home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 10:41:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Busy day.

This is an Open Thread.

Update (TL): Same for me, I'll be at the jail visiting clients all day and then glued to the Bachelorette finale. Prediction: Jillian sends Kip home first, drama with Reid returning, Jillian gets engaged to Ed, and tomorrow night at the ATFR (After the Final Rose show they taped this past Friday) we will see they are still together, a whole two months later. Next bachelor: Get ready for Reid. Predictions only, no insider info. (And yes, I used to rush home from junior high to watch American Bandstand and see who was dancing with who. Paul and Michelle were my favorite. Old habits die hard.)

Again, open thread, all topics welcome.

< Hayden Continues To Rely On Yoo/Addington/Rizzo | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)
    Interesting obit. of an African American (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    female contralto opera singer, Betty Allen:

    LAT

    Gutsy kid:

    As an adolescent, Allen lost her mother to cancer, and her father began drinking heavily. She left home one day, caught a bus to nearby Youngstown and put herself up for adoption.

    "That judge didn't know what to do with me," she told the New York Times. "In those days, there was no orphanage for black children. You either had to be put in a detention home or you were put in a foster home. I chose to be put in foster homes."
    Gates (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    So this snippet from CNN is supposed to cast a negative light on Gates:

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - A Cambridge police sergeant who responded to a 911 call about a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. told dispatchers that Gates was being uncooperative and to "keep the cars coming."

    emphasis mine.  Keep the cars coming.  For a 60+, walking with a cane senior citizen.  

    Keep the cars coming...

    How many police does it take to take down a senior citizen?

    Keep the cars coming....

    "he's being uncooperative"

    Not violent.  Not threatening.  Uncooperative.

    Keep the cars coming.......

    The original 911 call, no mention of race. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    911 OPERATOR: 9-1-1, what is the exact location of your emergency?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Hi, I'm actually at (inaudible) street in Cambridge, the house number is 7 Ware Street.

    911 OPERATOR: OK ma'am, your cell phone cut out, what's the address again?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Sorry, it's 7 Ware Street. That's W-A-R-E Street.

    911 OPERATOR: The emergency is at 7 Ware Street, right?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Well no, I'm sorry. 17. Some other woman is talking next to me but it's 17, 1-7 Ware Street.

    911 OPERATOR: What's the phone number you're calling me from?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I'm calling you from my cell phone number.

    911 OPERATOR: All right, tell me exactly what happened?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Um, I don't know what's happening. I just had an older woman standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number, 17 Ware Street. And they kind of had to barge in and they broke the screen door and they finally got in. When I had looked, I went further, closer to the house a little bit after the gentlemen were already in the house. I noticed two suitcases. So, I'm not sure if this is two individuals who actually work there, I mean, who live there.

    911 OPERATOR: You think they might have been breaking in?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I don't know 'cause I have no idea. I just noticed.

    911 OPERATOR: So you're saying you think the possibility might have been there? What do you mean by barged in? You mean they kicked the door in?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: No, they were pushing the door in. Like, umm, the screen part of the front door was kind of like cut.

    911 OPERATOR: How did they open the door itself with the lock?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: They, I didn't see a key or anything 'cause I was a little bit away from the door. But I did notice that they pushed their (interrupted).

    911 OPERATOR: And what do the suitcases have to do with anything?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I don't know, I'm just saying that's what I saw.

    911 OPERATOR: Do you know what apartment they broke into?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: No, they're just they first floor. I don't even think that it's an apartment. It's 17 Ware Street. It's a house, it's a yellow house. Number 17. I don't know if they live there and they just had a hard time with their key but I did notice that they kind of used their shoulder to kind of barge in and they got in. I don't know if they had a key or not because I couldn't see from my angle. But, you know, when I looked a little closely that's what I saw.

    911 OPERATOR: (inaudible) guy or Hispanic?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Umm.

    911 OPERATOR: Are they still in the house?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: They're still in the house, I believe, yeah.

    911 OPERATOR: Were they white, black or Hispanic?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Umm, well there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried thinking someone's breaking in someone's house, they've been barging in. And she interrupted me and that's when I had noticed otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all, to be honest with you. So, I was just calling 'cause she was a concerned neighbor, I guess.

    911 OPERATOR: OK, are you standing outside?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: I'm standing outside, yes.

    911 OPERATOR: All right, the police are on the way, you can meet them then they get there. What's your name?

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Yeah, my name is (deleted).

    911 OPERATOR: All right, we're on the way.

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Ok. All right, I guess I'll wait. Thanks.



    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    sounds like we may need to have a nationwide inquisition to find out the identity of this old lady who originally instigated the complaint.  I'm sure we can all agree that she must be a flat-out racist.

    Parent
    I'm sure we can all agree... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    she was flat-out nosy!

    If nothing else we've got a classic case of when being nosy goes wrong:)

    Parent

    Piss poor report writing by the Sgt. (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    He is supposed to include the names and identifying info for all witnesses.  

    Parent
    So the implication of this (none / 0) (#147)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    is what?  Did the police previously say that the suspects were described as black?

    Found it, HERE

    In the police report, filed by Crowley, he says he spoke with Whalen outside the home before he approached Gates' house.

    "She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street," the report says. "She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry."

    Now we know that she did NOT identify the subjects as black, and did not even talk to Crowley.  So much for Crowley's version.

    Parent

    Actually to your evaluation (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    No and no.

    We have no actual verification of what conversation there was between the caller and Crowley outside the house. What you saw was the transcript between the caller and 911.

    Parent

    this does support your statement (none / 0) (#175)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    "Whalen does not mention the race of the men she saw until pressed by a dispatcher to describe them. At that point, she said one of the men may have been Hispanic."

    Parent
    If you read that 911 transcript, (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    I think it's clear - to me, anyway - that there were two women involved in the reporting.

    Note:

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Um, I don't know what's happening. I just had an older woman standing here and she had noticed two gentlemen trying to get in a house at that number, 17 Ware Street. And they kind of had to barge in and they broke the screen door and they finally got in. When I had looked, I went further, closer to the house a little bit after the gentlemen were already in the house. I noticed two suitcases. So, I'm not sure if this is two individuals who actually work there, I mean, who live there.

    And

    FEMALE WITNESS CALLER: Umm, well there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but I'm not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn't see what he looked like at all. I just saw it from a distance and this older woman was worried thinking someone's breaking in someone's house, they've been barging in. And she interrupted me and that's when I had noticed otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all, to be honest with you. So, I was just calling 'cause she was a concerned neighbor, I guess.

