The Deadly Trap of Opioid Painkillers

In the Democratic debate one of the questions dealt with the epidemic of heroin overdoses that has hit the country in recent years. But it's not just heroin: a lot of it is other opioids such as OxyContin and Vicodin and Percocet. Heroin use is way up because people addicted to those prescription drugs turn to street when their pusher doctor stops handing out scrips like candy.

Last year more than 47,000 people died of drug overdose; almost 30,000 of those deaths were from opioids -- as many people as were killed by guns and car accidents. The three candidates in the debate all agreed that more has to be done to prevent doctors from overprescribing addictive drugs. But it's not just doctors: patients have to stop asking for them.

And doctors do hand these drugs out like candy. About 10 years ago I came down with pneumonia. I didn't even know I had it -- I just had a terrible headache and couldn't sleep, but had no congestion or even a cough. After a false start with the wrong antibiotic, they finally gave me the right stuff -- Zithromax -- and without my asking for it, a prescription for Percocet.

I don't generally bother with drugs to treat headaches -- they never work anyway. But I hadn't slept for days, so I took the antibiotic and one tablet of Percocet. However, as soon as I started to drift asleep I stopped breathing: I'd overdosed on a single pill. So now I had to force myself to stay awake and concentrate on each breath, and the headache was still killing me. Fortunately the Zithromax worked almost immediately and I was better the next day.

And it's just getting worse: every time I or my wife have even the most minor surgery, the doctors are always eager to push some more Vicodin or OxyContin on us.

My system is probably hypersensitive to the effects of opioids, but these drugs -- Percocet, OxyContin and Vicodin -- are inherently dangerous. The difference between a useful therapeutic dose and an overdose is fairly small. People who rely on them to alleviate severe pain for years on end build up an addiction and a tolerance to opioids. They have to take larger and larger doses, inching over the years toward an eventual deadly overdose.

When their doctors finally cut them off they turn to the street to buy prescription meds illegally, like Rush Limbaugh did, or they buy heroin. The quality of street drugs is extremely uneven, increasing the likelihood of an overdose.

The CDC has now recognized opioid overdoses as an epidemic, and has been working to revamp the guidelines for prescribing these drugs. But drug companies are fighting this tooth and nail. CDC has now delayed a plan to issue new guidelines. Big Pharma doesn't want their opioid cash cow gored.

People who have severe pain feel they have no alternative but to take drugs. But opioids like oxycodone were originally intended as a temporary stopgap for cancer patients; people in acute pain who were either being cured of their disease or dying from it. These drugs were not intended to be taken for years on end for chronic pain from mundane conditions such as ruptured discs or diabetic nerve damage.

Now, I'm not saying that people plagued by severe back pain should just suffer. But painkillers can only ameliorate pain temporarily -- they cure absolutely nothing. If patients have severe neuropathy, the goal should be to remedy the underlying physical condition. Not dope them into a stupor for the rest of their lives.

Real cures require expensive and/or risky surgery, or extensive changes in behavior or ongoing physical therapy and exercise. Health insurance companies don't like the former and patients don't like the latter. And in some cases we don't have any viable cures yet.

So the cheap, easy and lazy thing to do is hand out painkillers as if they were M&Ms.

Taking painkillers will never fix what's really wrong when people suffer from pain. But drug companies like that. They have no incentive to find real cures for the underlying causes of chronic pain, because their business model depends on hooking more and more people on opioids and milking their pain for the rest of their lives. Just like any pusher on the street.

Martin Shkreli, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who was recently arrested for securities fraud, became infamous for jacking up the price of a sixty-year-old life-saving drug by 5,000 percent, from $13.50 to $750 dollars per pill. He saw nothing wrong with telling AIDS patients and mothers of sick newborns, "Your money or your life!"

Shkreli is a disgusting imitation of a human being, but at least he was being honest. The CEOs of drug companies hawking opioids are doing the same thing, saying, "Pay us or suffer the fires of hell for the rest of your miserable life!"

This is the problem when capitalism intersects with medicine. Corporations, as Shkreli told us, aren't in the business of making people healthy. They're solely in the business of making money. More money. More quickly.

