Can Arnold ever go home again? The California governor's native Austria is leading the way in European outrage at Schwarzenegger's signing off on the execution of Tookie Williams earlier today. Its Green Party wants to strip him of his citizenship. "In Graz, Schwarzenegger's hometown," reports the Sacremento Bee, "local Greens said they would file a petition to remove the California governor's name from the city's Arnold Schwarzenegger Stadium. A Christian political group suggested it be renamed for Williams."
The Spectacle Blog
Sorry, James, but your attempt at comedy betrays a failure to take pain seriously. I'm currently on an SSRI (not Paxil) and an anti-convulsant. I've tried life off meds and on meds. When I read things like your column, I can't help but see a reader somewhere, in the kind of pain I've known, being encouraged to think that pain is normal and drugs are dangerous, and that the proper thing to do is suck it up and suffer. That's appalling, and not at all funny.
The aspiring Kansas City Athletics draftee, Gov. Bill Richardson, has a penchant for New Mexico's state police helicoptor. More than any other governor of a Western state, the Associated Press finds, Richardson uses the new search and rescue chopper for trips around the state large and small.
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?