http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/paying-for-the-bad-habits-of-others/?scp=1&sq=exclude+treatment+hospita&st=cse&apage=4#comments
#87
Be the comment!!!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Pretending we don't know
In the mid 1800s, the tallest people in the world were the Native Americans who lived on the Plains; on the average, perhaps almost an inch taller than the European Americans of the time, and a half-inch taller than Europeans. In the years before the American Revolution, the tallest people in the world were the European settlers in America. It look like, after the revolution, and during the Civil War, alcohol use and diet brought down the average.
Take a look: http://eh.net/XIIICongress/cd/papers/70PrinceSteckel378.pdf
And, a more general look at height:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/04/05/040405fa_fact?currentPage=3
So what?
We all carry around pictures in our heads of Native Americans as qenetically "squat". There are some, but, in general, turns out not to be the case. We all carry around pictures in our heads of very tall Africans. There are some, but the whole "tribe", the group to which the herders belong, average about 5-9. The mind pictures are just wrong.
So, now you know. There is no doubt: On average, all groups of humans with the same nutrition and same rates of disease, are of equal height. There is one exception, the pygmies, who have an unusual endocrine system. That's it. For all us non-Pygmies, average height is the same -- nutrition and disease held constant. Done. Finished. Settled science.
So, why the memes of squat Indians and tall Africans? Or, rather, why the attachment to the memes, since the reality has been apparent for decades?
Put another way: Why do we pretend we don't know that all populations with the same nutrition and diseases average the same height? This fits into the category of "things we know we pretend we don't know". There are many others; I've put a few on a different page, and will explore them one at a time.
I'm looking for more. Please post any examples you have come across. Prizes, as always, for the best entry. Why don't we make it more interesting: cash prizes for the best entries. Yeah, that's the ticket!!!
Take a look: http://eh.net/XIIICongress/cd/papers/70PrinceSteckel378.pdf
And, a more general look at height:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/04/05/040405fa_fact?currentPage=3
So what?
We all carry around pictures in our heads of Native Americans as qenetically "squat". There are some, but, in general, turns out not to be the case. We all carry around pictures in our heads of very tall Africans. There are some, but the whole "tribe", the group to which the herders belong, average about 5-9. The mind pictures are just wrong.
So, now you know. There is no doubt: On average, all groups of humans with the same nutrition and same rates of disease, are of equal height. There is one exception, the pygmies, who have an unusual endocrine system. That's it. For all us non-Pygmies, average height is the same -- nutrition and disease held constant. Done. Finished. Settled science.
So, why the memes of squat Indians and tall Africans? Or, rather, why the attachment to the memes, since the reality has been apparent for decades?
Put another way: Why do we pretend we don't know that all populations with the same nutrition and diseases average the same height? This fits into the category of "things we know we pretend we don't know". There are many others; I've put a few on a different page, and will explore them one at a time.
I'm looking for more. Please post any examples you have come across. Prizes, as always, for the best entry. Why don't we make it more interesting: cash prizes for the best entries. Yeah, that's the ticket!!!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Guns and ...well....butter, I guess
The gun issue is making me slightly nuts. The only time I ever had anything to do with one was as a teen camp counselor; it was fun to shoot at targets with a 22.
But now I'm 65, and confused. I like the gun nuts, and the purity of their cause. They are like any other such group; once you mop up the various liquids on the floor, they are kind of fun. They devote all their resources in one directions, and aren't ambivalent. Refreshing.
A few months ago, I wrote to the NRA and offered to organize and fund a program to arm young minority men. The NRA seemed to have a problem, I said; the public perceived that they were basically white folks living in terror of non-white folks. What better solution could there be than free guns and training to those people of color too poor to live the real American way? The generic position of the gun nuts is that the world would be a better place if we were all armed; well, then, let me put my money where their mouth is. I got a nice reply saying they had no such program, but when they did, they would let me know.
If you look at the previous post, you know my concern about the loss of the commons -- basically, that we are all fully in the trough, snout and four feet and little curly tail, and couldn't care less if the rest of the bozos starved. In this tooth-and-claw world, what are the restraining forces?
Well, one of them is fear. I might be a little less willing to put my 39 items through the "12 items or fewer" line if there were the possibility that some Eastwoodian, bright-eyed gun nut was going to stick the barrel of his equalizer in my ear and ask if I wanted to rethink the consequences of my actions. "Go ahead, check out" would be the phrase. And I would gather up the offending items (cookies, ice cream, just all the bad stuff) and grovel my apology. I think gun nuts like people to grovel.
