Gay bashing for everyone! Guys, could we maybe talk about some issues that the candidates are actually going to be dealing with, rather than what may or may not happen in their private lives? Just a thought.
Derek Lowe, who runs a consistently outstanding blog on organic chemistry and pharma-related topics, has a fascinating piece on the much-anticipated brave new world of genetic testing for pharmaceutical effectiveness, which, it is hoped, will make it possible to prescribe for patients only the drugs which will work for them. Rather than trying six different drugs for cancer, depression, or obesity, doctors will be able to diagnose exactly what's going on on the genetic level, and prescribe accordingly.
Derek makes a really good point: this means that the target market for each drug will be smaller, and hence that the price will have to go up to recoup its costs.
He leaves it there, but I think there's an implication that this will increase drug costs and thus offer incentive for price controls. Not necessarily, however.
First of all, not all drugs are long-term use. For short-term use drugs, such testing can dramatically decrease their costs. A patient who wastes time and money trying six different forms of chemotherapy will be able to try one instead -- the one that's going to work. That's a big savings not just in drug costs, but in the associated health care.
Second of all, a lot of patients are stuck on multiple therapies just to be safe. Take a typical asthma sufferer. They're on steroids, multiple bronchiodilators, Singulair, and gosh knows what else. Genetic testing could help us diagnose who needs what much more effectively. The same goes for high blood pressure, diabetes, and any number of other long-term conditions. Moreover, by improving outcomes and experience with the drug, such targeting may well increase demand. So the good news is good news, until proven otherwise.
InstaPundit has an unflattering picture of Clinton at Wellstone's funeral, sharing a laugh with Mondale. Angry readers say it's a cheap shot.
I don't think so. Hell, I've laughed at funerals without being any less sincere for it. But state funerals, which this approaches, are not quite the same protocol as the family getting together to share some reminiscences after Aunt Dahlia finally passes. What really got me, though, were the live clips I saw from the event, with various Democratic icons, most prominently the Clintons, getting applauded as they walked in.
I thought, "What the #@%!?"
It wasn't a fundraiser, or a public speaking event, or indeed any sort of occasion in which it would be marginally appropriate for the Democratic elite to be taking curtain calls. It was a funeral. The purpose of the funeral is to honor the dead, not the important people with whom they were acquainted.
Paul Wellstone died four days ago. He was an honorable, courageous man, and I don't think it's somehow wacky or unrealistic to expect that at the hour set aside to honor his memory, that's what the people attending the service would be doing. Particularly after they'd spent the day
a) Furiously complaining that the Republicans had already begun campaigning by proposing that there be some debates so that Minnesota voters could find out something about the man they might want to vote for, rather than just ratifying him in the Sacred Memory of Wellstone b) Filing a lawsuit because the supplemental ballot didn't suit them c) Expressing their displeasure at the way Republican premature campaigning had profaned Wellstone's memory, by disinviting President Cheney from the birthday party. . . excuse me, funeral.
Well, hey, it's their guy, right? It just struck me as extremely wierd, even more so because the Clintons, rather than bowing their heads in respect, stood their waving while everyone applauded them. So no, I do not think that the picture was particularly unfair; it seems to me rather to have captured a very unpleasant undertone that just seemed -- off. And I don't think it's going to go over well publicly; it makes the party seem petty and grasping. Any momentum they might have gained by castigating the Republicans was lost when they put their own machine into action, and shattered when the party's national figures stole the limelight.
A minute ago I thought Democrats were going to keep the Senate. Now I don't know again. It does seem that every time they gain some advantage, Bill and Hillary and Terry grab the party by the neck and start shaking until all the voters fall out.
Incidentally, for those in New York, I'm looking for a public place to watch the election returns so we can have Blogger Bash 3.635. Nathan Hale's apparently doesn't have anything planned -- anyone else got any suggestions? And would anyone be interested in attending such an event?
Update The permalink is broken -- fie on blogger! Just go to his main page and scroll down.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. . . a FedEx truck has just blown up on a highway near St. Louis. The cab is intact, and the occupants, thank God, escaped without harm. . . which makes it almost certain that this was a bomb of some sort.
Yes, sir, we sure do live in interesting times.
Update Seems the problem was not a nutjob sending bombs, but that other bane of Live from The WTC -- an overtired truck driver who nodded off.
So every time we talk about prescription drugs, we get people complaining about advertising. And the drug they complain about most is Vioxx. Sigh. They say that in most cases aspirin would do just as well, that it's an unnecessary expense, that the commercials send patients scurrying to their doctors to demand drugs they shouldn't have.
For the past year, my mother's had pain in her arm and hand that has gotten worse over time. Aspirin helps, but not enough. She can't open cans or bottles if the lid is tight, and she's had to give up needlepoint. Yesterday, she finally went to a doctor to find out if it really was arthritis, or something else.
He prescribed (I know you saw this coming): Vioxx.
