I was watching the report about the chief justice's seizure on ABC news the other day, and the anchor mentioned more than once that he heard Roberts had been foaming at the mouth. After he repeated it a couple of times, the reporter in the field acknowledged that, yes, Roberts had been foaming at the mouth.
As much as my political leanings may cause me to relish the image of a foaming-at-the-mouth conservative chief justice, I found this line of questioning to be astoundingly tasteless and offensive. It's not uncommon for someone experiencing a seizure, accident or similar physical trauma to evacuate his bladder or bowels. Does that mean we can expect anchors on future stories to say, "I understand he peed/pooed in his pants. Is that true?"
Spare me.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Flly the Smoky Skies
A German entrepreneur is trying to start up Smoker's International Airways (Smintair) for high-end travelers who want to indulge their vices -- smoking, drinking -- in the air. A story I read about it characterizes the goal as bringing air travel back to the days when it was glamorous.
Ah, yes, we remember the movies of a half-decade or more ago where a cocktail in one hand and a cigarette in the other was the epitome of glamour. The puffers and drinkers all looked like Lauren Bacall or Humphrey Bogart. People following their examples didn't think about the smokers who ended up with sallow skin and wrinkles, hacking up half a lung, or the drinkers who passed out and peed in their pants, or crashed their car or beat up their lovers.
Somehow that doesn't seem as glamorous.
This entrepreneur, Alexander Schoppmann, goes on to be quoted as saying that "I haven't seen a sick smoker in my life" and that concerns about second-hand smoke are "the biggest scam of all times." Apparently the guy hasn't spent enough time in hospitals or hospices, not to mention reading medical studies.
And his planes, he claims, will be so well-ventilated that "you will not even notice the smell of somebody smoking a cigarette or pipe in the next seat." Well, mabe not, if your sense of smell or taste has been completely destroyed by smoking, or if you're wearing an oxygen mask.
Give me a break.
Ah, yes, we remember the movies of a half-decade or more ago where a cocktail in one hand and a cigarette in the other was the epitome of glamour. The puffers and drinkers all looked like Lauren Bacall or Humphrey Bogart. People following their examples didn't think about the smokers who ended up with sallow skin and wrinkles, hacking up half a lung, or the drinkers who passed out and peed in their pants, or crashed their car or beat up their lovers.
Somehow that doesn't seem as glamorous.
This entrepreneur, Alexander Schoppmann, goes on to be quoted as saying that "I haven't seen a sick smoker in my life" and that concerns about second-hand smoke are "the biggest scam of all times." Apparently the guy hasn't spent enough time in hospitals or hospices, not to mention reading medical studies.
And his planes, he claims, will be so well-ventilated that "you will not even notice the smell of somebody smoking a cigarette or pipe in the next seat." Well, mabe not, if your sense of smell or taste has been completely destroyed by smoking, or if you're wearing an oxygen mask.
Give me a break.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Race and Politics
It seems the news media have been overrun with articles about Barack Obama and whether or not he's "black enough." Black enough for what? Apparently to be acceptable to the "black community," as if that's one monolithic entity where everyone thinks alike. Or else the stories flip the race card, and speculate on whether he's "white enough" to be an acceptable black.
Haven't we gotten beyond this yet? I am particularly puzzled by our approach to people of mixed race. Obama is called "black," even though he's the son of a black African man and a white American woman. Doesn't calling him "black" ignore or reject the entire heritage from his mother's side? I am reminded of the media focus on Tiger Woods as a black golfer, although his background is a delightful combination of races and ethnicities.
I know. I understand the history of the language and classifications, of how anyone with a speck of black blood was once labeled "black" and hence discriminated against. But now genetics tells us that we probably all descended from Africans (who, yes, were black) and that we share more genetics across so-called "races" than we do within races.
So, c'mon people, let's get over it already.
Haven't we gotten beyond this yet? I am particularly puzzled by our approach to people of mixed race. Obama is called "black," even though he's the son of a black African man and a white American woman. Doesn't calling him "black" ignore or reject the entire heritage from his mother's side? I am reminded of the media focus on Tiger Woods as a black golfer, although his background is a delightful combination of races and ethnicities.
I know. I understand the history of the language and classifications, of how anyone with a speck of black blood was once labeled "black" and hence discriminated against. But now genetics tells us that we probably all descended from Africans (who, yes, were black) and that we share more genetics across so-called "races" than we do within races.
