The Spectacle Blog
Of course it's effective, for the same reason that ecstasy is effective, and in similar fashion. And less important than getting people off Paxil is keeping people from touching the stuff in the first place. Of course I run the "risk," as you say, of frightening successfully coping (not, mind, cured) Paxil users off of the drug, and back into clammy-fisted delirium. But it stands to reason that the people "on" Paxil (I prefer the phrasing "under" it) are those best-informed about the risks they run, and most willing to endure them. Anyone who didn't know, or learn, this going in will certainly at least be surprised, which is halfway to fright already.
How exactly you expect to purge the user-lists of Paxil effectively by listing how bad it is for them is still a mystery to me, particularly since the reason people should be getting off Paxil isnâ€™t simply because of side-effects but because itâ€™s not actually helping their recovery. Thatâ€™s another area you didnâ€™t cover â€" how effective it is.
In fact, because the side-effects have so little to do with why these folks shouldnâ€™t be taking it (I understand that â€œLook at what youâ€™re doing to yourselfâ€ point, but itâ€™s a tertiary jab), you run the risk of shaking people off that might need to stay on. Again, I think youâ€™re overestimating the argument you offered in the article. I donâ€™t think youâ€™re entirely wrong in your general principle that society is over-medicated, I just donâ€™t think you grasp it anywhere in your article.
I like my article the uninflated size it is, at which neither truth nor comedy are distorted. Inflatio ad absurdum is just as dangerous, my brother, as reductio. But its gross tumescence is even less attractive, which is the whole problem with Paxil. Fattening up, hypersymptomizing, discomfort is bad enough; calling a "chemical imbalance" in the brain that "makes" one feel uncomfortable in public settings a disorder instead of a symptom itself is not just a cheap trick of semantics but a trick turned, as well, by the medical profession -- for a pretty penny indeed, with several tens of millions lined up at the hopper.
James, I canâ€™t see myself abiding by your article, which really gives the impression that youâ€™re against medication with side-effects. I could inflate your article to the point where you would say the pay-offs for drugs treating schizophrenia arenâ€™t worthwhile seeing as how they often make someone very uncomfortable, but Iâ€™d rather stick to your article on point â€" which really begs the question, why were you trying to scare people off of a drug thatâ€™s actually quite helpful?
Catholic Church leaders had plenty to say about the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams' execution. Unfortunately, a short news article only scratches the surface of these differences within the Church. And the brevity of the quotes leaves them open for a variety of interpretations. For example, Bishop John Wester of San Francisco
asked Californians "to ponder carefully whether the use of the death penalty makes our society safer."
He said "a moratorium is needed to evaluate whether the death penalty serves the common good and safeguards the dignity of human life. We are convinced that it does not."
Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn wrote Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, concerned that "this execution can only compound the violence that already exists in our society." He went on, "We do not believe that you can teach that killing is wrong by killing. We do not believe that you can defend life by taking life."
Iraqis began voting yesterday to choose their first permanent government since Saddam's fall. A couple of hours ago, I was on a conference call with a senior Defense Department official speaking from Baghdad. He said that yesterday, about 140,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces voted, as did 90% of the detainees. (No word on if Saddam voted, though he will be allowed to.) The other Iraqi Security Forces will vote today and tomorrow, enabling them to be on duty on Thursday.
Long lines at polling places are anticipated. In the constitutional referendum in September, it was a simple up or down vote. The ballot this time is four pages long, with a huge variety of combinations of candidates and coalitions. I've seen it: to me it looks like an IRS form (that statement is not impeached by the fact the ballot is printed in Arabic). It will take a long time for people to vote. Security at the polls is a very big concern, as is voter fraud.
American forces anticipate some big move by Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. They can't let this pass without some action or they will be seen as irrelevant. Stay tuned.
Jed, Thanks for the clarification. It appears the confusion afflicts more folks than just the Times. The U.K. Spectator's link to the story reads, "UK & USA Plan To Leave Iraq From March, Iraq Foreign Minister Warns Of Chaos." Indeed, the actual information in the article is a drawdown. The foreign minister's quote applies to a withdrawal.