Americans should stop putting up with expensive, half-assed solutions to medical problems: painkillers are not the answer to chronic pain. The medical-industrial complex is making trillions of dollars off our suffering.

We should be getting real cures for all the money we're spending. Not a temporary fix that addicts us to dangerous drugs that will eventually kill us.

Why Aren't You Working On White Men With Guns?

Yeah, why aren't we?

And Then There Were 13....

Well, Lindsey Graham is out of the GOP race. Does anyone really care? I for one will miss his little seen performances in the undercard debates:)

That leaves the following candidates:

Jim Gilmore: Who? Or, more appropriately, why?

George Pataki: He must be looking in horror at what his party has become. See also: extinct species, Northeast Republican

Rick Santorum: The evangelical vote is no more
Mike Huckabee: see Rick Santorum

Carly Fiorina: She has her 15 minutes. Now she's trying to repeat them over and over again.
Rand Paul: There aren't enough sensible libertarians out there.
John Kasich: Probably the most qualified and reasonable GOP candidate in the mix which is why he'll never get above 2 percent.

Jeb Bush: He does indeed remind the entire nation of your awkward father.

Ben Carson: When he finally showed some energy, he was just...weird.

Chris Christie: I think this guy could surprise some people in New Hampshire.

Marco Rubio: Currently down or flat lining but still in the top three. If he can win an early primary, he might catch fire.
Ted Cruz: He will win Iowa. After that, it depends on his organization to get out the vote in the Southern states.
Donald Trump: Still the front runner and proof positive of maturity of the conservative base.

Note how I ordered and grouped each of the candidates. One of the last three will likely be the nominee, At this point, I'm hoping that it's Cruz. "Real" conservatives have assured me that if a true, deep red Republican were nominated, magic will happen and the silent majority will turn out to vote.

I can't wait.

Old Dixie Hwy. renamed for President Obama

I'd say this is a metaphor for about eight zillion things...:)

Racism and Bigotry on Full Display

Rip Donald Trump all you want but I think his "block all Muslims" comment was the best thing that ever happened. Why? Check out his poll numbers. What we see here is fantastic proof that conservatives are fucking bigots. Examples.





Rather than being pissed off about these view, I'm actually pretty happy that it's out there now on full display so we can now deal with it.

And deal with it we will. There simply aren't enough bigots out there to win a national election. When you add this stuff in with the anti-immigrant garbage, how can any GOP nominee possibly win?

Thoughts on the New Star Wars Film

Here are my thoughts on the new Star Wars film The Force Awakens 

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

I give it an 8 out of 10. I gave the other films as follows:

Episode IV: 10. The first one is still the best. I'll never forget that feeling of wonder I got my first time I saw it. 
Episode V: 8. I realize I'll lose my fan boy cred by not giving a blowjob to Empire every other minute but I hated that I had to wait to find out what happened to Han. And it was such a downbeat film.
Episode VI: 9. Only one point off for the stupid Ewoks. The space battles at the end just blew me away.
Episode I: 7. I realize the prequels get a lot of shit but this movie was really great. It had been years since Star Wars had come out and it was so amazing to come back to this universe again.
Episode II: 2. Barf. Really fucking bad rehash of Titanic. Multiple plot points vague and silly.
Episode III: 4. Mildly better but still lacking plot wise in many ways.

Force Awakens gets an 8 overall for several reasons...the complaints first.

-I realize JJ Abrams means lingering questions (see: Lost) but I was mildly irritated about the mystery around Rey. They don't need to hook anyone to stick around.

-Too much happened in the 35 years since VI to gloss over in just a few lines of dialog. The whole Kylo son gone bad with Leia and Han lamenting felt too light. It needed another scene or two.

-Han dying sucked. I realize why they did it but it still was hard to take.

Other than those very minor issues, the film was great. The three new characters are incredibly fascinating. Give me some more Poe Dameron, baby!! Finn was really cool and Rey is just a fucking boss. And what about Snoke? I think he's actually really small in real life (Wizard of Oz dealio).

I'm very excited to see the future films!!.