So, c'mon people, let's get over it already.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Got Money? Buy the Gov's Ear
The Albuquerque Journal tells us this morning (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/577321nm07-11-07.htm) that the head of the University of New Mexico's Cancer Research and Treatment Center used her university e-mail to invite colleagues to a fundraiser for Gov. Bill Richardson at her home. Not something she should have done, but, maybe you, like me, can't see that it's such a big deal. A very minor rip-off, if any. One could argue, of course, that using the UNM account creates an impression that the event was sanctioned by the university, but anyone getting the invitation likely already knows who Cheryl Willman is. The clout rests within her, and wouldn't be changed substantially by the form of the invitation.
Lower in the story, though, are elements that are more disturbing. According to the story, Willman indicated Richardson and UNM Regents President Jamie Koch asked her to host the fundraiser. It appears she didn't initiate it on her own. And what might be implicit in such a request? Perhaps something like: "Hey, Cheryl, you're building that neat new cancer center at UNM, and I bet you're going to want more money down the road to complete it and operate it." Of course no one would say that. They wouldn't need to.
An even more disturbing element: The invitation said Richardson wanted to meet leaders in the state's bioscience community and Willman said attendees were grateful that they got a chance to talk to the governor (and Democratic presidential candidate) about their concerns. Somehow, I suspect that if Richardson wanted to get together with movers and shakers in the medical and research community, he could do it anytime he wanted, with the snap of his fingers. As a matter of fact, I could give him a list of names of people (well, OK, I'd probably need to doublecheck with them first) in the medical community who would be overjoyed to host a coffee or reception at their homes to meet the governor and share their insights.
The invitation was about money. And people shouldn't have to donate money to the governor in order to get his ear. And it raises even more questions about the governor's influence over our universities, which it sometimes appears he tries to operate as just another branch of state government that he can use for political hires and headlines. (Whatever DID happen to his big project to establish stem cell research at UNM?)
Maybe I'm even more sensitive to this than usual after reading about former surgeons general testifying about political interference from the President (current and past) in their reports and statements about public health: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?hp. It's true that many things get a little uglier when politics enters into the mix. And, while nothing is sacred, it seems some things should have a little buffer. When it comes to medicine and the nation's health, science and ethics should be the overriding principles.
That's not to say people in medicine shouldn't be accountable to the public. Lord knows, too many of the people with the grit and intelligence to make it through medical school and residency end up regarding themselves as demigods. That accountability should include our expectation that they should speak up when they see the public's health undermined.
Now, these stories are apples and oranges. There's no evidence Richardson has tried to censor findings on public health interventions, as apparently has happened at the federal level. But the federal testimony does raise questions about the wisdom of letting politics creep too far into medicine or public health.
Lower in the story, though, are elements that are more disturbing. According to the story, Willman indicated Richardson and UNM Regents President Jamie Koch asked her to host the fundraiser. It appears she didn't initiate it on her own. And what might be implicit in such a request? Perhaps something like: "Hey, Cheryl, you're building that neat new cancer center at UNM, and I bet you're going to want more money down the road to complete it and operate it." Of course no one would say that. They wouldn't need to.
An even more disturbing element: The invitation said Richardson wanted to meet leaders in the state's bioscience community and Willman said attendees were grateful that they got a chance to talk to the governor (and Democratic presidential candidate) about their concerns. Somehow, I suspect that if Richardson wanted to get together with movers and shakers in the medical and research community, he could do it anytime he wanted, with the snap of his fingers. As a matter of fact, I could give him a list of names of people (well, OK, I'd probably need to doublecheck with them first) in the medical community who would be overjoyed to host a coffee or reception at their homes to meet the governor and share their insights.
The invitation was about money. And people shouldn't have to donate money to the governor in order to get his ear. And it raises even more questions about the governor's influence over our universities, which it sometimes appears he tries to operate as just another branch of state government that he can use for political hires and headlines. (Whatever DID happen to his big project to establish stem cell research at UNM?)
Maybe I'm even more sensitive to this than usual after reading about former surgeons general testifying about political interference from the President (current and past) in their reports and statements about public health: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?hp. It's true that many things get a little uglier when politics enters into the mix. And, while nothing is sacred, it seems some things should have a little buffer. When it comes to medicine and the nation's health, science and ethics should be the overriding principles.
That's not to say people in medicine shouldn't be accountable to the public. Lord knows, too many of the people with the grit and intelligence to make it through medical school and residency end up regarding themselves as demigods. That accountability should include our expectation that they should speak up when they see the public's health undermined.
Now, these stories are apples and oranges. There's no evidence Richardson has tried to censor findings on public health interventions, as apparently has happened at the federal level. But the federal testimony does raise questions about the wisdom of letting politics creep too far into medicine or public health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)