What if there were no guns in the picture? The person behind me would be fuming, miserable, and probably homicidal on the trip back home. Might say, "Hey, you got too many items!" And I would reply in my most fluent profanity, smile seraphically, and bag my items slowly. Which is the better outcome? I leave it to my faithful reader to decide. Please indicate your preference using the pro-gun-bearing or anti-gun-bearing items below:
A. Pro-gun-bearing: I think supermarket life will be more tranquil if I keep in mind that the person behind me in the checkout may be armed and willing to have a violent confrontation with me over my boorish behavior.
B. Anti-gun-bearing: I think supermarket life will be more tranquil if nobody in the supermarket is armed and I can just willy-nilly ignore considerate, civilized behavior as I do in all other areas of my life, causing great distress in those around me. What are they gonna do to me?????
Lemme know. Votes greatly appreciated!!!!!
And let's see if anyone can predict where the next series of 4 or 5 posts ends up, if I am clever enough to stretch it out and make it coherent. A prize is offered for the best prediction. No fair if you are the only entrant.
And I wonder what Mr. Reasonable would think of all this. More of Mr. Reasonable to come.
But now I'm 65, and confused. I like the gun nuts, and the purity of their cause. They are like any other such group; once you mop up the various liquids on the floor, they are kind of fun. They devote all their resources in one directions, and aren't ambivalent. Refreshing.
A few months ago, I wrote to the NRA and offered to organize and fund a program to arm young minority men. The NRA seemed to have a problem, I said; the public perceived that they were basically white folks living in terror of non-white folks. What better solution could there be than free guns and training to those people of color too poor to live the real American way? The generic position of the gun nuts is that the world would be a better place if we were all armed; well, then, let me put my money where their mouth is. I got a nice reply saying they had no such program, but when they did, they would let me know.
If you look at the previous post, you know my concern about the loss of the commons -- basically, that we are all fully in the trough, snout and four feet and little curly tail, and couldn't care less if the rest of the bozos starved. In this tooth-and-claw world, what are the restraining forces?
Well, one of them is fear. I might be a little less willing to put my 39 items through the "12 items or fewer" line if there were the possibility that some Eastwoodian, bright-eyed gun nut was going to stick the barrel of his equalizer in my ear and ask if I wanted to rethink the consequences of my actions. "Go ahead, check out" would be the phrase. And I would gather up the offending items (cookies, ice cream, just all the bad stuff) and grovel my apology. I think gun nuts like people to grovel.
What if there were no guns in the picture? The person behind me would be fuming, miserable, and probably homicidal on the trip back home. Might say, "Hey, you got too many items!" And I would reply in my most fluent profanity, smile seraphically, and bag my items slowly. Which is the better outcome? I leave it to my faithful reader to decide. Please indicate your preference using the pro-gun-bearing or anti-gun-bearing items below:
A. Pro-gun-bearing: I think supermarket life will be more tranquil if I keep in mind that the person behind me in the checkout may be armed and willing to have a violent confrontation with me over my boorish behavior.
B. Anti-gun-bearing: I think supermarket life will be more tranquil if nobody in the supermarket is armed and I can just willy-nilly ignore considerate, civilized behavior as I do in all other areas of my life, causing great distress in those around me. What are they gonna do to me?????
Lemme know. Votes greatly appreciated!!!!!
And let's see if anyone can predict where the next series of 4 or 5 posts ends up, if I am clever enough to stretch it out and make it coherent. A prize is offered for the best prediction. No fair if you are the only entrant.
And I wonder what Mr. Reasonable would think of all this. More of Mr. Reasonable to come.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Break their legs? Slash their faces? Both?
In Boston, the disgraced offspring of an enormously rich family have, over the years, bought five of six apartments in a condo building on Comm Ave. They control the condo board, and they want the sixth owner, a retired Brandeis prof and his wife, who are in their late 80s, to sell to them. The prof refuses. The richies have the elevator disabled in summer 2009; the prof and his wife, who can't climb that many stairs, bump up and down on their butts. The richies spend enormous amounts for the building, trying to force the prof into going bankrupt to pay his end. Not much clever plotting here, just brute checkbook waving.
Our enlightened court system in January ordered the richies to fix the elevator - by the end of June.
So, what to do with such folks? They are loathsome, fetid creatures, who apparently are entirely within their legal rights. And thus a problem.