    What are the chances Crowley spoke with one of these women, but not the other?

    Something to think about, anyway.

    Parent

    My thoughts exactly. (none / 0) (#192)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:37:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#196)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:45:38 PM EST
    even the 911 tape is confusing in that the caller at times speaks as if she saw things while also acknowledging that she didn't. I presume a case of speaking for someone else and repeating what is being said, thereby making it sound like the caller was the actual witness to the entire event.

    Parent
    this is not the 9-11 call (none / 0) (#153)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:59:33 PM EST
    so I don't get the beef here?

    Parent
    Not sure if (none / 0) (#166)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:05:50 PM EST
    I understand your question but I guess the issue is this:  Crowley said the subjects were identified as black.  The caller, Whalen, didn't say this on the phone and says she didn't say this in person, either.

    Crowley says the subjects were identified as black.  It just shows he wrote the report the way he wanted it to read, in his favor.

    Parent

    Was it (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    The other woman whom he talked to and messed up the names?

    Parent
    he met the woman at the scene (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    and that is when she mentioned their race, did not do so on the call.  

    Parent
    Not according to (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    the CNN story:

    Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.

    "Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

    She added, "I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color."



    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    I found another saying the same thing....

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure you have seen in the (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    past incidences in which the law enforcement officer's account of what the officer heard on the radio is not word-for-word what the dispatch tapes and logs later indicate.  

    Parent
    I'm making no statement of ideology or anything (none / 0) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    here, jus' bringing in the facts.

    Although, to be fair, there is nothing in the 911 call (that occurred, of course, before Crowley even got involved) that would (or could, even) suggest that after the call Whalen didn't talk to Crowley and didn't mention race when he arrived on the scene after the call.

    It certainly doesn't sound likely that she would thought they were black when Crowley arrived but didn't know earlier when she made the call (although I guess she might have gotten more/different info from the elderly lady as they waited for the police) but afaik there is nothing to suggest Crowley is lying about talking to Whalen when he arrived.

    Did I miss something?

    Parent

    Ah thanks, I missed this: (none / 0) (#188)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:26:44 PM EST
    Attorney Wendy Murphy, who represents Whalen, also categorically rejected part of the police report that said Whalen talked with Sgt. James Crowley, the arresting officer, at the scene.
    "Let me be clear: She never had a conversation with Sgt. Crowley at the scene," Murphy told CNN by phone. "And she never said to any police officer or to anybody 'two black men.' She never used the word 'black.' Period."

    She added, "I'm not sure what the police explanation will be. Frankly, I don't care. Her only goal is to make it clear she never described them as black. She never saw their race. ... All she reported was behavior, not skin color."

    I suppose it's possible Crowley talked to the elderly lady when he arrived and may have gotten somewhat mixed up in who he talked to...not sure how likely though.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    How many 60 year olds can use a cane as a weapon?  How many have weapons in their house?  Do you think the officer knew that at the immediate time?

    Parent
    he knew enough (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    that the guy was 65 and walking with a cane.  Send more cars.....

    Ridiculous.

    Parent

    And again (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    he could read minds so he knew what was going to happen?

    Ridiculous.

    Parent

    as a former military police officer (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:42:41 PM EST
    I say ridiculous

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Samuel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:48:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Gates is 65? (none / 0) (#143)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:53:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    He's 59.

    Parent
    thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    Keep em coming...lol

    Parent
    ACtually (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:03:21 PM EST
    He's only 58 - his birthday isn't until September, so even though some here keep adding years to his age to make him appear a decrepit old man, fact is, he isn't that old.

    Parent
    keep em coming (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    Did officer crowley cancel back up after he confirmed identity or as you say was he so concerned that a 58 yr old Harvard professor cane or no cane, was about to whoop his arse?

    Crowley is in good shape.  As someone in good shape who had to respond to hundreds of domestics and fights in my tenure, I don't recall calling for back in any similar situation.  Of course, I didn't patrol the ivy league.

    So tell me, does he need to keep em coming??

    lol

    Parent

    Yet (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by daring grace on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:54:36 PM EST
    According to his own report, the officer wasn't behaving on the scene as if he was concerned about physical violence from Gates--requesting Gates join him on the porch?

    And then Gates, uncooperatively yelling, yes. But still he walks outside as Crowley asked.

    It does seem like a strange strategy to get more police there when Gates was reacting as he was to just two.

    Parent

    keep em coming (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    Did he cancel the back up when he knew that Gates lived there?  Or was he worried that a harvard professor was going to come out and attack him?

    Can't have it both ways Jbindc....

    Parent

    Not my comment (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    But try actually reading.

    Parent
    awww (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    some white rage there?  Or just plain ole anger?

    Parent
    Although the arrest reports say (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    Sgt. Crowley, who was inside the house, told Prof. Gates Crowley was going outside and, if Gates had any questions, he could come outside and ask them.  That isn't an order.  

    Parent
    You know the press is turning (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    when they start showing pictures of Obama like this, instead of smiling and looking confident

    Some good news (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    In the housing sector this morning.

    "New U.S. home sales rose by the largest amount in more than eight years last month"

    unfortunately, that probably has something to do with:

    "The median sales price of $206,200, however, was down 12 percent from $234,300 a year earlier"

    sounds about right.  Still, glad to at least seeing inventory go down.

    But a family member in construction (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:09:00 AM EST
    called yesterday to say business is getting worse, and his previously high-quality firm now is expecting twice as much work in the same amount of time -- so it may not be a good time to get good work from some firms.  A tip to those hiring firms for remodeling and the like that they may want to do even more oversight than usual to be sure that the supplies and the work are as contracted.

    The family member is so discouraged by not being allowed to do his usual quality work -- but even more discouraged by signs of furloughs and layoffs again.  For us, though, it means we may be able to get some of his good work here, where our house needs him again!

    Parent

    And then the bad! (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    ABC article on loan modification program:

    Nearly one in four loan modifications in the fourth quarter actually resulted in increased monthly payments. That situation can happen when lenders add fees or past-due interest to a loan and spread those payments out over the 30- or 40-year period

    What a great program!

    Parent

    On the other hand.............. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    Falling house prices means more lower income people can buy homes.  That's a good thing for many families.  

    Parent
    As far as I am concerned (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    They can keep dropping.  Certainly not in any range I can afford yet.  Then again, it's a double edged sword.  Now that they no longer have children at home, my parents would like to downsize and retire. May not be possible for a while.