She didn't ask for it; my mother has never seen a Vioxx commercial, as she doesn't watch much television. Moreover, she's not the kind of person who walks in to her doctor's office with helpful suggestions for the guy who spent 10 years studying medicine and another 20 practicing it. So clearly, some doctors do use the stuff, despite the insistence of my interlocutors that it's just more expensive aspirin, good for nothing except pumping up pharmaceutical firms' bottom lines.
I just spoke to her. "The pain is gone", she said, with wonder. "I can't believe it -- I just took the first pill last night. It's gone. Until this morning, I didn't even remember what it felt like not to have pain in that arm. I can't tell you what it's like not to wake up in the night . . . to sleep all night and wake up without that pain." When we finished speaking, she was off to see if she could open a bottle of Pellegrino, a task that has been beyond her for the last year.
It's a pity she didn't see those useless Vioxx commercials six months ago.
Valerie Bauerlein of TheState.com reports on the recent debate in South Carolina between Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alex Sanders and Republican Lindsey Graham:
Sanders said Graham was the one running a TV endorsement from Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City.
"He's an ultra-liberal," Sanders said. "His wife kicked him out and he moved in with two gay men and a Shih Tzu.
"Is that South Carolina values? I don't think so."
Prediction: Sanders will get a pass for his gay-baiting a) mainly because it's the sort of deliciously cynical cheap shot reporters who enjoy covering politics savor; b) secondarily because he's a Democrat running against a Clinton-impeacher and won't be attacked by gay-rights groups; c) because he has some sense of comic timing; d) because he's a pretty appealing fellow; and e) because he's going to be repudiated by the voters... But Sanders probably should be blasted for it anyway. Over to you, Frank Rich.
I feel at little upside-down here. When did the Dems become the party of gay-baiting? Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas any more.
Busy, busy right now. . . little time to post. Hope I can tide you over with this fascinating email from one of my readers:
Jane,
A very brief note on a phenomenon that struck me last night as I watched German TV. Sabine Christiansen is a well-regarded talk-show moderator, who hosts a number of guests on her show every other Sunday evening. (Unlike most of her American counterparts, she seems content to set the stage with a few comments at the outset and minimal interference during the discussion. Her guests are generally 'doers' rather than talking head, and each show seats 5-6 people of various stripes in an attempt at a roundtable discussion of events of the day - to the extent that guests refrain from spouting set-piece sound bytes.)
Anyway, last night the theme was the German economy, or more specifically reforming the German economy. Remarkably (or at least I remarked to my girlfriend), not a single guest was from the private sector ! I may be overstating, but if there's a clearer indictment of what's wrong with the German concept of the economy, I don't know what it could be. This panel encapsulates perfectly the German idea that government (either liberal or conservative, but still government), unions and academia are the forces to decide how to organize the economy. Small wonder that Germany's now being referred to as the 'sick man of Europe'.
Don't know that many of your readers would be interested in this tidbit (since Germany is already so far on the outs that it would take major rehabilition to get back to 'misguided'), but the show certainly demonstrated the gulf between accepted economic theorizing in the US (even among liberals) and in Germany (even among conservatives).
Cheers, Bob
PS - There was so much statism in play, that I couldn't bear to watch any longer and switched to a in-depth piece on the Moscow horror.
It's interesting, when you hang out with Europeans, to find how different our conception of liberal/conservative is. Even liberal Europeans are in many ways more socially conservative than conservative Americans; they're willing to tolerate a degree of enforced conformity that is quite amazing to an American. Though they may argue about what the One Right Way to do things is, they have little problem with the state, not to mention the neighbors, deciding there is a One Right Way and setting policy around that ideal.
Which I suppose just feeds into the prevalance of the idea, even among conservatives, that there is also a One Right Way for the economy, and that the state should be the driver behind that as well.
Many of my European friends tell me that to them, the political spectrum in America seems bizarrely cortated -- they have parties much farther to the left, and even some much farther to the right (socially), than ours. But on the other hand, the substantive disagreement between their parties is not between more or less state intervention; it is over how, not whether, the state should run people's lives.
Jeff Jarvis points out the biggest problem with Tablet PC's -- no keyboard.
Back in the dark ages, when I was a secretary (we spelled it "administrative assistant"), I had a boss who got himself some dictation software. Looked like fun, so I tried it. Uggh!! I type around 80 words a minute, last time I checked. The talking software clocked less than 30. It was like trying to wade through a molasses thought-fog while wearing concrete neuron-boots.
[Okay, that was a stretch. Work with me, people. I'm breaking new literary ground here.
Okay, well, actually I'm not. The entire New York writing community seems to have arrived at the Impossibly Complicated Mixed Metaphor long before I got there. And what fun it is!
Just clap and cheer, like you do for the slow kid at the end of the race, 'kay?]
Anyway, I'm with Jarvis -- until they figure out a way to get my dictation or handwriting speed up to my typing speed, I'm sticking with the laptop.