Happy Star Wars Day!!!

We're Exceptional!

Trump Aspires to Turn Americans into Baby Killers

In the Republican debate last night Donald Trump defended his monstrous idea to murder innocent women and children to retaliate against ISIS.

So, let me get this straight, Mr. Trump. If you were president today, you would have the infant daughter of the San Bernadino terrorists killed. A baby who happens to be an American citizen.

And you'd have her grandmother killed too, because she must have seen those pipe bombs on the floor of the apartment. And the baby's grandfather too, on general principles.

Because if you didn't have that baby executed after promising that you'd kill the families of ISIS terrorists, you'd be caving in to them. You'd be making idle threats that you'll never carry out. You'd be exposed as a gutless braggart who can't back up his big mouth with big actions.

And you couldn't do this in secret, and just have the news report that you'd had a baby executed. No, you'd have to put the whole sorry spectacle on YouTube, just like ISIS does when it beheads foreign aid workers who are just trying to help the people displaced by war.

And you couldn't have some hooded executioner kill the little girl. No, to prove you're not a pussy, you'd have to pull the trigger yourself and blow her brains out. Or better yet, you'd use an AR-15, like the terrorists did in San Berdoo, and unload a full clip into that tiny body, splattering blood all over, maybe even getting some of that sweet, sticky baby blood on your face...

Is this is the sick fantasy of Donald Trump and the people who support him?

How will Trump respond when one of his sick sycophants carries out Trump's threats of retribution against the infant daughter of Malik and Farooz, or some other innocent Muslim child who's easier to find?

Trump and his sycophants just don't get it: ISIS terrorists are suicidal maniacs who believe the Apocalypse is nigh and that those killed by their enemies are martyrs and will go straight to heaven without passing GO, and will collect 72 virgins. That includes their families, who will be with them in heaven that much sooner if Trump murders them.

Carrying out Trump's threats of intentionally killing babies and grandmas would be the greatest gift the U.S. could give ISIS: millions would sign up, rather than thousands.

The way to get these guys is not to make them martyrs, but to show them as the cowardly scum they really are. Adopting their tactics legitimizes them, lowering us to their level. Doing that would bring the murderous chaos that daily fills the streets of Iraq and Syria to the streets of America.

Once you uncork that bottle, the genie won't go back in.

Red Alert!

Quite coincidentally, when the climate change conference was in full swing in Paris last week, the Chinese government issued a "red alert" smog warning:

Starting Tuesday and continuing for three days, the more than 20 million residents of Beijing will have heavy limitations imposed on their daily activities. Schools will be closed, outdoor construction will be halted, and as the BBC reported, “cars with odd and even number plates will be banned from driving on alternate days.” It’s the first time China’s highest alert has ever been enacted in the city. 

Beijing, December 2015

In recent years cities in China, India and Iran have been socked in by suffocating smog, often for days at a time. Scenes like the one on the right are becoming increasingly common.

We used to see these sorts of things here all the time in the United States and in Europe. In 1952 London experienced a "killer fog" that killed about 12,000 people. On December 7th visibility was reduced to one foot. At noon it was pitch dark. The air was so filthy that the coal smoke penetrated people's clothes and made their underwear filthy.

London, December 1953

For decades Los Angeles had terrible problems with smog. New York City experienced killer smogs in 1953 and 1966 that resulted in the deaths of hundreds. Donora, PA had a killer smog that killed 20 in 1948.

As in China today, most of the smoke in London came from burning coal. Londoners heated their homes with coal, in addition to using it to generate electricity (China has the same problem today).

In the United States, the pollution that caused deadly smogs came from automobiles, industry (steel plants and smelting), coal-fired power plants, and so on. By the late Sixties it was clear that business as usual was no longer possible. So on January 1, 1970, Republican Richard Nixon signed the legislation that created the Environmental Protection Agency.

New York, November 1966

The EPA drafted regulations to clean up power plants and industry. The EPA enacted standards to reduce emissions from automobiles and increase mileage.

Because of the EPA, cities like New York and Los Angeles have much lower smog levels, and our skies are blue most of the time. Literally millions of American lives have been saved because of EPA regulations.

