It's over.
Stick a fork in Sen. Hillary Clinton, she's done.
Senator Barack Obama will win the Democratic presidential nomination, and the the Presidency. This has been all but assured.
But, Dr., you ask, how do you know this?
During a recent speech in Texas, the Illinois senator, suffering from a cold, took a moment to blow his nose, at which point, the reported near capacity 17,000 people in attendance at Reunion Arena applauded. Sure, it was described as "slightly awkward," by John McCormick of the Baltimore Sun, but still, a stunning display of holding the crowd in the palm of your hand, not unlike a slightly used tissue.
Why the hell does Obama need speechwriters at this point, or massive Internet fundraising efforts? At this point, all he needs to do is tape a commercial of him blowing his nose, and he can pretty much sail to the White House with a full war chest, and hopefully some Vitamin C. Look for him to pick up another Grammy next year, for an album of him clearing his throat, accompanied by Herbie Hancock.
May just be the absolute saddest fucking thing I have ever read. 17,000 people being moved to applause, by someone blowing his nose, even for Texas, is depressing.
Just wait for everyone else to start stealing THAT line.
2.12.2008
Do you still "heart" NY even though you can't express that emotion on a disposable lighter?
I love stop smoking campaigns. The asinine, overblown, emo, condescending, in-your-face ads have helped further the mystique that no matter how bad the facts are, no matter how much dog and pony show they can jam into 30 second spots for endless replay during America's commercial breaks, people are still going to smoke. I myself am smoking a cigarette while writing this article (mmmm, fine Kentucky blend), but fear not, I am also employing the common courtesy to slowly pile on the inevitable in the comforts of my office, in my own home.
Of course, our governments sprang right into action, suing every company that made something that even remotely sounded like tobacco like it was a "2 for the price of 1" sale. That the giant tobacco settlement went largely elsewhere rather than smoking prevention efforts was less than surprising. But some states are pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, knuckling down, and rising above the cliche to actually try to do something about it.
New York state, for example, sells ashtrays and disposable cigarette lighters with the iconic "I heart NY" logo on them. Damn, hold up a second here. My fault, that's more the enabling side of the equation. While New York has been raking in the dough from the, ahem, "tobacco accessories" (my apologies to head shops everywhere), over $1 million a year now, it seems like even more of the irony is lost when you consider New York spends $87 million per year on smoking cessation promotion and treatment.
Naturally, there are complaints, to be sure. Milton Glaser, who designed the world-famous logo, said he never would have approved the deal. See what happens, kids, when you do not control the copyright? The result of complaints? Inevitably, the yes-holing begins. A yeshole for New York Health Commissioner Richard Daines said it was "wrong to use the beloved "I heart NY" brand to promote smoking, the number one killer of Americans," and a yeshole for Empire State Development, who oversees the New York Department of Economic Development, the agency that manages the copyright, said the whole problem was the Pataki administration's approval of the contracts, and department lawyers were working "to end the practice as soon as possible."
First off, what is the complaint here? While New York should be applauded, I guess, for coughing up the dough to help prevent smoking each year, should they not also be applauded for raising revenue through something other than taxes? Granted, this is not the best profit margin I have ever seen from playing both sides of the fence, but there is ground to be made up in the budget form that $87 million, and people are going to throw a fit over disposable lighters? Never have seen a self-lighting candle...Why shouldn't New York sell knick knacks with their brand(s) on them?
Obviously, someone buying an ashtray is going to fall into one of two categories, a smoker, or a non-smoker buying a gift. These people are immune to the argument, as smokers arent generally going to care what's on an ashtray, just so long as it's not flammable, and non-smokers have no need for smoking prevention, other than their own free will. Buying an ashtray when you are trying to quit smoking may seem like spending your last five bucks on a wallet, but if that money, in some small way, makes up for the money New York is spending to put your habit out of business, then doesn't the whole argument seem like a bunch of smoke? It would have been smoke and mirrors, but the "I heart NY" mirrors are on back-order...
Of course, our governments sprang right into action, suing every company that made something that even remotely sounded like tobacco like it was a "2 for the price of 1" sale. That the giant tobacco settlement went largely elsewhere rather than smoking prevention efforts was less than surprising. But some states are pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, knuckling down, and rising above the cliche to actually try to do something about it.
New York state, for example, sells ashtrays and disposable cigarette lighters with the iconic "I heart NY" logo on them. Damn, hold up a second here. My fault, that's more the enabling side of the equation. While New York has been raking in the dough from the, ahem, "tobacco accessories" (my apologies to head shops everywhere), over $1 million a year now, it seems like even more of the irony is lost when you consider New York spends $87 million per year on smoking cessation promotion and treatment.
Naturally, there are complaints, to be sure. Milton Glaser, who designed the world-famous logo, said he never would have approved the deal. See what happens, kids, when you do not control the copyright? The result of complaints? Inevitably, the yes-holing begins. A yeshole for New York Health Commissioner Richard Daines said it was "wrong to use the beloved "I heart NY" brand to promote smoking, the number one killer of Americans," and a yeshole for Empire State Development, who oversees the New York Department of Economic Development, the agency that manages the copyright, said the whole problem was the Pataki administration's approval of the contracts, and department lawyers were working "to end the practice as soon as possible."
First off, what is the complaint here? While New York should be applauded, I guess, for coughing up the dough to help prevent smoking each year, should they not also be applauded for raising revenue through something other than taxes? Granted, this is not the best profit margin I have ever seen from playing both sides of the fence, but there is ground to be made up in the budget form that $87 million, and people are going to throw a fit over disposable lighters? Never have seen a self-lighting candle...Why shouldn't New York sell knick knacks with their brand(s) on them?
