Majikthise

Dispatch from the real economy

The drugstore has locked down the deodorant.

Addendum: You can tell a lot about a neighborhood by what gets locked up to prevent shoplifting. Here in New York, supermarkets in poorer neighborhoods tend to put baby formula behind glass. Swankier places will keep it behind the counter at the pharmacy, or sometimes even out on the shelf.

Yuppie liquor stores keep all but their most expensive bottles out on the shelves to encourage customers to facilitate impulse buys. By contrast, liquor stores in rougher neighborhoods may keep the bulk of their inventory behind plexiglass. Liquor stores are an extreme example because they've got to worry about robberies as well as shoplifting, but it's the same merchandising principle at work. It's a tradeoff between accessibility and security.

Small, expensive items like razor blades and batteries are likely to be secured no matter where you go. But it's a bad sign that deodorant shoplifting has become enough of a problem to justify the expense of the giant plastic case and extra hassle for the employees.

Obama picks Perino to exemplify a "free and professional press"

Obama nominated former Bush press secretary Dana Perino to the Broadcasting Board of Governors:

President Obama has nominated George W. Bush's former press secretary Dana Perino for a post on the board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting.

Perino, who worked in the Bush White House from 2005-2009, was appointed Wednesday to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, AFP reported. Her nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

"I'm honored by the president's announcement and I'm looking forward to serving on the bipartisan board, if I'm confirmed," Perino said.

The BBG administers overseas media outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia. Created in 1994, the agency "works to serve as an example of a free and professional press," according to its Web site. It is funded by taxpayers and had a budget of $717.4 million in 2009. [Politics Daily]

I initially wondered why Obama was appointing Dana Perino to anything. Turns out, the BBG is legally required to be bipartisan.

(via Julia at Running Scared)

Sick fucks lose: CafePress drops "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" merch

CafePress and Zazzle have wisely decided to drop user-designed merchandise bearing the slogan "Pray for Obama: Psalm 108:9"--perhaps because they've figured out that it's unseemly to do business with people laughing up their sleeve about killing the president under cover of Christian piety.

My first Newsweek story: Senate May Thwart Stupak

My first Newsweek story, on the Stupak Amendment, the senate, and what's next in the fight over abortion access under health reform.

C Street house no longer tax exempt

The IRS finally figured out that the fundamentalist flophouse on C Street owned by the secretive Christian group known as "The Family" is a dorm. Until recently, the C Street home for legislators avoided paying property taxes by claiming to be a church.

This is big news, not only because C Street will have to start paying property taxes on its snazzy digs, but also because its new status has transparency implications. If I understand correctly, claiming to be a church also exempted C Street from disclosing financial details that an ordinary non-profit would have to divulge on its publicly accessible tax returns. If it continues to operate as a non-profit, it will have to file 990s like other non-profits.

The truth hurts: Newsweek's Palin cover

 

Newsweek used this photograph of Sarah Palin as this week's cover shot.

The headline reads, "How do you solve a problem like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP--and for everybody else, too."

It's a damned good question, and I couldn't think of a better image to make the point.

Palin posed for this picture as part of a photo essay captioned Governor Palin, The Runner, which ran in the August issue of Runner's World. When I saw this image in its original context, I was appalled that a sitting governor would pose for a shot like this; or this stretching shot that puts the visual center of gravity squarely on her crotch.

Maybe Palin didn't realize that the photographer, Brian Adams, was depicting her this way. If so, he totally fucked her over. But I think she was on board with the concept. If Palin had assailed Runner's World for making fun of her, I might now take her complaint about Newsweek seriously. She liked the Runner's World spread, though. She thought it was appropriate. [NB: In an earlier version of this post, I misspelled Brian Adams' name "Bryan Adams." Today, I got an email from a firm called Web Sheriff telling me that they'd take legal action if I didn't apologize to the rock star Bryan Adams and ACI for any injury I might have caused to his reputation. So, I sincerely apologize to Bryan Adams. I wouldn't want my name associated with these ridiculous pictures either.]

There's nothing scandalous about Palin showing some skin, or wearing Spandex. But this cover image is deliberately styled to make the then-governor of Alaska look like a Vargas pinup girl. Unlike the other images in the series, this one references her status as a governor. As she poses like a swimsuit model, she's clutching one icon of political power--the Blackberry--and leaning on another. The theme isn't Sarah Palin, athlete. The theme is Sarah Palin, Sexy Governor. (As in: one of those dime store Halloween costumes: sexy cop, sexy lady bug, sexy sanitation worker...)

Predictably, Palin complained that Newsweek's use of the image was sexist. Yes, the image was plucked from its original context. The whole point was that the picture was appalling it its original context. Newsweek is holding this picture up to the world and asking: Who does this? 

The bottom line is that Palin's a clown. She doesn't get a pass because her chosen clown persona is stereotypically feminine.

She caricatures herself. Day in and day out. Good for Newsweek for pointing and laughing.

The story is about why Sarah Palin is a problem for the GOP. The picture answers the question. She's a problem because she's a freak with no judgment who regularly makes a spectacle of herself.  Obviously, she's a potential problem for America because she's an incompetent leader who supports terrible policies. But that's not Newsweek's question.