I have suggested publicly, in the Boston Globe, and in conversations with a lot of friends, that some physical confrontation and threat would be helpful, since financial penalties are unworkable. The threat of broken legs, or slashed faces, or some such primitive act, is a different matter, not to be taken so lightly. The Globe tends to censor those posts. The friends tend to move slightly away from me.
I take from the matter that there is a breakdown in the informal control mechanisms of social life - the tragedy of the commons, played out on Comm Ave. People are horrified when I start talking like this, but I see myself as being on the side of the angels....that we need to restore those social controls, and fast. The legal system is a clumsy, slow beast, enormously weighted in favor of the rich. Naked fear, of the crowd with the torches and pitchforks, tends to keep people in line; even if there is no conscience, there is a reptilian - heh, it sure is reptilian - part of the rich person's brain that fears the impulsive act of vengeance or despair.
And rightly so. As the saying goes: "How come they don't call it class warfare when they do it to us?".
Our enlightened court system in January ordered the richies to fix the elevator - by the end of June.
So, what to do with such folks? They are loathsome, fetid creatures, who apparently are entirely within their legal rights. And thus a problem.
I have suggested publicly, in the Boston Globe, and in conversations with a lot of friends, that some physical confrontation and threat would be helpful, since financial penalties are unworkable. The threat of broken legs, or slashed faces, or some such primitive act, is a different matter, not to be taken so lightly. The Globe tends to censor those posts. The friends tend to move slightly away from me.
I take from the matter that there is a breakdown in the informal control mechanisms of social life - the tragedy of the commons, played out on Comm Ave. People are horrified when I start talking like this, but I see myself as being on the side of the angels....that we need to restore those social controls, and fast. The legal system is a clumsy, slow beast, enormously weighted in favor of the rich. Naked fear, of the crowd with the torches and pitchforks, tends to keep people in line; even if there is no conscience, there is a reptilian - heh, it sure is reptilian - part of the rich person's brain that fears the impulsive act of vengeance or despair.
And rightly so. As the saying goes: "How come they don't call it class warfare when they do it to us?".
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Meds!!!!
Has there ever been such a medication as propoxyphene? AKA Darvon and Darvocet, it leads the pack in uselessness and sudden deaths. There were 23 million prescriptions written for propoxyphene in the US in 2009. As Darvon, there has been no known pain relief; as Darvocet, combined with Tylenol, well...the Tylenol seems to help.
First approved in 1958 (congratulations on the golden anniversary), the drug has long been a favorite of junkies, potential suicides, and some docs. Only a few docs prescribe it, apparently; but, woo-hoo, they prescribe lots of it. The FDA has taken a look several times:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticAndLifeSupportDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm129256.pdf
and
http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7420
And this from the VA
http://www.pbm.va.gov/reviews/propoxyphenereview.pdf
Incredibly, when presented with the data in late 2009, the FDA advisory board voted 14-12 to voice disapproval of propoxyphene. Who are those twelve people??? Do they see a reflection when they look in a mirror?
It has been banned in most places; notable for not banning are England and the US. In England, the manufacturer poured big, big money into keeping the requlatory wolves at bay; the result is that there is a limited lifetime left for it on the market.
We're still selling it with no restrictions, though.
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/fda-stops-short-ban-darvon/2009-07-08
A large part of the market for propoxyphene is nursing homes, which are way, way, over-represented. Why is this not a surprise?
Once again: this is a deadly drug, which has no known beneficial effect. Just aceteminophen is better. Propoxyphene kills people every day. If someone prescribes propoxyphene, malpractice starts to look like an open-and-shut case. One reason that the FDA is reluctant to do a ban is that, under current regulations, drugs are either approved or illegal; there is fear that if chronic users are suddenly cut off from their supply, liability issues will arise.
The easy solution would be to change the regs so that a period of withdrawal would be allowed. This will not happen because:
I live surrounded by crazy people, who say crazy things, and expect me to just move my head up and down. Comments?
First approved in 1958 (congratulations on the golden anniversary), the drug has long been a favorite of junkies, potential suicides, and some docs. Only a few docs prescribe it, apparently; but, woo-hoo, they prescribe lots of it. The FDA has taken a look several times:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AnestheticAndLifeSupportDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm129256.pdf
and
http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7420
And this from the VA
http://www.pbm.va.gov/reviews/propoxyphenereview.pdf
Incredibly, when presented with the data in late 2009, the FDA advisory board voted 14-12 to voice disapproval of propoxyphene. Who are those twelve people??? Do they see a reflection when they look in a mirror?
It has been banned in most places; notable for not banning are England and the US. In England, the manufacturer poured big, big money into keeping the requlatory wolves at bay; the result is that there is a limited lifetime left for it on the market.
