Pill could kill Alcoholics Anonymous and Doctor Drew's Business

This story is encouraging. A pill that can help addicts kick their problems.

Love the idea.

More troubling though is the recalcitrance of the Rehab industry and the AA crowd to using a pill to stop addiction.

Why would anyone holding themselves out as a professional or support group for addicts take issue with a medication showing such promise?

Money. For the rehab industry, a pill eliminates the thousands of dollars billed for treatment.

Even if it works.

For AA: The whole edifice of AA is built around the disease model of addiction. AA operates like a cult whose success at treating addiction is no better than chance (50/50). That's the level of remission among alcoholics WITHOUT AA.

When a pill stops addiction, what use would anyone have for a twelve step system?

None.

I think this work is great.

Bullets to the head will stop the piracy--Violent, but effective

I'm not one for violence as a policy. In fact, I think too many people are quick to use the gun when other tactics might work better.

Too many advocate government sanctioned violence, especially if they're not the one doing the actual killing. Somehow the sanitary nature of government violence makes it more palatable for the rest of us to tolerate.

But then, there's the piracy issue.

Three issues fuel the piracy mess off Somalia:

1) No strong government in Somalia to put the smack-down on those exploiting the territorial waters.

2) Willingness of commercial shipping companies to pay ransom because it's less expensive than to pay the families and customers should the results become dire.

3) Willful ignorance by countries with the capacity to stop it militarily.

We're seeing a sea-change (literally) off Somalia. The U.S. under Obama has manned up at sent the pirates to Davey Jones' Locker for messing with us.

A few bullets to the head will stop the lawlessness caused by shipping companies cowardly, albeit capitalistic, ways.

Morality may just be post hoc rationalizations for what we feel.

Apparently, we are all moral hypocrites. Recent research indicates that most of us use our emotions to guide our morals and devote considerable time to justifying our morality to fit our emotional state.

No surprising about this work: Conservatives spend a lot of time thinking about sex while liberals think mostly about food.

One look at the Moral Majority could have told you that.

As for me: I still think it possible for people to behave with cool rationality, but only if they exercise extreme effort and realize that emotions are to be compartmentalized instead of followed as the ultimate guide to truth.

Stress from poverty undermines children's mental development. Time to change that.

The results of this study are stunning.

When science finds significant evidence that poverty diminishes a child's mental capacity then we have no choice but to eliminate poverty for the sake of the children.

The study showed that the central factor--the only cause--was stress caused by poverty.

Can we afford any philosophy or attitude that undermines the mental capacity of our nation's children?

I say "No".

Poverty is probably one of the last conquerable social evils. Alleviating poverty is within our grasp, but we must willingly give up outdated dogmas that serve only a few at the expense of our future.

New Technology takes away our privacy to our own genitals for the sake of "Stopping the Terrorists" No way.

Okay, this technology, although really cool from a technical point, is extremely scary from a Constitutional standpoint.

When you can see genitalia from a technology then it's too much.

I don't care about thwarting terrorists if it means I have to show my business.

The company making this scary piece of equipment says that there's zero storage of images and it's viewed at a remote location.

SO WHAT!? Look at the detail.

My mantra about the shifting nature of our rights (primarily away from our best interest) is this: Just because we can do something doesn't make it alright.

I can buy a gun and shoot someone in the face, but that doesn't make it okay. Similarly, this x-ray technology is not okay.

It won't be long before someone would offer to sell nude pictures of celebrities and politicians from this technology, despite all the safeguards.

Hell no!.

Crazy often defined by proximity in time. The farther away in time, the less crazy it seems to be.

Will someone please explain this to me?

A Maryland woman made a plea deal that includes a "resurrection" clause.

Her request was that when and if her son is resurrected from the dead that all charges against her will be dropped for allowing him to die.

Of course the D.A. agreed because the resurrection of the victim from the dead means no crime happened. Kind of a moot point.

Most of us agree that this woman is a little crazy.

My next question will probably tick off a lot of people: Why is her belief crazy but the belief in the resurrection of a man thousands of years ago not a little insane?

I'm just saying. If resurrection is possible thousands of years ago, why not now?

Universal health care the cure for foreign competition in medical treatment

Failings in the U.S. health care system are highlighted by the plight of the uninsured.