Newsweek's question is why she's bad for the GOP. The answer is that she's dragging down her party because it's impossible for adults to take her seriously. Not because she's beautiful or maternal or fit, but rather because she has no decorum, no dignity, and no common sense. I mean look at her, she's working the goofy MILF persona like that's a perfectly normal thing for a governor with presidential aspirations to be doing.

Palin's not even bad news for her party because she's ignorant or radically reactionary. Lots of American politicians are both and they do just fine. Palin has the double whammy of being ignorant and absurd. She's absolutely not ready for prime time. John McCain plucked her from obscurity as a publicity stunt and he lived to rue the day.

The tighter the wingnut base embraces her, the more clownish they reveal themselves to be.

Continuing Medical Propaganda Education

A little known provision in the House health care bill would require the $1 billion continuing medical education (CME) industry to disclose more about what it's teaching the nation's doctors:

WASHINGTON—Health legislation moving through Congress would force drug makers to disclose how much they spend on continuing medical education classes for doctors, sparking some resistance from the industry.

For-profit continuing medical education companies have seen revenue fall by double digits in the last year, according to industry statistics, following congressional investigations into the influence of drug makers on medical research and course content. [WSJ]

Good.

I used to write CME modules on high blood pressure drugs, sleeping pills, anti-malaria medicines, anti-depressants, hepatitis vaccines, and other remedies. Keep in mind that I quit medical writing several years ago and the rules have changed a lot since I left.

Sometimes these CME modules were financed by drug companies. In which case, they'd often consist of PowerPoint slide decks summarizing industry-funded research, which had been presented by industry-funded experts at industry-funded conferences.

The drug companies would give these training modules away. Doctors could answer multiple choice questions to earn points towards renewing their medical licenses. Sometimes CME companies would commission CME modules to sell to doctors for a profit. Some CME is produced by non-profit corporations and/or independent academic or professional outlets.

The drug companies did hire real doctors and lawyers to make sure that non-doctors like me didn't accidentally recommend anything lethal or fictional. This was called "med/legal review." Med/legal sent stuff back to us all the time when creative excess got the better of us and we started making claims that were "too promotional." This was a necessary check because we answered to marketing executives.

Review was thorough because the company didn't want to get sued. But a CME module that will stand up in court isn't automatically a quality teaching tool for your doctor. The standard for a true claim was basically whether the statement had been accurately paraphrased from an approved source, typically a peer-reviewed study. Usually, the drug company would tell us which papers to use. More often than not these were write-ups of research sponsored by the company. 

It was obvious to me at the time that this was no way to go about educating the nation's doctors. It wasn't that the information was false, it was just profoundly biased in favor of whoever was selling the drug. The drugs with the most money got the most exposure. Doctors could learn about the latest blockbuster for free, but they'd have to pay out of pocket to learn about a less heavily marketed alternative. So, doctors being much busier versions of normal people, were more likely to learn about whatever the industry literally put in front of them.

The overriding goal was to familiarize doctors with the key sales points for that drug. The specific claims were backed up by research, but at the end of the day doctors were getting a heavily-footnoted sales pitch. The primary object of the exercise was to hype a product, not to disseminate scientific truth.

At a time when the future of health reform depends on cost control, it might not be such a good idea to let pitchmen educate doctors.

More transparency in the CME industry can only be a good thing. The public might not like what it sees.

You wouldn't want Reps making up their own remarks, would you?

Ken Silverstein on the widespread phenomenon of lobbyists writing talking points and even whole statements for members of Congress:

(A few years ago I found that the lobby firm of Patton Boggs had drafted a statement for Congressman Joe Barton of Texas in support of it’s client Kazakhstan. “Mr Speaker, if the United States is to become truly energy independent, it must seek non-OPEC alternatives for our supply of oil,” Barton’s statement said. “Kazakhstan can — and is willing to — help greatly in this endeavor.” When asked about this, Barton’s spokesman replied: “Some think Congress has no business listening to people who are paid to know something. They think congressmen would do better to get all their information from newspapers and social activists. We think that’s baloney. We take our facts where we find them, and we use them where we choose.”)

Someone enterprising politician could make political hay with a pledge never to let a lobbyist put words in their mouth.

Lawmakers delivered talking points written by drug company lobbyists

Robert Pear of the New York Times exposes an old fashioned bipartisan scandal; Genentech lobbyists wrote talking points for legislators and dozens of legislators used them:

WASHINGTON — In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists. [NYT]

I am dismayed to learn that my congresswoman, Yvette Clark (D-NY) was one of the legislators Pear caught cribbing extensively from Genetech's notes. 

Micheletti adviser says Zelaya's not coming back

Yesterday, I expressed skepticism that the so-called breakthrough agreement to end coup-induced constitutional crisis in Honduras would actually bring deposed President Mel Zelaya back to power. 

An adviser to the leader of the coup regime basically admitted to Bloomberg that the prospect of a power-sharing government is just a public relations ploy.

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya won’t be restored to office under an accord that leaves the decision on his return to lawmakers, a vice-president of the Congress said.

“Zelaya won’t be restored,” Marcia Facusse de Villeda, an adviser to acting President Roberto Micheletti, said in a phone interview today, “But just by signing this agreement we already have the recognition of the international community for the elections.” [Bloomberg]

Via Greg Grandin in the Nation.