    Parent
    It certainly does. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Samuel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    Propping up home prices is unfair to all the buyers that made the right decision.  Allowing prices to drop will result in people bailing due to negative equity...which is actually good since they'll have a chance to save and purchase a home with a reasonable loan in the future.  

    Parent
    Only twelve percent? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:06:58 AM EST
    I'm beginning to think that the estimate of 5-6 years before the housing industry recovers is right.  It's got a very long way to go.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:18:36 AM EST
    and here is a compounding factor:  in the suburbs, which were overbuilt and had homes that were overvalued, waiting 5 or 6 years is only going to make things worse.  This is because of the low quality of the workmanship and materials in newer built homes.  I work in this area.  Much of the crap that was built in the 1990's to present won't hold up long enough to recover.  By 2015, a McMansion built in 1995 will be 20 years old, and it isn't going to be pretty.

    Parent
    Not just housing (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    according to Newsweek, and GMA, the recession is OVER.

    Parent
    Welcome to the New Economy! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    Are we loving it yet?

    Parent
    Credit Card Companies (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    determined to rip you off while they still can.

    From the link.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    "I'm done with Chase"

    Smart move guy..thats at least 2 down, a couple million to go and they can't ripoff anybody ever again.

    We might not be able to stop Uncle Sam from giving Chase money and favors, but we sure as hell can stop giving 'em ours.  

    Parent

    Chase has me in its clutches as United's (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:38:45 AM EST
     Visa is now through Chase. Gotta watch 'em like a hawk though.

    Parent
    Watch your back Oc... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    shadier than loansharks they are.

    Parent
    You may be too young, but (none / 0) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    "You have a Friend at Chase Manhattan."

    Does anyone remember those TV commercials where they showed a pair of scissors cutting the little chain which secured the pens to their desks in their lobbies? Chase (Rockefeller's bank) was trying to show that "Friends trust Friends" (not to steal their crappy little pens.)

    LOL, at least now they don't claim to be your "Friend."


    Parent

    Too young to remember... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    but that sh*t is funny nonetheless.

    I take it the pens are locked up again as well...lol.

    Parent

    As should be their owner (none / 0) (#105)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    David Rockefeller, who was the spokesman mouthing those words.......and with the most sincere look on his face(s), no less.

    Too funny!  LOL

    Parent

    Sotomayor (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:12:52 AM EST
    Sessions will not vote for her.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Monday he'll vote against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, siding with his party's leaders against the judge who's on a fast track to becoming the first Hispanic justice.

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., weighed in on President Barack Obama's first high court choice the day before his panel is scheduled to vote on her nomination. Her confirmation by the full Senate - with at least a handful of GOP votes - is virtually certain by next week.

    Sessions accused Sotomayor of trying to "rebrand" her judicial approach during her confirmation hearings. He said he didn't believe she has the "deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism" when she joins the nation's highest court.

    He cited her rulings on property and gun rights, as well as a much-discussed rejection of a reverse discrimination claim by white firefighters, as examples of decisions that violated the Constitution and reflected "liberal political thought."

    Most conservative Republicans are lining up against Sotomayor, but a handful of GOP senators are siding with majority Democrats to back her.

    Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., also announced Monday he would vote against Sotomayor, saying he was concerned she wouldn't be able to set aside her biases and rule impartially. In a statement released by his office, Johanns said he was particularly troubled about Sotomayor's stance on gun rights.

    Sessions announced his decision in an opinion piece published in Monday's editions of USA Today.
    Knock me over with a feather. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:15:49 AM EST


    Parent
    a feather's like a telephone pole... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    ...when it comes to Sessions and this news.  I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd announced he was going to have an exorcism to boot.  

    Parent
    I'm shocked--SHOCKED I tell you, (none / 0) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    that Senator Sessions will vote against Sotomayor.

    Parent
    A point in her favor (none / 0) (#79)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:48:23 PM EST
    I'd be more concerned if Sessions voted for her!

    Parent
    Renewed talk (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    about banning prescription drug ads. I used to be convinced that these had to be banned, but I find my mind changing a little bit. I say it's a good thing if people are able to see that their maladies are real, treatable, medical problems.

    However, I do like the idea of forcing the drug companies to wait 6 months to a year for real world safety data to come in.

    I completely disagree with you (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    I think this stuff is evil.  there is no good reason to market prescription drugs to the public.
    it is creating a whole new class of "diseases" from "restless leg syndrome" to stuff like this:

    "The emergence of cholesterol reduction as a market was a major event for pharma. Metabolic syndrome promises to be as big or bigger"

    but I do love the disclaimers.

    ". . . may cause you to bleed from your pores and die or possible grow a second head"

    Parent

    just to be clear (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    I am not inclined to want more restrictions on the kind of drugs you can get.  more would be fine with me.

    I just dont think drug companies should be able to use all the magic of modern marketing to make people think they need them.

    I would legalize pot and other drugs. I would not market them.

    Parent

    Wait, you're against statins? (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    That's insane, frankly.

    Parent
    not against anything (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:02:38 PM EST
    but marketing prescription drugs publicly.

    it is a total three card monte game with peoples lives.

    Parent

    You used cholesterol lowering drugs (statins) (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    as your example of what's bad. But the research I'm aware of says that more people should be on them. So I really don't see what the danger there is.

    Ads I would like to see banned are for those "heath supplements" and vitamins.

    Parent

    Ditch the drugs (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    and go the food route  ;)

    Parent
    Some people find it very difficult to change their (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    eating behavior. If there's a drug that can make their lives safer anyway, they should have it.

    Parent
    Soon they will have their thin pill . . . (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    I'd love it if supervised behavior modification was the first route, not pills. And more pro-active intervention before things get to a more serious level. Let the body do what it was built to do. I'd also love to see more control over what can and can't be in processed food.

    Parent
    Actually, andgarden, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    the medical community, particularly big pharma believes EVERYONE should be on a statin. My dad had the severe muscle pain (mentioned as serious side effect), so he's off them. My brother takes CoQ10 with his because that relieves the severe muscle pain :) Some people cannot control their cholesterol through diet.

    Just always remember who's doing the research, and who makes the money off the drugs. Usually the same group.


    Parent

    other than the potential liver damage (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:25:42 PM EST
    I don't see anything wrong with statins.

    My mother started a statin, developed the muscle weakness within weeks and dropped it like a hot potato after she looked up the side effects and risks on the internet.