Our profit-driven system benefits the vendors of medical care (doctors, hospitals & pharmaceuticals) at the expense of patients.

Many, myself included, find a system where lives are placed at risk primarily for profit immoral and scandalous. A supposedly advanced society doesn't place a price on lives like we do to profit certain industries.

Our profit-driven system generates one side-effect: Lower cost providers will always pop up to push prices down. That's the nature of market economics.

In the case of foreign doctors and hospitals, these low cost competitors are rising to fill a long-felt need in American health care.

It's a good thing too.

American doctors and hospitals need competition from their American-trained foreign brethren. Foreign competition will encourage the American medical industry to get on-board with universal health care because that will be the only thing to save American medicine from overseas competition.

Universal health care will take the form of protectionism for U.S. medicine. There's no way to maintain the best health care system in the world with the highest individual cost to consumers when the customer base shrinks as a result of the insurance industry policy of excluding people from coverage who most need treatment, leaving these externalized costs for the rest of society to pick up.

Something's gonna have to give in our health care system. I suspect that doctors will realize that insurance providers don't have the public's best interest at heart and will protect their own bottom line by preferring a universal plan insuring payment over the headache of dealing with private insurance companies.

Better late than never.

Tesla Sedan finally makes its debut

Tesla, the electric car starup that made out mouths drool over their roadster, has bitten the bullet and produced a sedan for the mass market.

The price is around $50 k. More reasonable by comparison to the $100 k price tag of the roadster.

The car looks great.

I just hope the hype meets up with reality after a poor showing of the roadster during a BBC road test. I blogged about it previously.

Drug warriors asking for more money to fund ineffective approach to drug problems. Just "Say No" to misspent cash.

Here's where the disconnect occurs in our efforts to combat drug abuse and the attendant crime associated with illegal drugs.

Those from law enforcement always want more resources and stiffer penalties. Just like this bozo advocates.

The problem with the education angle is that programs that historically receive government funding have shown little to no effect--in essence they are a waste of money.

I give you the D.A.R.E. program. D.A.R.E. has never been effective. If you don't believe me, then look at the government's own scientific study supporting my claim.

Law enforcement and its apologists and advocates have no credibility when it comes to treating the drug problem in the U.S. They've had three decades to prove themselves and have FAILED.

The criminal justice system has never successfully treated what amounts to a health issue.

Until our policies reflect the health aspect of drug problems, we'll endure further demands for cash from the law enforcement lobby.

It's time to stop the police-industrial complex our drug policies have created.

Secretary Clinton speaks the truth about U.S. Drug Policy--Good for her, good for us.

Here's a positive sign. Someone in the Obama administration actually speaking the truth about U.S. drug policy.

Secretary Clinton stated publicly that the War on Drugs has been a failure.

She noted this while in Mexico.

In my previous post I noted how we must honestly address our failures and look to alternative policies.

Excellent.

Time for a new approach to this failed drug war.

The escalating violence in Mexico and the potential for spillover into the U.S. highlights the failings of our decades long drug war.

Prohibition enforcement has not worked. Every angle has been tried and yet rates of drug addiction and drug use are roughly the same as they have been every year since the 1920's--the first decade to see good records on drug use and addiction.

What's been the result of enforcement? More prisons, more cost to society in lost economic potential and a law enforcement boondoggle.

Drug abuse isn't pretty, but one thing is clear: Continuing down the same path of failed policies, increasing corruption and wasted capital is not the better choice.

Trying alternatives is our best option. We know prohibition doesn't work. Admitting our failures is not giving in; it honesty in policy. Aren't we due for some integrity in our drug policy?

The Obama administration is trying the same old failed approach to the Mexican drug problem, but it won't work. You can't target Second Amendment rights when the real problem boils down to failed drug policies that have no effect on demand.

Ending the violence means hitting the drug cartels where it counts: Their cash flow.

Demand is not affected by prohibition, that much is proven by our history. When a product has consistent demand over decades, someone will always try to meet that demand, despite the legal obstacles our policies might place in the way.

What are we left with?

Legalization and regulation.

By legalizing drugs, we remove the financial incentives. Legal substances have lower margins. Legal substances have better quality. Legal substances are subject to taxation and oversight.

The costs to society for legalization are far less than what's been paid thus far for prohibition. The benefits are incalculable and might just deal a fatal blow to those organizations inured to the profits prohibition has created, namely the Drug Cartels.