Obviously, someone buying an ashtray is going to fall into one of two categories, a smoker, or a non-smoker buying a gift. These people are immune to the argument, as smokers arent generally going to care what's on an ashtray, just so long as it's not flammable, and non-smokers have no need for smoking prevention, other than their own free will. Buying an ashtray when you are trying to quit smoking may seem like spending your last five bucks on a wallet, but if that money, in some small way, makes up for the money New York is spending to put your habit out of business, then doesn't the whole argument seem like a bunch of smoke? It would have been smoke and mirrors, but the "I heart NY" mirrors are on back-order...
2.01.2008
Next time, just shave your head...at least you'll live through it...
I have said for years that the Food and Drug Administration is, for the most part, worthless, a wind-sock in a land devoid of breeze. For every report of tainted Chinese crap hitting the mainstream media last year, I swear I could count three or four commercials touting some cockamamie (no pun intended) erectile dysfunction treatment or psuedo-trendy diet pill, carrying that world-famous disclaimer. You know the one, about how none of the statements in the ads have been "verified" by the Food and Drug Administration." Never have recieved an answer as to what it is the FDA is doing where they don't have any timne left to raid the late-night medicine cabinet.
To be fair, when the FDA more or less, sort of kind of gets one right, they deserve a little notice, more or less. Sort of kind of. In a letter the FDA issued in December, concerns were stated over the information Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals was using in web and print advertising of its head lice treatments containing lindane, an agricultural insecticide banned for use as such by the EPA in 2006. Morton Grove is the only manufacturer of lindane in the United States. I'm far beyond the point in my digestion of 21st century life where I question how a banned insecticide is useful as a scalp treatment, but there for the grace of blind consumerism, go I.
Despite the fact that hospitalization, seizures, and even death have been reported from the use of Lindane Shampoo and Lindane Lotion, nearly ten percent of the prescriptions for head lice treatments written in 2007 were for lindane-based treatment, over 166,000. To clarify, the hospitalization, seizures, and death are listed on the warning label, by the FDA's own requirements. Ask your family doctor, just out of sheer morbid curiousity, what he or she would prescribe, and see what they answer. Be cure you have a Yellow Pages handy, just in case.
While Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals has suspended promotion of their Lindane products, at the request of the FDA, to allow the company time to develop new marketing materials, I find it a half-bubble past the center of sanity the products are even still allowed on the market. One of the statements the FDA, miraculously, took issue with was one by Morton Grove that the effective treatment requires two treatments. When the FDA calls something "extremely alarming," you know they have actually been paying attention, or at least we should hope...
Morton Grove president/CEO Kurt Orlofski ventured beyond what I normally consider yes-holing, stating "the FDA has had a number of occasions to review the safety and efficacy of product and keep it or pull it: they have kept it on the market, it's an important second-line therapy." As I have mentioned in the past, the fact I have "Dr." infront of my name is irrelevant. I bought that honorary degree online for $40, fair and square, but I'm still willing to argue the importance of lindane as a treatment, and regardless of how many FDA yes-holes bleat in the background over how benefits outweigh risks, yeah, yes, hell yes I am willing to argue against rubbing a banned agricultural insecticide on some kid's scalp, anybody's scalp once, let alone a second time.
When a government agency's standard operating procedure seems to land somehwere in the grey area between "what you don't know won't hurt you," and "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger," then it seems even more so that arguments like mine are made for me.
To be fair, when the FDA more or less, sort of kind of gets one right, they deserve a little notice, more or less. Sort of kind of. In a letter the FDA issued in December, concerns were stated over the information Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals was using in web and print advertising of its head lice treatments containing lindane, an agricultural insecticide banned for use as such by the EPA in 2006. Morton Grove is the only manufacturer of lindane in the United States. I'm far beyond the point in my digestion of 21st century life where I question how a banned insecticide is useful as a scalp treatment, but there for the grace of blind consumerism, go I.
Despite the fact that hospitalization, seizures, and even death have been reported from the use of Lindane Shampoo and Lindane Lotion, nearly ten percent of the prescriptions for head lice treatments written in 2007 were for lindane-based treatment, over 166,000. To clarify, the hospitalization, seizures, and death are listed on the warning label, by the FDA's own requirements. Ask your family doctor, just out of sheer morbid curiousity, what he or she would prescribe, and see what they answer. Be cure you have a Yellow Pages handy, just in case.
While Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals has suspended promotion of their Lindane products, at the request of the FDA, to allow the company time to develop new marketing materials, I find it a half-bubble past the center of sanity the products are even still allowed on the market. One of the statements the FDA, miraculously, took issue with was one by Morton Grove that the effective treatment requires two treatments. When the FDA calls something "extremely alarming," you know they have actually been paying attention, or at least we should hope...
Morton Grove president/CEO Kurt Orlofski ventured beyond what I normally consider yes-holing, stating "the FDA has had a number of occasions to review the safety and efficacy of product and keep it or pull it: they have kept it on the market, it's an important second-line therapy." As I have mentioned in the past, the fact I have "Dr." infront of my name is irrelevant. I bought that honorary degree online for $40, fair and square, but I'm still willing to argue the importance of lindane as a treatment, and regardless of how many FDA yes-holes bleat in the background over how benefits outweigh risks, yeah, yes, hell yes I am willing to argue against rubbing a banned agricultural insecticide on some kid's scalp, anybody's scalp once, let alone a second time.
When a government agency's standard operating procedure seems to land somehwere in the grey area between "what you don't know won't hurt you," and "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger," then it seems even more so that arguments like mine are made for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