    Always know WTH you are putting into your body.  A prescription is more like permission to try something, not a guarantee that it will work.


    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    My mom died of cirrosis...she was a one glass of wine a year kind of drinker, but she self-medicated, and believed there was a pill for everything. Couldn't convince her otherwise.

    Parent
    My favorite line from the doctors... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    A prescription is more like permission to try something, not a guarantee that it will work.

    While writing on their prescription pad, "let's try this, and if it doesn't work we'll try something else." Since it isn't going into his body, why would he care...and I'm not about to pay $100+ for a prescription that ends up in the garbage because it didn't work.

    My 27 year old son has had 2 prescriptions his entire life, and one came from the dentist after his wisdom teeth were pulled.

    Parent

    Alas, this is the state (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    of much of modern medicine.  Medicine is often quite good at finding out what is wrong, but far less efficient at treating the malady.

    If we were only genetically identical like the mice cloned for medical research....

    Parent

    I like that line... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    its true, all a prescription is is a bathroom pass from the hall monitor (doctor)to use the facilities (pharmacy).

    I'd like to see the whole tyrannical system scrapped myself....all drugs available over the counter to anybody 18 or over, and let freedom ring.

    Parent

    It's a conspiracy!!!! (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    Listen, I'm as suspicious of pharma as the next guy, but I'm not going to pretend that the experts are wrong, or that all of the research is useless just because there's a profit motive.

    Parent
    Of course.... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    just keep your logic in check.

    I have a BIL who recently retired after 30+ years as an executive in R&D for big pharma. I've worked in the regulatory affairs groups of medical devices where the clinical studies are managed, and problems reported for sending on to the FDA often happen.

    My mother died sooner than she should have for all the pills doctors gave her...they are great for one thing, but often very hard somewhere else.

    Contradictory studies are released all the time. One day coffee is the cause of cancer, the next day it's the cure.

    Parent

    "suspicious of pharma" (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    but I'm not going to pretend that the experts are wrong, or that all of the research is useless just because there's a profit motive.

    how do you feel about restless leg syndrome?


    Parent

    I believe that it's real (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:55:48 PM EST
    I have no idea how many people have it.

    What's your opinion on headaches?

    Parent

    Headaches are not a sign of aspirin deficiency (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:08:28 PM EST
    That's my all-time favorite reader board. It's outside a chiropractor's office near where I live.

    Parent
    I think if your (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    legs are restless you should consider going for a walk instead of taking a pill.

    dont get me wrong.  I have nothing against pills.
    if yu take them for a reason that makes sense.  even if that reason is to be fun.

    restless legs?  I think its bull.


    Parent

    Frankly, I think your opinions (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    on what are real conditions and what are not are more than a little arrogant.

    Parent
    Direct to Consumer marketing (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    is what they call these ads, with "marketing" being the whole point: the drug companies want to sell drugs.  They know that Joe and Jane Average will "ask their doctor about" the drugs they see advertised, and there is a better than average chance that Joe and Jane will walk out of the doctor's office with a prescription in hand.

    Patients certainly know when they have a problem, but are they the best ones to decide they need a particular drug?  I have no problem with patients putting pressure on their doctors to figure out what's wrong with them, but I do have a problem with patients putting pressure on doctors to prescribe the magic pill they saw yesterday while watching Oprah.

    These drugs are not candy, not trinkets or accessories, and should not be marketed as such, especially given the side-effects and long-term damage some of them can cause.

    Sure, we've gotten more than a few laughs out of listening to the warnings ("do not take X if you have Y, if you cannot sit or stand for more than 30 minutes at a time; side effects include..."), and usually end up saying that given all the warnings, it's surprising most people would not just say, "nevermind, I'll just keep wetting my pants," rather than risk taking a drug that could compound their health issues.

    I guess no one would be surprised that a lot of people just want the magic pill, which makes it harder for doctors who believe in and stress non-drug methods for improving health.  My orthopaedic surgeon told me when I was seeing him for a shoulder fracture that people didn't want to exercise or lose weight or have PT to solve their orthopaedic problems - they wanted the magic pill they saw on the TV that was going to make them all better, instantly.

    I'd really like the pharmaceutical industry to stop spending gazillions of dollars on advertising, and start making the drugs more affordable.  Apparently, that's not part of the business plan, though.

    Parent

    "stop spending gazillions" (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    his link says they are trying to do just that.

    Meanwhile, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill called the  Say No to Drug Ads Act. It would amend the federal tax code to prevent pharmaceutical companies from deducting the cost of direct-to-consumer drug advertisements as a business expense.

    I suspect that might help lower drug costs quite a bit.  advertising is not cheap.  particularly the wall to wall 24/7 kind the drug companies are doing.

    Parent

    I remember reading a column (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    (I forget by whom) right after the Super Bowl where Janet Jackson had her "wardrobe malfunction".  He was discussing that the more embarrassing about that Super Bowl was almost all the commercials were about ED and he was watching it with his teenage daughter and her friend (yeah, I was watching with my dad too - tres embarrassing).  His point was these ED commercials state that if a man has a certain condition for over 4 hours, they should call a doctor - he said if he had that problem, he was going to call the Guiness Book of World Records!

    Parent
    from what I hear (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    from friends 4 hours is several short of a guinness record.

    viagra does amazing things.  I have never used it but I know others for whom it is a recreational drug.  question.  did the doctor ask why the guy in his mid 30's needed viagra?  I seriously doubt it.
    anymore than mine questioned why I wanted an ADHD drug.  they just write the script and take the money.


    Parent

    I can live (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    with that.

    Giving Legs to Restless Legs: A Case Study of How the Media Helps Make People Sick

    Parent

    Your link does not support your argument (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    It does not say that RLS is not real. In fact, it seems to accept that RLS is real.

    Parent
    I said (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    the marketing was bull.  or that what I meant.
    there is no reason in the world except the huge profits from big pharma that a doctor should not make the decision if  you have this problem.

    Parent
    There is no reason not to make people aware (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    that a problem exists. Otherwise, they might be afraid or embarrassed to ask their doctor. That does not mean that the marketing can't be regulated. Drug companies should not be able to make unsupported claims.