Dramatic times call for dramatic measures.

Meat consumption linked to dramatic risk of cancer and heart disease. Just say no to meat.

A fun new study paints a grim picture of the long-term consequences of red meat consumption.

Apparently, eating red meat increases the risk of cancer and heart disease dramatically. Women suffer an increased likelihood of death as a result, moreso than the risk men face.

Men increase their risk of cancer by about 25%. Women increase their risk about 50%.

This is dramatic.

Another call for vegetarianism.

Obama giving up the macho in favor of the smart approach to Iran.

I would like to point out that President Obama's approach to Iran is exactly what is needed.

For far too long the U.S. has tried to bully and threaten its way to a solution with the Islamist nation--all to little effect.

I would also like to point out that I suggested just such an approach in an earlier post on this blog.

Being the big dog on the block gives us ample strength without us needing to strut around and tell everyone about how great we are. Previous administrations and our most recent Republican nominee for president pursued the same agenda: Talk tough and be tough.

It didn't work, except at the polls. The message lost on all the talk tough crowd is that being macho and being smart are mutually exclusive endeavors. This is why you don't find big tough rednecks on Jeopardy and why you don't find pointy-headed nerds on the football field.

Obama's nuanced approach to Iran creates an untenable situation for the mullahs. The "Great Satan" ceases to motivate when the U.S. is extending a hand in peace. The youthful Iranian population wants to participate in the world at large. The restraints placed on them by their reactionary leaders generates increased discontent when the "Great Satan" is perceived as the "Great Peace-Maker".

Obama's approach boxes in the Iranian leadership between moribund rhetoric and youthful population bristling under the reactionary yoke of oppression. Strategically, it's brilliant.

Kudos to Obama for being smart instead of macho.

Running may be better for us than once thought. Good news.

Here's some very good news for me and the millions of other runners out there.

I've been a runner for over 20 years. Running keeps me sane and stable.

For the past few years, I've worried that I must give up my running to preserve my joints and bones.

This study suggests that I need not worry and keep to the road.

I think I'll celebrate by running.

Legal profession fills in the gap where government oversight is scant

When politicians complain about lawyers ruining America or some right-wing idiot blathers about trial lawyers hurting the medical profession or so on, stories like this provide the real value lawyers bring to society--quasi-regulators.

I'll be the first to complain when some lawyer goes too far. However, the legal profession is not defined by some outlier of a lawsuit, regardless of how newsworthy it may be. Lord knows that the media reports the stupid lawsuits, but ignores the millions of stupid cases most lawyers refuse to file.

This present case highlights the legal profession's role in protecting the public.

Who else protects the public from unscrupulous sorts when government neglects its obligation to protect consumers taken in by unfair trade practices?

Lawyers stand as society's safeguard against companies and individuals that profit by externalizing costs to the public's detriment.

You'll note that those complaining about trial lawyers do so as a pretext for complaining about the true costs of doing good business. Good business factors in all the costs of doing business, not just the quickest way to make a buck.

If a business can't survive without externalizing their costs, then, economically, it loses any claim as a viable concern and more resembles organized crime--the height of extreme cost externalization.

Profitability based on cutting corners is artificial. The rest of society must absorb those costs to ensure the continued existence of extreme eternalizers.

The complexity of our economy militates against a purely caveat emptor business system. Demanding that every consumer evaluate fully every commercial decision to maintain profitability defies reason and can't possibly be an effective approach.

Arguing otherwise is tantamount to arguing for a dog-eat-dog world where only the strong survive. Fortunately, social darwinism as a social model has long been discredited as an effective policy. Besides few people want what amounts to plutocracy anyway.

Lawsuits re-balance the equities created when producers exploit informational inequities in society for profit by taxing the costs to those best able to prevent them and those best able to bear them---the producers.

China will learn the meaning of good business after our legal profession gets done with them.

Good thing too.

AIG can't seem to learn its lesson.

AIG really screwed the pooch. They can't seem to learn.

Not only did they help create the mess that is our economy, but through their government allies, they managed to profit from it at the expense of taxpayers.

The public is understandably upset. In days of yore, this would be a tarring and feathering event.

I am utterly stunned at the audacity of AIG. They have little concept of the political nightmare they've created--and for what? Money.

