Home Again

The ruby slippers have returned to the National Museum of American History in Washington D.C., which re-opened last November 2, 2008 after a two year, $85 million renovation. This exhibit has become one of the most popular ones attracting thousands of visitors each year. One of only five pairs of shoes known to survive from the MGM 1939 Wizard of OZ film, were purchased at a 1970 auction for $15,000 by an anonymous buyer (not me), who then donated them to the Smithsonian in 1979. The whereabouts of the pair of ruby slippers stolen (not by me) from the Judy Garland Museum in Grand Rapids, Minnesota in 2005 remains an Ozian mystery. (Credit: Baum Bugle Winter 2008).

My Evening of Drugs and Television

The other evening, I decided to spend it watching some commercial television programs. To my surprise it turned out to be an evening beset with inducements to partake of various drugs; consisting of over 25 solicitations for drugs ranging from anti-depressants to remedies for erectile dysfunction. Considering the barrage of the drug commercials that our populace is subject to on a daily basis; not just via television but radio, magazines, newspapers, billboards, direct mail, etc., it is no wonder that there is such wide-spread drug dependency and addiction. I am bewildered by the government’s extensive efforts to control some drugs such as marijuana and steroids but is doing nothing with respect to curtailing or regulating some of these other advertised drugs that can be just as harmful, if not more so.

A sample of these drugs included: Crestar for plaque buildup, Flomax for urinary control, Calais and Viagra for erectile dysfunction, Omnaris, Claritin and Zyretec for allergies, Zantac for heart burn, Celebrex for arthritis pain, Alli for weight loss, Pamprin for period relief, Lunesta for insomnia, Excedrin, Aleve, and Tylenol for pain/headaches, Bayer aspirin for heart attack prevention, and (my favorite) Cymatia for depression – after watching that advertisement, it so depressed me that I could have gone for some. After praising all the benefits of the drugs (appeared that one would magically transport me to a Caribbean island complete with beautiful people and delicious foods and drinks), the possible side effects are mentioned very quickly and in a cheerful tone. What is with cheerfulness when side effects include: blurred vision, heart palpitations, fall in blood pressure, nausea, diarrhea, uncontrollable bowel movements, headaches, heart attack, skin rash, trouble breathing, swelling of tongue, agitation, hallucinations, confusion, vomiting, seizures, suppression of immune system, erection lasting for hours (Mmm), fainting, dizziness, and death?

In fairness, I should mention there was one anti-drug advertisement but I found it bewildering in that it featured a young man who stated that his supplier was his parent’s medicine cabinet. Then there was the attorney ad that blared out that you should call them if you suffered any incurable side effects, became disabled or DIED (not sure how you do that) from taking any “prescription” drugs.

What is the purpose of this rant? Nothing more than to express my aggregation and annoyance at the profusion and irresponsibility of these commercials, dismay over all the money that is spent on promotion instead of lowering drug costs, the false message that it is okay, even acceptable, to ingest this or that drug to remedy whatever twitch, ailment, or mood is being experienced and the hypocrisies of it all. I am just saying ----.

Ruffled Tail Feathers

I have been rather lax lately in blogging; mainly due to the fact that nothing of great significance has been happening in my life and there has not been any “event” that have ruffled my tail feathers. Well, of course that was not going to last. I was delighted to hear this past week that the House of Representatives finally passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a/k/a Matthew Shepard Act, by a vote of 249-175 and hopefully will be sanctioned by the Senate.
The LLEHCPA will authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Currently, the federal government can only investigate hate crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, and national origin. It will also provide local authorities with more resources to combat hate crimes and give the federal government jurisdiction over prosecuting hate crimes in states where the current law is inadequate.
What I found to be “disturbing” was, not just the very high number that voted nay but anti-gay speeches made by some of the representatives arguing against its passage. Particularly that of Rep. Virginia Foxx who stated that the Matthew Shepard incident was just being used as a “hoax” to get the legislation passed. Yes, she used the word hoax and it took some effort to contain an outburst of angry on my part. Breath in slow – Breath out slow. I am forever perplexed at the denial of substantiated facts and evidence that is maintained by some individuals and particularly so when they are propagated by those is positions of authority and responsibility. Perhaps legislation should be passed to require all members of Congress to take and pass an IQ test before they can “seated.”
Does Rep. Foxx still believe the world is flat, constellations are celestial beings, sea monsters swallow up ships at sea, the universe was made in six days, the holocaust never happened (Bishop Williamson), the stork brings babies, the sun moves around the earth (condemn Galileo for suggesting otherwise), use of condoms causes AIDS (thank you Pope Benedict), and that California is a country (oops that was Miss. California). What is so disheartening is that it is not just Rep. Foxx making such innate assertions but so many others who unfortunately have a public forum and that so many others listen and believe. I can only hope that in the end common sense and reason will prevail – in the meantime, I must go and smooth down my ruffled tail feathers. After all, they are rather pretty - don't you agree?

Pope & HIV/AIDS

In his inaugural address to Africa, Pope Benedict XVI, in speaking about the AIDS crisis, denounced the use of condoms arguing that they will not solve the problem and may even make the problem worse. This man’s opinion is that his remarks were unrealistic, inaccurate, and worse of all irresponsible. He is seemly ignorant of the harsh realities of today’s world where more than 7,400 new HIV infections surface each year. Condoms are a necessary and effective strategy for stemming the tide. The only other method more effective is abstinence which is impractical and again unrealistic – “the flesh is weak”. Abstinence until marriage also may not work in that one could get HIV from their newly married partner who was less celibate. Also, contrary to what the Pope says – there is no evidence that condoms exacerbate the HIV/AIDS crisis. While infections are higher in communities that use condoms, such a statement is both disingenuous and illogical. One must not confuse correlation with causality Fact, high condom use does not cause people to get infected! As the leader of the Catholic community, the pope has a moral responsibility to provide more intellectual and practical means of dealing with and curtailing this crisis. This is no longer the “dark ages” and another “reformation” may be just what needs to be initiated to “awaken” the papacy.