    Parent
    but they do (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    make unsupported claims.  constantly.  they also make the news that supports them.  there are billions involved.  for example:

    Figure 1 shows that the news articles often included elements exaggerating disease prevalence.
    Almost two-thirds of articles provided an estimate of disease prevalence (most commonly, statements such as "at least 12 million Americans suffer from the syndrome" [11] or "[it] affects 1 in 10 adults in the United States" [12]). No article questioned the validity of the prevalence estimates. In fact, there are reasons to believe the estimates overstate the prevalence of clinically meaningful disease. For example, the frequently cited 10% estimate came from a study that used a single question to identify restless legs syndrome rather than the four standard criteria [13]. The less stringent definition inflates the estimate because people with other causes of leg symptoms (e.g., leg cramps or diabetic neuropathy) are counted incorrectly as having the syndrome.

    In a recent large study, only 7% of respondents reported all four diagnostic criteria, and only 2.7% reported moderately or severely distressing symptoms two or more times per week (i.e., the group for whom medical treatment might be appropriate) [14]. Even the 2.7% estimate is probably too high, because of bias inherent in the study sample.

    in other words.  the number is probably closer to one in a hundred than one in 10.
    if that.


    Parent

    I support punishing the drug companies (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    for doing that. But the wrong reaction to their outlandish claims is "there's no such condition."

    Parent
    there is even a wiki entry (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    fer gods sake

    Disease mongering is a pejorative term for the practice of widening the diagnostic boundaries of illnesses, and promoting public awareness of such, in order to expand the markets for those who sell and deliver treatments, which may include pharmaceutical companies, physicians, and other professional or consumer organizations.[1] Examples include male-type baldness and certain social phobias.[1] In discussions specifically about the validity of psychiatry, the term is frequently also used by proponents of the antipsychiatry movement[2] and Scientology[3] based critics to discredit psychiatry, neurobiological disorders, and the medications used for treatment. Examples include ADHD and bipolar disorder[4].

    Proponents of this practice argue that the pharmaceutical industry is only providing the public with information about its options and that actual prescription is a matter to be discussed between patient and doctor. Opponents, however, claim that this approach leads to the unnecessary prescription of drugs, that its motivation is only to profit the drug companies, and that it may actually harm instead of help patients.[1]

    A 2006 Newcastle, New South Wales conference, reported in PLoS Medicine, explored the phenomenon further[5] Journalist Ray Moynihan satirised it in a BMJ "news" item that appeared in its April Fool's Day edition 2006, titled "Scientists find new disease: motivational deficiency disorder".[6]

    Parent

    Not bull, probably genetic. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    A coworker had RLS and her mother as well.  If you don't mind persistent insomnia because your leg jerks so hard that you wake up repeatedly, I guess it's not a problem.

    The only problem I had was believing that Xanax was a good choice of drug to treat RLS.  It appears that there are now nutritional therapies to try and treat RLS, which makes a lot more sense to me to attempt to address the cause, not the symptom.

    Parent

    I explained that I (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    do not doubt that a tiny portion of the population might benefit from this drug.  my point is that the drug company is marketing it to a far wider audience than would ever need it.

    thats how they make all the ad money back.

    Parent

    to put it another way (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    do you imagine that they drug company could every in a million years make the money back they are spending on pushing "restless leg syndrome" 24/7 if the only people who bought the drug was the one in a hundred or so people who actually need it?

    Parent
    Actually, yes. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    If you had a drug that was used to treat a rare and persistent disorder that wasn't painful, crippling or life threatening - how would you find the people who would benefit?   If you can get that first prescription written, you probably have a customer for life!

    You just need to find them...  

    Parent

    find them (none / 0) (#165)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:05:44 PM EST
    the old fashioned way.  let the doctor decide if they need the drug.  IMO.

    you make one of the only good arguments for drug advertising afaiac.  but it is far outweighed by the damage the drug companies are doing with their disease mongering.

    Parent

    as far as headaches (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    I think people have them for all kinds of reasons.
    and taking pain killers could mask something much more serious.

    I dont take pills for headaches which a almost never have.  I dont remember the last one.


    Parent

    I don't watch much TV, but even the (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    little I do watch is enough to make me want the drug ads to just go away.  Plus watching a young boy (maybe 8) watching a Viagra ad at a sports bar while his parents were talking to each other.  He looked really puzzled.  

    Parent
    I remember as a kid (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    wondering about all of the euphemisms for menstrual periods in the tampax ads too.

    ...and the Massengil ads were really out there.
    Refreshing?  Is it a soft drink? I had no idea what they meant.

    Viagra ads aren't much different in that respect.

    And depression definitely hurts.  Watch 10 seconds of one of those anti-depressant ads and I find myself in the doldrums and ouch, my neck hurts!...intentional, I'm sure and very much one of the reasons I believe pharma ads have no place on TV(IMHO).

    But the Celebrex ads are funny.  Has anyone actually listened all the way through one of those 5-minute Celebrex ads? I haven't. Don't they realize that Americans have short attention spans?

    Parent

    What really gets me (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:38:03 PM EST
    are the ads for incontinence products that have tinkly piano music in the background, exactly the kind of sound to make you think you need to go even when you don't.

    Parent
    Shurg (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    The kid is going to eventually find out about sex.

    Parent
    I suspect he already knew that, just (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    couldn't figure out what Viagra does.

    Parent
    Exactly... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    the talk of banning e.d. ads on decency grounds is puritan nonsense...I find them as annoying as the next guy, but no more so than any other annoying ad.  Be glad we have remotes.

    I say let 'em all advertise as they see fit...its a product like anything else.  I'd even ease the regs on alcohol and tobacco ads...if you let advertising dictate what you buy and how you live you're beyond help anyway.  

    Besides...I miss Joe Camel and The Marlboro Man:)

    Parent

    No way on tobacco ads (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:45:36 AM EST


    Parent
    C'mon pal... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    they run anti-smoking ads like crazy here in NY, how about some balance?  

    It's more than just lung cancer in that pack ya know...you also get the smooth soothing flavor of Virginia's finest tobacco.  We're only getting one side of the story:)

    Parent

    Hope you have good health insurance. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:04:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Not funny (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55:46 AM EST


    Parent
    It isn't... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    the NY state-run propaganada ads are pretty sick stuff, ever see any of them?

    Parent
    Yes, and I approve (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:01:48 PM EST


    Parent
    A simple... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    "Don't smoke kids, its bad for you" ad will suffice...there is no need for the state to trot out amputees to spread the fear....its no fun to explain to a young child that although smoking is bad for your health, nobody is going to cut uncle kdog's feet off...its fear mongering and they've gone too far.

    Parent
    We've gotten past the point (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    where "it's bad for you" works. The next step is to socially stigmatize smokers. Sorry kdog.