What astounds me more is the political response. Republicans are blocking the political backlash against AIG's stupidity and greed. In essence, Republicans are advocating stupidity and greed at the taxpayers' expense.

My suspicion: Republicans are guarding their Wall Street constituents. If the previous administration and its cronies in the legislative branch had not set the environment for this greed and de-regulation, AIG might never have gotten away with this. Besides, those on Wall Street are notoriously Republican-leaning and to hurt them would cause campaign coffers to dwindle, despite any pretexts offered to the contrary.

Arguing that failing to pay these bonuses will be bad for the economy is what most of us clearly see as bullshit clothed in fearmongering. It's nothing more than a bunch of greedy bastards using that old Bush tactic of scaring us out of wits so they can sneak up and screw us when we're not paying attention.

I got a news flash: The economy is already screwed so these bozos need to come down to reality.

The public outrage is justified. The rapid Congressional response is exactly what the founders had in mind when they created the House, viz., a body to reflect the passions of the electorate.

Making matters worse: The previous administration orchestrated this with the complicity of Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. Can anyone please explain why Bernanke neglected to mention these bonuses months ago when he learned of them? He should be fired over such a colossal blunder, since he is touted as the wizard of our economy.

AIG should be forced into bankruptcy. Every entity getting paid by AIG needs disclosed.

Until all the greedy cockroaches see the light of day, this mess won't be clean and our economy won't heal.

We can either drag this out to our detriment or we can make it quick and clean.

I opt for Robespierre's method: Off with their heads.

Employer-provided insurance hampers labor mobility.

Home ownership and employer-sponsored insurance may play a bigger role in unemployment than taxes or other alleged issues.

I've noted this for a time, that without some form of universal health coverage, people were tied to their jobs due to employer-provided insurance. When a health crisis hits, people can't just leave a job and lose their insurance, COBRA be damned.

Our system cements workers to their jobs when it might make better economic sense to move.

With the downturn in real estate, home owners are given a double-whammy with the loss of home value. They can't sell and they can't lose what they have sunk into their houses either.

The country may not be ready for this, but portable, universal health coverage would be a boon to labor mobility. People could move to where the jobs were instead of suffering with a job for the sake of the insurance and the house.

Faith eludes the faithful when death comes knocking

This study tells me one thing: The religious aren't less afraid of death and neither are hey more certain about an afterlife. It's just a show.

For awhile, I suspected that religion fills a need for certainty in an uncertain world.

Certainty is a pipe dream. Nothing is fixed and no one knows what happens after death, despite what religion tells us.

Too many willingly believe in an afterlife, but studies such as this give credence to the fact that those beliefs provide little guidance when death calls.

It takes great courage to face death with the knowledge that the end is near. Holding onto beliefs in spite of supporting evidence may be fine while death seems distant, yet when those beliefs get tested the truth hits like a slap in the face.

True courage requires no fantasy of an afterlife to soften the possible truth of existence, viz., that this is all there is.

California to legalize and tax marijuana to fix budget crisis. It's about time.

California is at the vanguard of new taxation strategies. The state is the 8th largest economy in the world--meaning that California has a greater GDP than the vast majority of the world's countries.

Yes, you read that correctly.

I've frequently noted that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country in ten years.

California is suffering a serious budgetary crisis and needs new revenue streams. A state legislator is offering up a bill legalizing marijuana.

In my opinion, California is taking steps that should have occurred years ago. The proposal would allow adults to buy cannabis and pay a tax.

Since marijuana is one of the highest cash crops in the state, the treasury will have scads off cash.

I see marijuana legalization as the next lottery or casino for many states.

We'll see.

Intelligence reduces risk of death--Duh.

Sometimes scientists find results that most of us already know intuitively.

This study links High IQ with reduced risk of death.

In my opinion, stupidity is nothing more than "Darwin in Action." You know, the human version of natural selection or survival of the fittest.

We all shake our heads when some idiot decides to play chicken with a train.

In my mind, stupidity serves a very useful purpose. It weeds out the weak and unfit from our gene pool. The immediate result may suck, but over time, the accumulation of stupid actions by many individuals improves the quality of our species leaving only the best and brightest around to reproduce.

Darwin was right.

These results may be a no-brainer, but sometimes it helps to verify with reproducible results.