Feed on
Posts
Comments



One in a long series

Of why I don’t trust Big Pharma.

Trouble every day

Matt Sevier covers Zappa:

Blinded by the light

Manfred Mann’s Earth Band:

The river

PJ Harvey:

Hot Coffee

Tonight on HBO, a documentary about that famous case against McDonald’s by the woman who was burned by too-hot coffee. You probably don’t know what you think you know…

5-4

If only we’d put up a fight against Roberts and Alito. But liberals don’t like to fight:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a provision of a campaign financing system in Arizona that gives extra cash to publicly funded candidates who face privately funded rivals and independent groups.
The 5-4 ruling is the latest in a series of decisions by the court’s conservative majority upending campaign finance laws. But, giving a glimmer of hope to advocates of limiting the role of money in politics, the court did not launch a broad attack on taxpayer-funded campaigns.

Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion dwelled on the so-called trigger mechanism in Arizona law that provides differing levels of money to publicly funded candidates based on the spending by privately funded rivals and independent groups.

The law was passed in the wake of a public corruption scandal and was intended to reward candidates who forgo raising campaign cash, even in the face of opponents’ heavy spending fueled by private money.

The court said the trigger violates the First Amendment, but left in place the rest of Arizona’s public financing system.

“Laws like Arizona’s matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand,” Roberts said.

Shrink, shrank, shrunk

Well, I had a good talk with the prescribing shrink and she totally agreed with me about the potential downside of the meds. “The truth is, we really don’t know how they work and they may suppress neurotransitters in the brain,” she said. “This would explain why so many people have trouble going off them.”

She asked me what I wanted to do. I said I’d like to see if an increased dosage helped for now, and then start tapering off at the end of the summer. She thought that was a good plan.

She also said something interesting: That maybe writing about things triggered by emotion as I did in the past amplified negative associations and depressed feelings, and that the distance might be more useful. Hmm. I’m going to think about that.

Recipes

I’m going to start cooking again, so I thought I’d ask people for their favorite easy recipes. What’s your signature dish?

Fogged in

The meds are not working all that well anymore. The mood? Definitely regulated. (It takes a lot to upset me these days.) The focus? Not so much. I’m seeing the prescribing doctor today, I’ll see what she says.

The big problem for me is that I simply don’t want to write now. I mean, I want to, but I don’t feel emotionally connected at all when I do it. Even my blog posts are a little… abstract, and I’m not sure this tradeoff is worth it — that, and the potential damage to my neural pathways.

Because for a very long time, writing has been my primary means of emotional expression. Since I’m apparently not having many strong emotions right now, the drugs seem to have dried up that particular well.

Now, there are still some pluses. It’s a lot easier to stay on top of day-to-day maintenance stuff, and I’m a lot better about taking care of myself. I’m not as compulsive about blogging, which is good. And I love it that I no longer get all that upset about perceived slights, present or past. (It’s a plus that I’m not wallowing in the pit of progressive despair over the failings of the administration, right? Because despair is contagious.)

But is it worth it if I can’t write the way I used to, need to? Nope.

In any event, I’d already decided to be off the Wellbutrin by the fall, starting to gradually wean myself off by the end of the summer. Hopefully some of the newer habits will stick.

Hedge funders attack NJ teachers

Yes, because people who have learned to manipulate and game the economic system to make billions of dollars and have no experience with educating children (one of them who keeps a pair of brass testicles on his desk and rubs them during the trading day for good luck) are absolutely best suited to educate yours:

A new group backed by two hedge-fund founders is taking aim at New Jersey’s largest teachers union.

Better Education for Kids wants to end the use of seniority in teacher-hiring decisions, implement an effective teacher-evaluation system and weaken tenure.

Much of this conflicts with the policies of the New Jersey Education Association, or NJEA, which represents about 200,000 teachers, retirees and education professionals.

Better Education for Kids was started by New Jersey residents David Tepper and Alan Fournier, who founded the Appaloosa Management hedge fund and the Pennant Capital Management hedge fund, respectively.

It’s the first major foray from the hedge-fund community into New Jersey’s education-reform scene. Hedge-fund managers and employees have been active in New York education circles for years, as support for charter schools came into vogue.

Better Education for Kids last week launched a $1 million ad campaign. In September, the group will evaluate its next steps, with an eye toward not only this year’s November elections but also the 2013 legislative elections. In an unusual cycle, all 120 lawmakers are up for election in two straight cycles.

The group has hired two high-profile political consultants: Mike DuHaime, a Republican and top adviser to Gov. Chris Christie, and Fox & Shuffler, a lobbying firm whose founders were in top positions with former Democratic governors.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

'
eXTReMe Tracker