    Parent
    this is the difference (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:24:22 PM EST
    I would not allow (if I made the decisions) liquor, tobacco or drugs (pharma made or other wise) to be marketed to the weak minded.  and lets face it, that is their target market.

    but I would let anyone do what ever they want. that would not include "stigmatizing smokers"

    Parent

    I'd open to up... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    to let people do what they want and advertise what they want...but a ban on the advertising is a compromise I could more than live with for the freedom to imbibe as I see fit without all the hassles.

    Parent
    bingo (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:46:25 PM EST
    just because people should have the right to do whatever they want that does not mean the drug companies should be able to market their products to a TEE VEE society who, it has been demonstrated over and over, can be convinced to buy anything they see on the tube. anything.


    Parent
    I don't disagree... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    I just don't have much patience for catering to the tee-vee society...its enabling and only leads to us getting dumber and dumber...sometimes ya gotta let people learn a lesson the hard way.

    Parent
    "It's bad for you"... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    is working pretty good from where I sit, smoking is down among the youth.

    Stigmatize me all you want, don't scare the kids that I love to death with the worst case scenario that might effect 1% of the smoking population.  I know a lot of smokers of all ages...not a one has had to have multiple limbs amputated.

    Lets not make the same mistake the drug warriors made with illegal drugs...so exaggerating the danger that eventually nobody believes a word you say.

    Parent

    Nobody denies that smoking (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    greatly increases your risk for lung and other cancers. At least, not anymore.

    Parent
    I ain't denying it either... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:37:13 PM EST
    so whats up with that poor amputee lady they've been trotting out on the tube?  That sh*t ain't right.

    Parent
    You think the smoking didn't cause that? (none / 0) (#121)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:37:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I don't believe smoking... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    by itself did all that, hell no...though I don't doubt it played a part for someone with some pre-existing conditions or genetic predisposition to cancer...too many smokers in the world with all their limbs to believe otherwise.

    The truth is enough to send a clear message on the dangers of smoking...no need to go there.

    Parent

    for one thing (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    it tends to make people roll their eyes.

    Parent
    I always think of diabetes (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    when I see that PSA

    Parent
    I couldn't believe it... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    when I saw it the first time...the tracheotomy guy was bad enough but at least relevant, when they brought the amputee lady out I said to myself "the anti-smoking campaign has jumped the shark."

    Parent
    No "big brother" (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    And after that the government can go after the liquor industry and then why not McDonald's and the rest of the fast food industry. After all obesity is the #1 health issue in the country.

    I don't want the government in my bedroom or dictating what I can put in my body. Life is choices and as an adult I prefer to make my own decisions.

    Parent

    I would rather (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    the start with feminine hygiene ads.  Still embarrassing to see when I watch TV with my dad. (And I've never had a conversation with my mother while driving in the car, or at lunch (or anywhere, for that matter) about having that "not so fresh feeling" - Gross!)

    Parent
    Ads are incredibly unrealistic. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    I think the average conversation would be more like "Oh, you use Brand X!  Is it any different from Brand Y?".

    Although my almost eight year old should get be sponsored by an auto manufacturer.  When he is An Adult, he will drive an Audi, I will drive a Saturn and his brother will drive a Toyota.  He knows almost nothing about the cars (Audi = 4 rings) but he has formed a firm opinion based on this ignorance.  

    Parent

    that's assuming... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    ...you believe that all the conditions they seek to medicate require it.  as a guy who doctors were imcompetent to help, i used to say incapable, now i realize it was incompetence, i can only say be very wary of the pharmaceutical industry creating needs like any other business.  from ulcer-like symptoms and debilitating pain as a small child, to allergies, rashes, severe back pain that laid me low in my TEENS, gastrointestinal stuff, plantar fascitis, depression, anxiety, and on and on (much like a fibromyalgia patient -- which I would've qualified as easily, and as a little kid no less)...i can only emphasize that nothing the standard medical community did for me came close to correctly diagnosing the mindbody (psychosomatic) origin (and cure) of these very real maladies i suffered from.  Hell, five years ago, I couldn't walk for more than five minutes before my legs started burning like they were being blowtorched.  That alone was sinking me into a deep depression.  On pills for pain AND depression, you can imagine how I was doing.  Not well.  But I found a real doctor who made the correct mindbody diagnosis, and I am free and clear of all those maladies that had afflicted me almost continuously for decades.  

    Hell, the money involved in putting children on psychoactive drugs alone in this country is staggering, and the percentage of thsoe kids who genuinely need to be on any drug is miniscule.

    But that's another story.  The commericals, I am on the fence.  I believe in freedom, realize obviously that not all drugs are bad and not all doctors out to overprescribe unnecessary stuff, but it's the industry part of it that concerns me.  Because they do create needs, make no mistake.  And we're not talking needs like a better deodorant.

     

    Parent

    I think it is a serious mistake (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    to extrapolate from your own experience to say that medicine is incompetent. Many can give counterexperriences. For example when I was younger, my springs, summers, and falls would have been hell without Zyrtec.

    Drugs, after all, have to go through clinical trials to prove that they work.

    One thing that I would support would be to require that new drugs be tested head to head against in-class competitors.

    Parent

    I've read articles about lengthening (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    of visits to primary care physicians because patients ask about the drugs they saw advertised and want to know if this, this, or this would help them.

    Parent
    Hey (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    your title sounds like the start of a viagra ad

    Parent
    I actually enjoy the ads (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:08:41 PM EST
    That lengthy list of side-effects and warnings is quite telling.

    Prescription drugs are to be taken wisely and only when absolutely necessary, IMHO. Why in heavens name would anyone watch a teevee ad and decide to pursue getting those expensive drugs? If they had something wrong, they should have gone to a doctor.

    Parent

    The ones that kill me (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    Are the ones to be taken for allergies or such, and some of the side effects include runny nose, watery eyes, and dry cough.  I mean - what's the point?

    Parent
    I liked the one that was supposed to help (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    you be more comfortable socially. The side effects were "interesting" considering . . .

    Parent
    I can't figure out the sitting in separate (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by byteb on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    bathtubs while holding hands.  
    Take a viagra-type product and you'll end up sitting outdoors in separate bathtubs? Sure.

    Parent
    Noo...it's that if you ever happen (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    to be sitting outside in spearate bathtubs holding hands...you might want some Viagra!!!

    Parent
    You have to go to a doctor (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    to get a prescription.

    Parent
    Yes, of course you do (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    So, if you need that pill why are you learning about it on TV instead of in the examining room?


