Someone is sick...

... but who and why?

More kids using anti-psychotic drugs

American children take anti-psychotic medicines at about six times the rate of children in the United Kingdom, according to a comparison based on a new U.K. study. With scant long-term safety data, it's likely the drugs are being over-prescribed for both U.S. and U.K. children, research suggests.

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/05/psychdrugs.children.ap/index.html

Does A Body Good?

Researchers are experimenting with deep brain stimulation (DBS) to counter depression. According to CNN, "From the cerebral cortex, wires are tunneled behind the ear into the chest, where there's a power source for the electrodes that emit electrical impulses into the brain."

For now at least, this would not be used on people with only occasional and mild depression. Currently, this is only for people whose problem is not just severe but life-threatening - people for whom all other treatment (psychotherapy, drug therapy, and electroconvulsive therapy) has failed. But the possibility of this type of treatment does raise an interesting question about where we are heading.

In future, will each human body be tweaked with mechanical devices for better physical and mental performance? If so, what percentage will be mechanical? Will we even need a biological body?

Silver Rain

A major cosmopolitan center has a new, Conservative mayor with a penchant for elitist views. And two named men were just jailed there for blackmailing an unnamed royal.

Someone somewhere has to know
Silver rain was falling down
Upon the dirty ground of London Town
Paul McCartney & Wings

Obama and Wright

Apparently, the Reverend Wright controversy is still dogging Barack Obama. It seems to be the number 1 topic on many talk shows. However, none of the panelists or interviewers that I have seen came to grips with the issue better than Jon Stewart when he asked Obama: "Should you become president, is it your intention to enslave the white race?" Obama's reply was: "No, it is not." But, then, what else could he have said?

Political campaigns are like religious proselytization. In the final analysis, voters are expected to make a leap of faith in the choice of a savior. Pardon me, but I neither get nor expect to get rapture from any of the main candidates.

A Good Week for Supporters of the Pope and Conspiracy Theories

I would have titled it differently, but the terms, "papist" and "conspiracy theorist", are typically used in a disparaging fashion. Despite my personal skepticism in both directions, that is not my intent here.

From a distance, it seems that the Pope's visit to the USA has been successful. His well-planned - presumably well-scripted - diplomacy has gone smoothly, without a single gaffe that I have heard about. He has reached out to just about every segment of North American society, speaking compassionately about local issues, perhaps most notably pedophilia by priests. A Pope who before was largely unknown has now, to some extent at least, touched the hearts of the people.

Of particular interest to me is the somewhat socialist theme that threads its way through many of the Pope's pronouncements. That lends insight into the current strategy of the Vatican - a strategy that was necessarily revised after the fall of the Soviet Union, leaving Russia bereft of its superpower status.

Another development this week is a rekindling of interest in the RFK assassination. I cannot say much about the credibility of the arguments being made. I wait to hear a rebuttal from experts. But the main thrust of the argument seems to be that there must have been a second shooter - someone other than Sirhan Sirhan.

I wonder how much this really matters today, thirty years after the event. Of course, if Sirhan is innocent, it would matter to him. But another smoking gun would not prove Sirhan's innocence. On the contrary, it only makes it possible for Sirhan to remain legally guilty for the shooting of RFK in the back, even though Sirhan might never have been behind RFK (as has been alleged). Perhaps more important, proving that there must have been a second gun is still a long way from establishing who fired that gun.

109 Million

"Clintons Earned More Than $109 Million Since 2000"

And they call it "public service". Seems more like big business to me.

To What Standard?

When Chelsea Clinton was asked about the impact of the Monica Lewinsky scandal on her mother's campaign, her reply was "I do not think that's any of your business." I disagree entirely.

The question was valid, if somewhat insensitive. Personally, I would have asked a much broader question. And I would address that question to each of the candidates. My question is: To what standard of ethics should presidential candidates - and presidents - be held?