Yet when you hear Republicans, especially Republican presidential candidates, talk about the EPA, they just bitch about "burdensome" regulations or the "war on coal."

The same pollution that causes the smog that kills vulnerable adults with asthma, children, and the elderly also causes climate change. The same coal plant emissions that poison our lakes and rivers with mercury and other heavy metals also cause climate change.

Republicans like to think of themselves as rough and ready individualists. They idealize freedom as driving a big 4x4 pickup truck that gets 10 miles a gallon and belches black smoke. They cast it in terms of the lone hunter going hunting on the back 40.

But the Republican ideal of individualism doesn't scale up in modern life with antique fossil-fuel technology. We can't all drive inefficient pickup trucks to work in New York and LA and Houston and Chicago, or even Minneapolis and Milwaukee. We can't build that many freeways -- or parking lots -- and the atmosphere can't absorb that much pollution and CO2.

The same thing is true for generating electricity: you can't generate electricity for 350 million Americans with coal: it's just too dirty and inefficient. Natural gas is better, but it still generates CO2, which is causing climate change.

Now, nearly every Republican elected official denies the fact of climate change. They pretend scientists are perpetrating a gigantic hoax and a conspiracy, but we all know for a fact they deny it because they're paid to do so by the oil, gas and coal industries. How do we know this for certain? Because they also want to eliminate EPA regulations that regulate power plant and automobile emissions that were originally enacted by Republican themselves because, as we saw for decades since the industrial revolution, pollution kills people. By calling for repeal of EPA regulations, they are denying that pollution kills people in exactly the same way they're denying CO2 causes climate change.

Our population has simply grown too large to continue to burn things for energy and heat: just as we had to move away from wood-fired fireplaces and coal-fired pot-bellied stoves to oil- and natural-gas-fired furnaces, we now now have to move away from all forms of combustion.

We could continue to burn fossil fuels -- if the population of the United States and the world were what they were five centuries ago: the earth's natural systems can absorb a limited amount of CO2 and other air-borne toxins. But to do so we'd have to wage a major campaign of limiting population growth, but also of actively reducing the world's population.

Are Republicans advocating we commit mass genocide so they can continue to burn coal and drive gas guzzlers?

In order to maintain and perpetuate the kind of individualistic lifestyle that Americans are accustomed to -- and the rest of the world wants to attain -- we have to turn to renewable, clean sources of energy. We have to drive cars that run on electricity or renewable fuels, like hydrogen generated by non-polluting carbon-neutral processes.

Republicans still refuse to acknowledge this reality, but the business world already has: the stock of coal mining companies has tanked and several have gone bankrupt. The prices of gasoline and natural gas have dropped precipitously as demand has dropped and supply has spiked. However, they'll almost certainly go up again as drilling companies go bust, the production bubble bursts and demand increases. (Market economies are notoriously volatile and unstable, aren't they?)

Now is the time to begin phasing out coal completely, because there's nothing good about burning coal: it's dangerous to mine, it leaves wretched scars in the earth, it's bulky and expensive to transport, it produces toxic pollution and CO2 when burned, and presents a huge waste disposal problem with millions of tons of toxic ash that spills on regular basis, killing millions of fish and poisoning our waterways.

We can replace all the jobs lost in coal mines with better jobs building, installing and maintaining wind and solar facilities: instead of working in dark and filthy mines, workers can build wind turbines and solar panels in high-tech factories and install them in the clean, fresh air.

Rugged American individuals can install their own solar panels and Tesla Powerwalls, achieving their own energy independence, something that's impossible with fossil fuels. A clean renewable independent energy future is much more in line with historical conservative ideology, rather than toadying to oil barons like the Kochs and petro-dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia.
In any case, we're going to run out of oil, gas and coal at some point. Fossil fuels are dinosaurs, literally and figuratively. We need to switch to the next thing while we still have the energy and resources to do so, instead of descending into war and chaos over dwindling fossil fuel supplies.

The End of Fossil Fuels

Great piece from CNN about the climate agreement in Paris.

