abuses from the cases where patients benefit. It is not always easy to determine when seeing a new patient if they are actually suffering from pain or if they are inventing stories to get drugs. There are no objective tests to measure pain and we are largely dependent upon what patients report. Some are clearly drug seeking, but other cases are not so clear cut. Tests such as MRI’s sometimes help, but people without significant pathology can have a normal MRI, and an MRI will not show all possible causes of chronic pain. It is unavoidable that if we are going to adequately treat those who are in pain a certain number of people will obtain pain medications under false pretenses.Doctors often make an easy target for the FDA, with the Bush administration increasing prosecution of physicians. However, the article notes, “it is far more common for people to illegally obtain prescription drugs from friends and family members.”  It is traditional to counsel patients against sharing pain medications, and this is typically included in pain contracts which must be signed before receiving narcotics, but we cannot control what people do.

In some cases there is clearly illegal action when a doctor has a storefront to sell pain medications without examining patients or offering other treatment. In other cases prosecution is feared to be the result of overzealous government action. “The DEA cites 108 prosecutions of physicians during the past four years; 83 pleaded guilty or no contest, while 16 others were convicted by juries. Eight cases are pending, and one physician is being sought as a fugitive.” (I wonder if that fugitive will ever find the one-armed man.)
The increased number of prosecutions now has many physicians reluctant to prescribe pain medications, which causes problems for patients who require the medications:

Spooked by high-profile arrests and prosecutions by state and federal authorities, many pain management specialists now say they offer guidance and support to patients but will not write prescriptions, even for the sickest people. The increase in painkiller retail sales continues to rise, but only barely. There was a 150 percent increase in volume in 2001. Four years later, the year-to-year increase was barely 2 percent.

People who desperately need strong painkillers are forced to drive a long way — often to a different state — to find doctors willing to prescribe high doses of medicine. Siobhan Reynolds, the widow of a New Mexico  patient who needed large amounts of painkillers for a connective tissue disorder, said she routinely drove her late husband to see an accommodating doctor in Oklahoma.

Other than for the more flagrant violators, going after physicians is yet another poor strategy in the failing war on drugs. 

Yepsin Considers Obama Winner of Iowa Debate

To an even greater degree than in the general election debates, the winner of the early debates is determined by the impressions people receive from the media coverage. In Iowa politics this often comes down to the evaluation of David Yepsin. Yepsin gives the victory to Barack Obama. He was also impressed with Richardson’s performance as I was yesterday.

But the Sunday sunrise nature of the event didn’t stop some of the others from having strong performances. Obama may be the biggest winner.

He was in the cross hairs for much of the early part of the session and he stood up well to the scrutiny over his foreign policy positions and questions of whether he’s qualified to be president.

Obama’s campaign was quick to tout the results of a focus group held during the debate in which the participants tapped him as the best performer who eased concerns about his ability to do the job.

He came off as knowledgeable and temperate. He looked presidential and unlike some of his earlier, halting debate performances, was much more polished and laid back in this one. At one point he joked: “To prepare for this debate, I rode the bumper cars at the State Fair.”

Bill Richardson also had a good morning, turning in his best debate of the campaign. So did Joe Biden.

While questions of experience tend to be centered around Obama, it is actually John Edwards who is less experienced, and appears to be far less knowledgeable. It would be difficult for Obama to raise this as increased discussion of experience could benefit Clinton, even if Obama does demonstrate that he is more experienced than Edwards. If, which currently appears unlikely but not impossible, the race should turn into a battle between Obama and Edwards, then the relative experience of the two might become a major debate topic between them.

The strong performance by Richardson keeps him competitive, with some having predicted he will ultimately win the Iowa caucus. At the moment the polls show a tight three way race between Clinton, Obama, and Edwards but we saw in 2004 how quickly this can change with Kerry’s come from behind victory.

Kristen Bell to Join Cast of Heroes

Veronica Mars might not have made it for another season, but the show’s star Kristen Bell has been sought after my many shows. As mentioned last Friday, Kristen Bell turned down a role in one the top science fiction shows, Lost, because she didn’t want to move to Hawaii. Instead she’s accepted a recurring role in another network science fiction hit, Heroes:

Bell will make her first “Heroes” appearance in October. She’ll play Elle, a character described as a sexy, mysterious young lady who has ties to the supposed death of Peter, H.R.G.’s past and the future of Claire. Elle will kick off her arc by committing a serious crime, though it’s unclear whether she’s good or bad.

“This was not easy to pull off,” said “Heroes” creator-executive producer Tim Kring. “But since we’re an ensemble show, with many arcs playing out through the year, we found a way to jump into a small window in (Bell’s) schedule.”