Pain injections

So my doctor wants me to get injections in my cervical spine for the pain in my upper arms, and I’m a little wary. “This would be a really good time to get them,” enthuses my nurse in-law. “They’re going to be watching those companies really closely now.”

I thought of trying to explain that it’s the states who have jurisdiction over compound pharmacies, and that they’ve all slashed their budgets, so it’s highly unlikely that they have enough inspectors. But it just seemed like it would be so much work, and I was having fun seeing all my family, so I just smiled and said nothing.

Which is unusual.

But I still have to decide about the injections.

Who stole the American dream?

This is a really excellent book and I highly recommend it. Ask your library if they have it!

In his sweeping, authoritative examination of the last four decades of the American economic experience, Smith describes the long, relentless decline of the middle class — a decline that was not by accident, but by design.


He dates it back to a private memo — in effect, a political call to arms — issued to the nation’s business leaders in 1971 by Lewis F. Powell, Jr., a corporate attorney soon to become a Supreme Court justice. From that point forward, Smith writes, corporate America threw off any sense of restraint or social obligation and instead unstintingly leveraged its money and political power to pursue its own interests.


The result was nothing less than a shift in gravity. Starting in the early 1970s, every major economic trend — increased productivity, globalization, tax law overhauls, and the phasing out of pensions in favor of 401(k)s — produced the same result: The benefits fell upward.


Smith, a 1970 Nieman Fellow, is at his very best as he examines, one by one, the key economic shifts of the last 40 years and shows that in each case the money flowed to the very richest Americans, particularly those on Wall Street, while impoverishing the middle class.

Can Romney swing PA?

It’s possible, of course. An awful lot of people here in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are still unemployed, and Obama is going to need a heavy turnout in both cities to override the wingnut voters in the rural areas of the state. But as the article points out, I’m not seeing or hearing much from the Romney campaignL

GOP officials long have said any move into Pennsylvania would come late. The state is the last to start absentee voting and doesn’t allow in-person early voting, so both sides concentrated their early efforts elsewhere. So far during the general-election campaign, Mr. Romney has made five trips to Pennsylvania; President Barack Obama has made two political trips to the state during this campaign.


Flush with cash and buoyed by encouraging poll numbers in several states, Romney campaign officials say they continue to evaluate whether to bolster staffing and begin advertising in additional states. While polls show the race tightening in several states that previously had dropped off the list of battlegrounds, Pennsylvania is an intriguing possibility for a late-in-the-game investment.


Nearly all recent polls show Mr. Obama’s lead in single digits in Pennsylvania, and four of them put his lead at four points or less. A survey released last week by Quinnipiac University found Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney 50% to 46% in the state, down from a 12-percentage-point gap in September.


With 20 electoral votes—more than Ohio, Virginia or North Carolina—Pennsylvania often beckons to Republicans. then disappoints. The state hasn’t backed a Republican presidential candidate since then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in 1988. Sen. John McCain campaigned in Pennsylvania four years ago but lost by 11 percentage points to Mr. Obama.


A close Senate race, in which Republican Tom Smith has invested millions of his own money, also has energized Republicans about their prospects in Pennsylvania.


But Democrats say they don’t see evidence that Mr. Romney is gaining significant ground, nor that his campaign is preparing to run television ads or sending more resources to the state. “If it were real, and [Mr. Romney] had a shot here, then he would be on the air and on the ground, and he is neither,” said Josh Shapiro, a Pennsylvania Democrat and chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners.


Still, Jim Burn, chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said he knows that could change. “We don’t think the Republicans think they can win here,” he said. “But we’re asking everyone involved to prepare as if they are going to come back, as if they are going to spend money, as if in the final days here they’re going to launch a full offensive.”


If the Romney campaign decides to elevate Pennsylvania as a priority, it would begin adding staff and airing ads in the state. So far, that hasn’t happened. In fact, five Republican campaign staff members in Pennsylvania recently were redeployed to Ohio and Virginia, leaving the Romney team and the Republican National Committee with about 60 staffers in the state.


“Pennsylvania is definitely in play,” said Rich Beeson, Mr. Romney’s political director. “There’s a significant blue-collar Democratic vote in Pennsylvania that I think is going to flock away from Obama.”

Binders full of lies

The topic of Paul Krugman’s Friday column was Mitt Romney’s failure to propose a credible jobs plan to bring down the unemployment rate. The upshot of it was that Romney is far less serious about creating jobs than Barack Obama, who, as we know, has not exactly attacked the unemployment problem with the fervor of an FDR.

I’m buying much of Krugman’s argument, including his point that Congressional Republicans, from the get-go, did their best to block any effort to pass legislation that might have reflected well on Obama.

But the main reason to vote for Obama is that he’s not Romney. It’s Romney’s phenomenal propensity for lying about matters large and small. It’s the Ted Bundy-esque gap between the facts of his life and how he describes his life to the rest of us.

More here.

Site Meter