We're still selling it with no restrictions, though.
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/fda-stops-short-ban-darvon/2009-07-08
A large part of the market for propoxyphene is nursing homes, which are way, way, over-represented. Why is this not a surprise?
Once again: this is a deadly drug, which has no known beneficial effect. Just aceteminophen is better. Propoxyphene kills people every day. If someone prescribes propoxyphene, malpractice starts to look like an open-and-shut case. One reason that the FDA is reluctant to do a ban is that, under current regulations, drugs are either approved or illegal; there is fear that if chronic users are suddenly cut off from their supply, liability issues will arise.
The easy solution would be to change the regs so that a period of withdrawal would be allowed. This will not happen because:
I live surrounded by crazy people, who say crazy things, and expect me to just move my head up and down. Comments?
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The pope redux
I must say I have had trouble understanding the priest/child rape stuff. I just don't get how they let it go on; these are not stupid people, and, by and large, notable only for their sloth and ineffectiveness. I keep forgetting how easy it is for folks to suspend disbelief to the point of what would be considered severe hallucinatory states if they occurred in hospitals and not churches.
What we have here is the opposite of the medicalization of emotional life. The pathologizing of all sorts of problems -- drinking, sleep, nervousness, shyness, fatigue, and so on -- is well known.
But church-wise, we treat truly whacko utterances, outfits, actions and even conversations as if they were perfectly reasonable and sensible. Hence the priest sex-abuse behavior, which was treated, within the church, as perfectly reasonable and sensible. And why would it not be??? These are, after all, the folks who tell us what they think their invisible friends say to them -- in languages they don't understand -- while wearing funny costumes and singing thousand year old songs while hidden from view. Yipes. Of course child rape is OK. It is the most sensible thing they do in the course of long careers devoted to promoting utter nonsense.
One of the recurring themes of the blog: I live surrounded by crazy people, who hallucinate all sorts of stuff, and offer it for public trust. My friends tend to be folks who ignore that part of 21st Century America. I dislike True Believers, almost as much as Boosters, who are beyond saving.
Contrary posts welcome. I would like to hear from boosters, particularly, since I find boosterism so revulsive.
Thanks you for your attention to this matter. I also post pics of cats.
What we have here is the opposite of the medicalization of emotional life. The pathologizing of all sorts of problems -- drinking, sleep, nervousness, shyness, fatigue, and so on -- is well known.
But church-wise, we treat truly whacko utterances, outfits, actions and even conversations as if they were perfectly reasonable and sensible. Hence the priest sex-abuse behavior, which was treated, within the church, as perfectly reasonable and sensible. And why would it not be??? These are, after all, the folks who tell us what they think their invisible friends say to them -- in languages they don't understand -- while wearing funny costumes and singing thousand year old songs while hidden from view. Yipes. Of course child rape is OK. It is the most sensible thing they do in the course of long careers devoted to promoting utter nonsense.
One of the recurring themes of the blog: I live surrounded by crazy people, who hallucinate all sorts of stuff, and offer it for public trust. My friends tend to be folks who ignore that part of 21st Century America. I dislike True Believers, almost as much as Boosters, who are beyond saving.
Contrary posts welcome. I would like to hear from boosters, particularly, since I find boosterism so revulsive.
Thanks you for your attention to this matter. I also post pics of cats.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Performative Utterances
Performative Utterances (from here on: PU) welcomes comments. Well, sort of; it would be nice if you comment, because it will incite me to further fill the known universe with narcissistic rambling. On the other hand, I don't seem to need excuses.
An utterance becomes a performative when, by being uttered, something is changed. "I bet", "I do", "I bequeath" are all stereotypical performatives. Usually, PUs are not either true or false. They just are.
Let's talk about the pope. The pope is Mr. PU. His utterances are so performative that they transcend the usual rules, and define the truth. Yipes.
And so will mine be. The initial posts will be taken from responses to Times blogs that have been floating around for a while, and some other stuff.
Comment, contribute. Send pictures of your pets.
An utterance becomes a performative when, by being uttered, something is changed. "I bet", "I do", "I bequeath" are all stereotypical performatives. Usually, PUs are not either true or false. They just are.
Let's talk about the pope. The pope is Mr. PU. His utterances are so performative that they transcend the usual rules, and define the truth. Yipes.
And so will mine be. The initial posts will be taken from responses to Times blogs that have been floating around for a while, and some other stuff.
Comment, contribute. Send pictures of your pets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