    Parent
    you have to go to a doctor (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    who is getting huge kickbacks for prescribing their drugs.

    I had a doctor in LA who tried to give me a prescription for Viagra every single time I saw him.
    every - single - time.
    I stopped seeing him.


    Parent

    I posted this the other day (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    they will sell you anything you will buy from Bayer Heroin to Benzedrine Inhalers.

    Parent
    And you can still buy alcohol (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    So what? Or should we ban that?

    Parent
    certainly not (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    and we should not market it.


    Parent
    Judiciary is supposed to vote on Sotomayor (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:21:14 AM EST
    more or less now. Anyone hear anything?

    Is the GOP's week delay over already? (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:22:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    The vote was to have been last monday.

    Parent
    Next week (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    At leat, according to the CQ blurb I posted about Sessions.

    Parent
    Read more closely (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    Your blurb referred to the full senate.

    Parent
    And the panel vote. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:40:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Do I have to parse this? (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    First, the article says:

    Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., weighed in on President Barack Obama's first high court choice the day before his panel is scheduled to vote on her nomination.

    And then from the J. cmte site I see why there is no news: the committee vote is actually tomorrow, the 28th.

    Parent

    Does it matter? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    All that matters is the final Senate vote, right?

    Parent
    Can't have a Senate vote (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:53:47 AM EST
    until there's a committee vote.

    Parent
    Beer has been chosen (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Is this just a pander by Obama?  Crowley deffinitely wins on the "taste" front.

    If he's gonna pander (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    Might as well go local.

    There's plenty of good American Beers Mr. President.

    Parent

    Or even a Chicago brew. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    Bell's does decent brews.

    Parent
    Bell's (none / 0) (#131)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    is from Kalamazoo.  Goose Island is Chicago, though.

    Parent
    Oops! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    I only know the Ohio brews.  Brewfest coming up in September!  Hopefully the double IPA fad has passed.  I like hops, but you need something to balance them with.

    Parent
    Tell me (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    about it.  But, to be frank, I am just as tired of beers that try to balance extreme hops with extreme heaviness.  Too much malt is bad, too.  It just seems like so many of these craft brews want to take the beers to the extreme.

    Parent
    Does the Pres. know Bud is now (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    European-owned?  

    Parent
    Does the pres. know (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    Bud $ucks?

    Parent
    But, Bud is made (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    in union breweries in the US.  All of the major brewers are now foreign owned.

    Parent
    Some (none / 0) (#40)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    Buds are homegrown.

    Parent
    So I hear (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:14:36 PM EST


    Parent
    White ales do not impress me. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    I've tried to like them, but I just don't see what others see in them.  I must have my hops!

    Parent
    I consider them (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    the "white wine" of beers.  Good for a hot summer day, but not really "real" wine/beer.

    However, white wine is still better than Hard Lemonade...

    Parent

    Viogniers (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    are my new white wine favorites.  There's actually some "there" there.

    My summer beer is Great Lakes Glockenspiel - a wheat bock.  Nice body, some hops, but not heavy.  Could be cheaper.

    Parent

    I don't have (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    enough consistency to have a favorite or solo beer/wine.  I do have a tendency to go local.  So I have been drinking mostly N.E. brews lately, luckily there are plenty of good ones to choose from.

    For the record, I do like white wine and white ales, I just don't drink them very often.  And I like to be a little snobby now and then :)

    Parent

    Yummi (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    Viogniers are my all time favorite summer wine. If you really want a treat, pricy though, try a Condrieu.  The rolls royce wine that uses viognier grape.

    Rhone wines are my favorite in general, the reds are spectacular..

    Parent

    Apparently the Cambridge PD has just released (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    the audio tape of all the radio calls. Have not seem a transcript yet...

    Parent
    Prof. Gates tells Dowd he'll (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    be surprised if someone at the WH meet-up doesn't say, I'm sorry you were arrested.

    Dowd

    If I were Crowley, I would suddenly have an urgent family matter to attend to.  Sorry I can't make it, President Obama.

    Parent

    It does sound like he'll be the odd man out... (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:01:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Crowley (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:06:47 PM EST
    If pressed by Gates, should give a politician's answer:

    "I'm sorry you were angered by the situtation."

    And leave it at that.

    Parent

    Do you suppose the Oval Office is still (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:02:17 PM EST
    being secretly taped?

    Parent
    Blue Moon? (none / 0) (#137)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    yikes.  Coors imitation, sort of, Belgian White?  Also, non-union and foreign owned.

    Parent
    I didn't say (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    it was made by monks.

    Still, you gotta admit it tastes better than bud.

    Parent

    Tastes (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    differ, and I would definitely disagree with you.  I like Budweiser.  Don't get me wrong, I know beer and fancy myself somewhat of a connoisseur, but do still appreciate Bud for what it is.

    Parent
    I'm no connoisseur (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    For that, I'd have to know what I'm talking about.  I prefer the term "snob" (for me not you).

    I like what I like, and look down on everyone else :)

    Parent

    Nothing better... (none / 0) (#179)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:13:41 PM EST
    during/after a softball or football game than an ice cold can of Bud or Pabst.

    My drink for taste beer of choice this summer has been Hoegarten...them sh*ts are good, but I'm no connoisseur when it comes to brew.

    Parent

    better than bud? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    80% of the world's beers are probably better than Bud.

    Parent
    I'd say (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CST on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:17:03 PM EST
    80% is an under statement, although I sure haven't tried them all.  And like Eric said, tastes differ.  Although "for what it is" is a hell of a qualifier.  Kinda like "Lindsey Graham's not so bad, for a southern republican".

    Parent
    Then again (none / 0) (#178)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    based on sales, over half the population of the United States thinks Anheuser-Busch products are better than all the rest of the world's beers combined.

    There is no unanimous judging for taste. And it's a good thing because given a choice of all the world's beers, I'm taking a Coors Light :)

    Parent

    Yes, but 80% of the world is not a swing state (none / 0) (#184)
    by steviez314 on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:18:59 PM EST
    that Obama lost by only 4,000 votes.

    Parent
    Sports and opium (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:50:54 AM EST
    Karl Marx called religion the "opiate of the masses".
    I think that sports has taken its place.

    I noticed that the whole Monday night football phenomenon and the super-bowl hysteria was started during the Vietnam war. It has been a handy distraction. While the government goes on its' merry way waging wars and picking our pockets, we are made to feel that if the team with which we identify wins, things are OK.

