just for a change of pace

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been a couple of articles here and there regarding the FDA not approving a drug that has been nick-named "the little pink pill". It is said to be the female version of Viagra, and is expected to be something of a cash cow for whomever gets to market first.

Huh?

I realize that I am boxing myself in here, as a redneck and a sexist, not to mention and old guy, but really, what's the point? This is not really innovation, this is marketing carried to an extreme.

But that is an opinion without any scientific validity.

The drug in question, called flibanserin, was tested in a control group of women, who then reported the number of "satisfying" sexual experiences per month as opposed to a group of women not using the drug and a group using a placebo. (I'm sure that there were other parameters involved, but this seems sufficient for the article).

Those on the drug reported some side effects, including dizziness, fatigue, some nausea and headaches. In any case, the FDA did not approve the drug for use in the US at this time.

So why did I bring this up you ask? Because there is a practical alternative, one that is proven to be no less ineffective, with the same ill effects, and, a couple of advantages.

It is readily available, and, it has the effect, when shared with a potential partner, of enhancing ones perceived desirability. Its effects are limited, it wears off after a few hours, (see the list of side effects), and one is left, (usually), none the worse for wear.

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Get it! Use it!

This friends, is REAL health care reform!

(Results not typical).

Take it from the ol' Recluse. What do you have to lose, save a few brain cells?

let's not push it...

Today, I read an article from the Politico website that says that the Arizona legislature is preparing to deny citizenship to those children born in the United states to parents who are not citizens.

It sounds to me like they are, pardon the expression, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

For one thing, as states of the US of A, their charter stems from the Constitution, which addresses this issue, specifically. If you are born here, you are a citizen. I think that they might be a bit full of themselves, having not been nuked and paved after their last bit of legislative panache.

If this is actually introduced, and/or passed, whatever standing the state may have carved out in terms of political standing will be seriously eroded. the state is inviting, at best, ridicule, and at worst, an intervention in governmental affairs unseen since the Emancipation Proclamation. We recognize that a problem exists, a serious problem, but a casual disregard of the constitution and a states rights attitude is not the way to solve it. The day after Arizona takes such extreme action, other states may fail to recognize Arizonans as citizens of anything, and treat them accordingly. Or maybe the state legislature can do something about those pesky Baptists. Maybe they can stop those editorials on those liberal TV/radio/cable networks too. And stop that damned internet crap. I mean, if a housecleaning is in order, then, lets clean house.

I am not sure what the state is trying to accomplish here, but it seems to be something beyond cost control and immigration reform. This may be a quiet issue that grows into a cancer that consumes us, (yeah I know, before all those other things that could consume us....). Instead of being a serious issue, this may be yet another club that one faction or another uses to bet up on a political antagonist, and when that utility is exhausted, they move on to something else, leaving the issue unresolved and all the worse for wear.

The state of Arizona needs to chill, apply itself to what it can do, and heed some sage advice:

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

a couple of things

In the past ten days or so, I have seen numerous reports and commentary on a recent decision by the Supreme Court that is said to dilute the 1966 Miranda decision.

To be honest, my reaction is that the issue is being pretty poorly reported. One, I don't understand it, and two, I don't understand the circumstances and rationale in the decision. (That may or may not be important, but if they are going to try to convince me that this is a good/bad thing, one way or another, they should try harder).

The deal here seems to be that for a detainee to assert his or her right to silence, he needs to say so. Yes, I know, much is being made of this paradox, but that seems to be it. In the issue that was presented to the court, a suspect was advised of his rights, he stated that he understood them, and then was questioned for a period of time, during which he declined to answer by remaining silent. At some point in the questioning, the suspect did answer at least two questions, one of which was "do you believe in God?", and the other was something along the lines of "do you pray for forgiveness for shooting that boy down?". The suspect answered in the affirmative to both questions.

It is not clear what role the answers had in his subsequent conviction, but the issue before the Supreme Court was the position of the defendant that, in his initial silence, the suspect had asserted his 5th amendment right, and that his subsequent statement had no legal validity. The court ruled that a detainee must make a clear statement that he is asserting his right for it to be binding, in short, to be silent, he must speak up.

Some legal scholars stated that at least it will empower courts to rule in favor of police and prosecutors in ambiguous circumstances.

In my opinion, the defendant was doing pretty well with the silent treatment, and caused his own problems by answering anything at all. If one wants to remain silent, nothing was stopping him.

What I don't understand in the court's admonition is this: if I were arrested and declared to authorities, in the presence of an attorney, that I wish to invoke my 5th amendment right, would that automatically put off limits anything that I might inadvertently utter, (as the defendant in this case), off limits? Would I have to state, for the record, that I waive my right, in order to make a statement? Things here just don't add up for some reason.

I foresee, in the near future, any and all defendant stating at the outset of any trip into arrest-land that he/she wishes to remain silent and be provided a lawyer during questioning. That should take care of that fro the criminal element side of things, how the law-enforcement community will react is anybodies guess.