The Paris Agreement, which came out of two weeks often-sleepless negotiations at a conference center here in a Paris suburb, is just the type of blaring signal the world needs that the era of fossil fuels is coming to a rapid close. Countries around the world pledged to do the near-impossible -- limit warming "well below" 2 degrees, and below 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels if feasible. That basically requires the world to move rapidly toward 100% clean energy, producing zero net greenhouse gas emissions between about 2050 and 2080.

Yep.

If I were a firm in the fossil fuel industry, I'd think about getting out now. Oil is bad for business.

Perhaps that's why I haven't heard any of these lies lately. No one is listening.

WWJD?

What would Jesus Do?

It's a question every Christian ask themselves at one point or another in their lives. I think that Canada just showed us what He would do.

Dedicated To Gun Bloggers and Gun Blog Commenters

Look In The Fucking Mirror

Since Barack Obama was elected president, we've heard quite a bit about fascism, Hitler, and totalitarian states from the Children (aka conservatives in the United States). They've foamed at the mouth and fretted their little noses about fascist states and re-education camps.

Yet, their support for Donald Trump and his call to ban all Jews...oops...I mean Muslims from the United States shows just how adept they are at the art of projection. As the Times recently noted, this attitude has spread across Europe and it's all rooted in that same insecure, "appeal to fear" nationalism that we saw in the late 19th century.

It was this same nationalism that gave rise to Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler. A key ingredient to this form of totalitarianism is a scapegoat and, boy oh boy, do we have one now. As I have said for quite some time now, conservatives are deeply bigoted and support the policies that Trump is espousing.

Thankfully, we have people like Doris Matsui to remind us when our country has made horrible mistakes.

Combat Vets Torpedo Good Guy With A Gun Myth

Some combat veterans recently torpedoed the good guy with a gun lie and it was fucking brilliant.

“I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way. When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was,” said retired Army Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera. “I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance. I think they would absolutely panic.” 

Many combat veterans believe that civilian “good guys” taking on the “bad guys” during an active shooting isn’t as simple as it seems in movies and video games. Although more weapons owners are taking weekend-long tactical weapon training, that doesn’t instantly make a “good guy” ready for combat.

Considering that many in the Gun Cult play video games and use its lingo ("target rich environment") to strategerize how they would save people, rationality and logic are way past gone.

I think about all the gun bloggers and commenters out there and I have to wonder...would their tits get in the way when they tried to pull out their penis extension? I doubt they would even be able to walk a few steps without huffing and puffing.

Don't have to be in good shape to use a gun effectively?

The NRA's Vision is Anarchy

Check out what this former gun rights supporter and police chief of Milwaukee had to say recently....

The result is a huge increase in guns and violent crime in Milwaukee, Flynn contends, and a situation where police safety is in jeopardy. Under the current law, he says, “we are doing everything we can to make sure our criminals have unfettered access to high-quality firearms and get to carry them in record numbers. There are more guns out there every year.”

“The law was dictated by the NRA,” Flynn charges. “The NRA’s vision for America is anarchy. We are supposed to believe the founding fathers wanted to arm our pirates, the highwaymen and anyone else who wanted to tear down democratic institutions. It’s insane.”

Yep.

How About A Mock Mass Shooting?

Any doubt that the Gun Cult should be locked up or neutralized should be gone now after this pile of shit.

Gun rights groups, in protest at Texas campus, plan mock mass shooting

I say we give these assholes what they are the most afraid of...a re-education camp. Maybe somewhere in San Francisco? :)

Our Terrorism Problems Aren't in Afghanistan and Syria, They're in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia

Republicans have been criticizing the president for "not doing enough" to stop Daesh, as ISIS hates to be called. But what more can be done? We're already bombing the hell out of Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and we're backing Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian ground troops, as well as sending in special forces to conduct various missions.

Trump wants to carpet bomb the entire region and destroy every oil production facility in Iraq and Syria to prevent Daesh from making money from smuggling oil. Numerous Republicans have demanded we mount another full-scale invasion of Iraq and Syria, apparently having forgotten that we just did that in 2003, which is what created Daesh in the first place.