    I think you might enjoy reading Adam (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    Gopnik's "Through the Children's Gate."  His young son suddenly becomes a Yankees fan immed. after 9/11.  They live in Manhattan.  Good book.

    Parent
    The 'distract the citizenry' theory is one (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    idea...another is that it is a reaction to the feminist movement.  Check out 'The Stronger Women Get, the More Men Love Football' by Mariah Burton Nelson  It is at least 10 years old and I have not read it for along time - may have to read it again and see how it has stood the test of time.

    Parent
    Hey - women are getting more beautiful! (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    And it's all because of evolution!

    Who knew beautiful women have more (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:33:06 PM EST
    children than the not beautiful.  And more girls.  Need to see the cross tabs.

    Parent
    I found that interesting too (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    I guess my prejudice would be that beautiful women wouldn't want to have more children so as not to ruin their figure!

    Parent
    I think it points to men (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    being more superficial than women.

    If we were as focused on looks as they are, Adonis would be the new norm.

    Parent

    Ido find it fascinating (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    that in the animal world, with only a couple of exceptions, it's the males who are splendidly gaudy and the females that are generally plain.  In the animal world, overwhelmingly it's the females who choose which males to have their babies with.

    Parent
    base on the update! (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycvoter on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 12:58:48 PM EST
    I did like Reid the best and he should have just taken the plunge and opened up.  Sorry guys, taking that chance on Ed, after the fantasy suite.... I don't think so.

    Paul Krugman, in today's NYT op-ed, (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    takes to task the Blue Dog Democrats' objections to health care reform, explaining in the process, as he does so well, its outline and essentials as they are known.  In refutation of worries for costs associated with the subsidy portion of health reform, he notes that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit, since this expense would be offset "..with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes."   While Blue Dogs will continue to be bogged down with any notion of additional taxes, even for those in the $1 million/year bracket, it does seem to me that Professor Krugman treats the "cost savings elsewhere" cavalierly, since that 'elsewhere' is Medicare.  Since the plan would require, at least, $500 billion over the next decade, it seems like a lot of lab tests will need to be better coordinated.  Maybe, his next column will put a sharper pencil to the 'elsewhere'.

    Bring back Spitzer! (none / 0) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:37:57 PM EST
    "Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme An Inside Job"

    "The Federal Reserve -- the quasi-autonomous body that controls the US's money supply -- is a "Ponzi scheme" that created "bubble after bubble" in the US economy and needs to be held accountable for its actions, says Eliot Spitzer, the former governor and attorney-general of New York."

    Good stuff.

    It is little (none / 0) (#141)
    by eric on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    wonder this guy got busted.  You cannot talk like this and have anything to hide, or they will take you down.

    Parent
    I didnt understand most of that (none / 0) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    but in fact we are about to have a health care system that will in all likely hood charge you are everyones imagined restless leg syndrome.

    unless Jerry Nadler wins.

    I'm aware. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Samuel on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    Sucks, right?  

    To repeat myself:

    your assertion had no numbers backing it...maybe its true but come on...

    it's unwise to give the government even more power over what qualifies as acceptable

    such a notion (nanny state) only makes sense in the context of a preexisting compulsory monopoly: ie if the dollar was not legal tender then currency competition would mitigate the need for financial regulation; translation: if we all aren't paying eachothers medical bills with no ability to opt out, more attention would be payed to the effective use of the money on covered scripts

    I know healthcare is more complicated than that...but i mean it isn't.  the current non free market system is the complication "necessitating" what will become a much worse situation

    the dollar sucks, public schools suck, military sucks (in the sense it kills people for the sake of weapons contracts) all because the customer does not choose to pay into the system at any point, its forced upon them.  healthcare is not a land of square triangles so i'm gonna go ahead and put 50 bucks on it sucking worse than now in a couple years.

    Parent

    I wish I could say (none / 0) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    that I completely disagree.

    Parent
    science (none / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    PRESIDENT OBAMA has nominated Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health.
    as director of the institutes, Dr. Collins will have more responsibility for biomedical and health-related research than any person on earth, controlling an annual budget of more than $30 billion. He will also be one of the foremost representatives of science in the United States. For this reason, it is important that we understand Dr. Collins and his faith as they relate to scientific inquiry.

    What follows are a series of slides, presented in order, from a lecture on science and belief that Dr. Collins gave at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008:

    Slide 1: "Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time."

    Slide 2: "God's plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that creative plan included human beings."

    Slide 3: "After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced `house' (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the moral law), with free will, and with an immortal soul."

    Slide 4: "We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement."

    Slide 5: "If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It's all an illusion. We've been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?"

    Why should Dr. Collins's beliefs be of concern?

    I don't buy it (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    The objections seem to be religious rather than scientific.  In other words, this guy can't explain away some of the inherent contradictions of Christianity.  So what, no one else can either.

    The opinion piece doesn't give any reason to believe that he puts scientific inquiry aside in favor of religious belief.  The author speculates that, if he really believes that our moral sense comes from God, maybe he'll be inclined to disfavor scientific research aimed at locating our moral reasoning faculties within the brain.  But there's no actual evidence that he would behave that way.  It's sort of like an argument that only an atheist is qualified to run the NIH.

    Parent

    this "slide" bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    "If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It's all an illusion. We've been hoodwinked.

    could I have another option?  
    more like moral law is a side effect of society and good and evil largely are an illusion.  at least in terms of the christian definition.

    I guess my real question is, why did he have to look under every rock to find the one christian scientist?  who is that for?

    Parent

    Where's the conflict? (none / 0) (#195)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    Between this:
    Dr. Collins takes a different approach: he insists that at some moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components -- including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc.

    and this:

    As someone who believes that our understanding of human nature can be derived from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and behavioral economics, among others, I am troubled by Dr. Collins's line of thinking.

    I know it's fiction, but one of the best themes w/in Angels & Demons (book not movie) is that it allowed for the co-existence of science and religion.  In this example, the crucial components are made up of various science, i.e, neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and behavioral economics.  


    Parent

    look (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 02:49:18 PM EST
    anyone is free to believe anything they want:

    Most scientists who study the human mind are convinced that minds are the products of brains, and brains are the products of evolution. Dr. Collins takes a different approach: he insists that at some moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components -- including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc.

    that doesnt mean he should be in charge of the NIH.

    Parent

    One of Dan Brown's (none / 0) (#203)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    other interesting ideas is allowing for the co-existence of anti-plagiarism laws and the practice of plagiarism.

    Monday Morning Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)