A Voice of Common Reason

Well, I am back from my business trip.  I see that my good friend E.L. is out for some personal business.  I hope it’s not serious.  However, my title is not implying that I can take over for him, but that I have two subjects to hit you with before the holiday weekend.

First is the article talking about the FDA panel recommending that Vicodin and Percocet (and similar medicines) be removed from the shelves .  It seems that a number of people are succuming to Acetaminophen poisoning because they take these drugs with Tylenol (please note that I will use the Tylenol name, but that this in NO way is trying to cause affront to the name of that company).

Now, I - as most of my family - have been prescribed with Vicodin.  NEVER have I been told not to take Tylenol.  In fact, it has always been recommended to take Tylenol.  You break a bone, you are given Vicodin for the pain and told to take Tylenol for the inflammation and swelling. 

This is all resulting from the number of deaths from Acetaminophen poisoning.  My question would be this: How many of those are a result of following doctor’s orders?  How many of the rest are from the advertisers pushing Tylenol on us for everything from joint pain to backaches?

One of the issues I have always had is that the difference between say, Extra-Strength Tylenol and Tylenol Arthritis is literally nothing.  Now, I may have the exact formulas mixed up but please, go and read the active ingredients.  Nothing different, just more money.

Anyway, back to the issue.  So if the FDA accepts the recommendation of the panel (they aren’t bound to but usually do), then these drugs will be gone.  What then will doctors prescribe for pain?  Darvocet?  Can’t do that one because it has acetaminophen as well.  Percodan?  Well, then it will be a matter of time until they focus on drugs with aspirin in them as well.  In fact, the article states they wanted to remove such relievers as NyQuil from the shelf as well.

This is another example of jumping to a solution without effectively examining the issue.  I feel sorry for the losses from this but if you take away the poor recommendations from doctors…and the advertisers…the only thing you have left is human error.  Just because the box says "Take 2" doesn’t mean that people will just do as it says.  I am guessing here, but it seems to me that probably 90% (or higher) of Americans take more than the recommended dosage of any over-the-counter (OTC) medicine.  Physiologically speaking, our bodies do tend to develop tolerance for anything we put into it.  Thus, over time, we all tend to take three instead of two, or some other contrived dosage.

Second up today is that heroic Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye.  I want to go on the record to state emphatically that I respect his military record.  However, I feel that issues have come to light that - unfortunately so - toss this war hero into the camp of those who have been scathed by the culture of corruption in politics.

In a story in the Washington Post, it appears that the Senator was instrumental in convincing the Feds to bail out a bank that not only held a majority of his wealth, but that he, himself had a direct stake in.  The bank in question, Central Pacific Financial, was already deemed by the FDIC as not meeting a favorable recommendation and had forwarded it to a council.  The good Senator stepped in and made sure that the bank received $135 million.

Now, I am sorry to say that this is wrong.  If this had been a Republican senator, there would be cries of ‘Foul" and "Charge Him!".  But it doesn’t seem to be the case here.  Of course, there is a statement about halfway through the article that clarifies no wrongdoing.  But is it ethical?

As the article states, numerous Senators own shares in banks.  However, this is the first case where a Senator intervened on behalf of a bank in which they had a personal stake.  Also, while they claim that the aide merely inquired, what most of America doesn’t realize is that when a Senator ‘inquires’, it amounts to a request.

At this point I wish there were a fair and equitable ethics commission to look into this.  But with the now filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the clear majority in the house, and the fact that any commission would be partisan-appointed, it is a moot point. 

Well, I am off for the weekend.  Take care, be safe and enjoy the celebrations.

I read an article this morning which talked about the number of people flocking to “Twilight” and leaving the boy wizard behind.  Personally, I feel the writers of this article got only half of it right.

The first ‘real’ problem arose with the final book, “Deathly Hallows”.  The storyline took a complete twist from what seemed to be where things were headed in “The Half-Blood Prince” (the search for the horcruxes) and threw something at the readers from way beyond left field.  A lot of people (including myself) felt as though they had been cheated.  In fact, there was a fan fiction written that (in my mind at least) told the story even better.

Of course, then you have the problem of “It’s over”.  People have already read the last two books, know how it ends, and have now lost interest.  THe biggest seller for the Harry Potter series was that you wondered what would happen next.  The problem is that now, everyone knows what happens.  And, since they have split the last book into 2 movies so as to leave nothing out, people are saying “Why go?” when they already know what is going to happen.

This is not to say that there is anything wrong with the series.  The problem lies in marketing.  Of course, I am no marketing guru so I wouldn’t have a clue as to what would be best.  One does wonder if there could have been a better method of timing (at least) so as to keep the mystery we had through the first 5 books and not lose people.  The magic in Harry was that at the end of each installment, we knew that A) we were getting closer to the end and B) the tension was building.

Well, now we are at the end and there is no more tension.  All of that went away when the last book hit the first doorstep. 

Now, I must clarify that the series was (and is) wonderful.  To know this, one only has to look at the number of children in this country over the past 10-12 years who really got into reading.  My own daughter has become an avid reader through these books and today - at 12 - she has broadened her horizons to include such authors as Tina Wainscott and Stephen Hawking.  (How about that for a broad range of interest.)

After all is said and done, I must say kudos to Ms. Rowling.  She succeeded where thousands never do…and in ways people only dream of.