On the home front some Republicans are demanding we ban all Muslims entering the country. Tashfeen Malik, the female half of the terrorist couple behind the San Bernadino attack, entered the United States on a K-1 visa a couple of years ago. Authorities now believe that she had been "radicalized" for a considerable time.

Malik was a Pakistani who had spent more than half her life in Saudi Arabia. This one woman embodies the real source of the current terrorism problem: conditions in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The war in Afghanistan has dragged on now for 14 years. This is in large part due to the fact that Pakistan is a haven for the Taliban, and Pakistan has been actively backing the Afghan Taliban for decades. The Pakistani secret service believes that a free Afghanistan will somehow come under the control of India, and Pakistan has an unreasoning fear of India.

But we're afraid to do anything to Pakistan because they've got nuclear weapons (they also sold the technology to North Korea that gave the Kim dynasty the bomb).

Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia, as were most of the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. Back in the day, the king of Saudi Arabia cut a deal with the Wahhabi sect of Islam. In exchange for endorsing his claim, the king gave the Wahhabis free reign to establish religious schools, making it the de facto state religion. Wahhabism is an extremely conservative sect that teaches other Muslims (Shiites, Sufis, etc.) are not real Muslims, and should all be killed for their heresies. The fact is, Daesh kills thousands of times more Muslims than Christians -- their main goal is to establish a caliphate and wipe out Muslim "heretics."

The only way to stop Daesh and the Taliban for good is to cut off their supply lines of money, weapons and ideology from their benefactors in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are ostensibly our allies. We're afraid of doing anything to piss off Pakistan because they've got nukes. And we're afraid of pissing off Saudi Arabia because they've got oil, and could trash the world economy if we don't play ball with them.

The solution to the problems of Daesh and the Taliban is much more complicated than just bombing the hell out of the Middle East and Afghanistan. Republicans who spout more hatred and fear against Muslims so are not only turning Muslims around the world against the United States, but are also turning American Muslims against their own country. Donald Trump's unconstitutional rants are only creating more Syed Farooks.

To destroy the Taliban we need to get Pakistan and India to resolve their issues. To destroy Daesh, we need to eliminate the monetary and moral support they receive from Saudi Arabia.

The first is a very tall order, but since Afghanistan, India and Pakistan are all our allies, we have some leverage. The second is actually a whole lot easier.

Most Saudis don't have to work because the country is awash in oil money. The Saudi government just hands out cash to citizens (like Alaska used to), and all the work is done by immigrants. So instead lots of Saudis spend all their time studying the Qur'an, under the tutelage of Wahhabis.

If Saudi Arabia didn't have so much oil money Saudis would actually have to work, and wouldn't have so much free time to get all bent out of shape about heretics. Plus, they wouldn't have all that oil money to give to terrorists.

The best thing we could do to stop Daesh, therefore, is to make sure the Paris climate talks are successful. The sooner we reduce our dependence on oil, the sooner we stop funding countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia, who fuel international terrorism and war.

A Good Comparison

Convicted Rapist Endorses Trump

Man, the opposition research teams for the Republican presidential candidates are really incompetent.
 
It didn't get much play at the time, but convicted rapist Mike Tyson endorsed Donald Trump in October. This is salient not just because Trump has characterized Mexican immigrants as rapists, but because after Tyson was convicted in 1992 of raping beauty queen Desiree Washington, Trump proposed that Tyson instead just pay a lot of money and get off without doing any prison time. At the time Trump was trying to arrange a boxing match between Tyson and Evander Holyfield that would make Trump millions.

Republican candidates are getting slaughtered by Trump in the polls, yet it took Mother Jones magazine to dig up the dirt on Trump's plan to let rich rapists get off. Trump's got tons of dirty laundry like this, but his opponents just let him suck up all the media time with his insults against female reporters and proposals to deny Americans their basic rights.

The Tyson episode illustrates clearly that Trump's line about being against the "elites" is total bull. A Trump presidency would be the worst sort of corrupt oligarchy, where justice is apportioned not by guilt or innocence, but by how rich and how useful you are to Donald Trump.

If Trump is elected, how much will he charge for luxurious presidential pardons?