Tanezumab

No, don't bother reading it backwards or upside down: it's a new drug aimed at relieving the pain of osteo-arthritis. It was featured on the NBC News this evening (here's the video link) because the FDA has suspended testing of the drug -- at least temporarily. The reason: it's too effective.

Apparently a number (I don't know the percentage) of patients testing the drug had their arthritis condition sufficiently worsened so that they actually needed joint replacements. It was suggested that Tanezumab was so effective at reducing pain that people taking it over-extended themselves. The drug itself is not a treatment for the underlying disease: it simply masks the main symptom, namely pain. Without the pain, people were not tipped off that they were possibly doing damage to their arthritic joints and bones.

It seems to me that this raises, in a very pure way, the classic liberal vs. libertarian philosophical question: How or when should be "protect people from themselves"? Apparently the government decided that testing the drug should be suspended pending further analysis of its dangers -- certainly a prudent decision given the damage that some of the test subjects sustained. Immediately, however, critics suggested that testing continue, with the patients being warned about the effects that had been observed, and cautioned to avoid over-exercise and stress on their bodies.

Ultimately, the decision will have to be made whether to allow the drug on the market at all, and, if it is approved, whether to somehow "dilute" or attenuate its effect to protect people "from themselves" or simply to attach a warning and let people decide how to manage their pain and their risk. Assuming that the drug has no other side effects, this is a very interesting philosphical debate. Any comments?

Colbert

I have no idea why Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats invited Stephen Colbert to testify before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. Colbert is a funny guy and his satire is certainly pointed, but what was the point of displaying it here? Certainly he couldn't (and didn't) add any new facts that would be useful to the committee. Except for his sarcastic remark about the usefulness of congress, which drew a few laughs, his performance was actually a bit embarrassing since one expected a serious investigation of a serious topic. Other witnesses were reportedly miffed.

Once again the Dems have demonstrated a tin ear for politics. It's not that Congress doesn't waste time, but why underline the fact? There are "celebrities" who actually have done a lot of good things and have real expertise; Colbert does not seem to be one of them.

The whole thing is particularly sad because I have a strong feeling that the Dems are going to sell out on tax cuts for the rich when Congress takes it up again after the elections. Many of them are sorry excuses for representatives, and value their re-election more than they do passing laws that will benefit the country (and even their districts). The deserve Colbert's (and Stewart's and our) scorn -- but this was simply not the right time and place.

(The Republicans are, of course, beneath contempt -- or have I already said that?)

weather

This has also been the warmest summer on record. We are in autumn now, and the temperature in downtown LA set a record today: 113 degrees F.

The idiot global warming diehards mocked climate change every cold winter day last year (and the years before). They are strangely silent now...

Insurance and sharing

There are always murmurings on the right about insurance -- most recently about health insurance.

This makes a lot of sense to me, since insurance really is a kind of "socialism." It is, in some sense, a genuine sharing -- in this case of risk. In general it's not "from each according to his ability (unless there is a subsidy), but it is exactly "to each according to his need." Everyone pays the premiums -- rich or poor. No one knows for sure who will collect. You can't beat the system by working especially hard. In fact, working hard -- say through cardio-vascular exercise or by driving carefully -- will cause you most likely to lose, since you're unlikely to collect.

Yet, interestingly enough, the socialism of insurance is also a means for making money by selling the stuff. It's really wonderful. All the insurees share in the risk, yet companies with good actuaries make money no matter who collects. That's what makes it (barely) tolerable for those of the capitalist persuasion. You can see that by their animosity toward "the public option" plan, where no one makes a profit, but all risk is shared.

And that, after all, is the key to the right-wing mindset: the suspicion -- hatred in fact -- of the concept of sharing. H. L. Mencken once defined a puritan as a person with "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Perhaps a right-winger is a person with the haunting fear that some people, somewhere, may be sharing something. A pitiful and primitive ideology if you ask me.

Jill Johnston (1929 - 2010)

Ms. Johnston was one of the important radical lesbian feminists. She was articulate, fearless, and a major expert on modern dance and the avant-garde of the 20th century.

Here is an obit with a link to the famous 1971 Town Hall forum, "moderated" by Norman Mailer. I had forgotten how annoying Mailer was -- especially in person; check it out.

The military authorization bill

The Republicans used the phony 60 vote minimum to prevent the annual miliary authorization bill from being debated and voted on. They claim that their beef is the procedure by which a handful of amendments -- mostly Democratic -- were attached: majority leader Reid has limited Republican amendments at the same time. Among the amendments were a repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and a measure that would provide an easier path to citizenship for certain illegal aliens who arrive as young children.

The PTR is, as usual, full of crap. The party has long been anti-gay even though it has its share of closeted homosexuals. It is also reluctant to allow the Dems to pass anything that would play well with Hispanics -- a constituency it has itself feebly courted, without much success. (Maybe we should make the traditional PTR trivium of God, Guns and Gays into a quadrivium by adding Gringos?)

Nevertheless, the decision by Reid and other Dems to pack these amendments into the authorization bill is simply continuing a totally crappy tradition long used by both parties. It is basically cynical and does an injustice to gays and hispanics. It's also a stupid tactic. They should have had separate measures and forced the Republicans to vote on each. Susan Collins and Scott Brown would then have had to put up or shut up on DADT. Also, the "DREAM Act" (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act) would be very hard to vote against, even for the Scrooges in the PTR.

Bad politics all around.

More silliness in print

Ian Katz, from Bloomberg News, writes (today):

"Warren’s criticism of firms including Citigroup Inc. and American International Group Inc. led business groups and Republican lawmakers [my italics] to question whether the law professor, who has never run a government agency or large company, could be an unbiased leader of the consumer bureau."

I see: to criticize two firms universally acknowledged (even by Republicans) as principal causes of the recent financial meltdown means that one can not be unbiased about protecting consumers. Let me clarify: If I criticize Jeffrey Dahmer, noted cannibal and murderer, that suggests I may be unbiased in protecting us from people like him.

Now I get it.