Friday, May 12, 2006
Drugs and Alcohol
Had an interesting conversation last night with a guy on antibiotics. He didn't know that you're supposed to avoid alcohol when you're on antibiotics, cause supposedly alochol knocks out their effectiveness.
"I know it says`don't drink alcohol' on the bottle of pills," he said, "but I thought that was just cause that's what prescription drugs always say."
Which got me thinking about why we don't follow directions in this country. I'm not saying that a failure to follow obscure, vague or unethical directions is bad - it's what made our nation sort of great. But it's clear that "don't drink alcohol" has sort of blended into the wallpaper when it comes to prescription drugs. I think it would be advisable for drug companies - and anyone who really means it when they ask us to do something (parents included) - should make it a point to offer more than the implicit "because I said so" that comes on mose pill bottles. So here are some simple suggestions to see to it that people pay attention to those vaguely threatening warnings on their prescription drugs:
"Do not mix with alcohol or you will be videotaped spewing anti-semetic invective at police officers during a traffic stop. Then your pecker will pop off."
"Removing this tag will result in a thermonuclear explosion."
"Do not operate heavy machinery while on this drug or you'll spend the rest of your life explaining how you drove a backhoe over a kindergarten."
etc.
Heavy handed, perhaps. Effective? Undoubtedly.
"I know it says`don't drink alcohol' on the bottle of pills," he said, "but I thought that was just cause that's what prescription drugs always say."
Which got me thinking about why we don't follow directions in this country. I'm not saying that a failure to follow obscure, vague or unethical directions is bad - it's what made our nation sort of great. But it's clear that "don't drink alcohol" has sort of blended into the wallpaper when it comes to prescription drugs. I think it would be advisable for drug companies - and anyone who really means it when they ask us to do something (parents included) - should make it a point to offer more than the implicit "because I said so" that comes on mose pill bottles. So here are some simple suggestions to see to it that people pay attention to those vaguely threatening warnings on their prescription drugs:
"Do not mix with alcohol or you will be videotaped spewing anti-semetic invective at police officers during a traffic stop. Then your pecker will pop off."
"Removing this tag will result in a thermonuclear explosion."
"Do not operate heavy machinery while on this drug or you'll spend the rest of your life explaining how you drove a backhoe over a kindergarten."
etc.
Heavy handed, perhaps. Effective? Undoubtedly.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Wit and erudition
OK, so I'm back, and I'm going to go out of my way to keep this thing up to date - not because I think anyone will read it, but because I'm making my humor class students start a blog as a way of being accountable to regular deadlines, and it would be hypocritical of me not to join in the fun. So here are some thoughts for them, and for me.
- What would happen if the US Congress had "conversations with the President" the way the British Parliament has conversations with the Prime Minister? For those unfamiliar with the convention, each week, there is a special parliamentary session in which members of Parliament pepper the Prime Minister Tony Blair with questions (which he has been provided in advance- here's a link to a video of the most recent session - click on "Prime Minister questions" video in right column). Blair is obliged to respond to each one, despite the jeering.
The focus is not on the content of the questions and Blair's responses- which are predictably "spinny" - but on the ability of each side to slide in as much thinly veiled insult, witty commentary and, of course, rhetoric, as possible into their minutes at the podium. It is political theatre at its grandest, and it makes me long for a leader as able to think on his feet as Mr. Blair. Hell, he even knows how to pronounce the word "nuclear."
I realize that any attempt to recreate this phenomenon in the US Congress would be an abysmal failure. First of all, the president would be required to attend, which doesn't really fit in with his calendar right now. He's got another invasion to plan, tax cuts to expand, social programs to whack and civil liberties to violate. The guy just doesn't have time to sit around verbally sparring with the elected representatives of the US People. Plus, sending Bush to verbally spar with anyone would be like sending a man armed with a pen knife into a gun fight.
The second reason it wouldn't work is that our elected representatives aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, either. Elected largely because of their outstanding heads of natural hair, trim yet muscular figures, bank accounts, and ability to slip expensive pork barrel projects into the federal budget unnoticed, our reps and senators aren't really a breed of people who have placed much importance on the ability to think quickly, clearly and logically. They've all learned through experience that those talents are of little use in Washington DC. And even if they wanted to, true wit and erudition in all its forms vacated the Capitol Building sometime during the second Roosevelt administration and has not returned, even though it left its toothbrush in the Senate VIP bathroom. Erudition, which involves intelligent, coherent and engaging commentary, was abandoned for empassioned 10 second sound bites shortly after the invention of television. It is also nearly impossible to be erudite while speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.
So, it seems that the "conversations," like many other outstanding British entertainment exports such as "The Weakest Link" "The Office" and "Coupling," simply wouldn't translate well at all from the British version. You will find me tuned to BBC each Tuesday, gazing whistfully at a form of democratic discourse my nation will likely never see.
- What would happen if the US Congress had "conversations with the President" the way the British Parliament has conversations with the Prime Minister? For those unfamiliar with the convention, each week, there is a special parliamentary session in which members of Parliament pepper the Prime Minister Tony Blair with questions (which he has been provided in advance- here's a link to a video of the most recent session - click on "Prime Minister questions" video in right column). Blair is obliged to respond to each one, despite the jeering.
The focus is not on the content of the questions and Blair's responses- which are predictably "spinny" - but on the ability of each side to slide in as much thinly veiled insult, witty commentary and, of course, rhetoric, as possible into their minutes at the podium. It is political theatre at its grandest, and it makes me long for a leader as able to think on his feet as Mr. Blair. Hell, he even knows how to pronounce the word "nuclear."
I realize that any attempt to recreate this phenomenon in the US Congress would be an abysmal failure. First of all, the president would be required to attend, which doesn't really fit in with his calendar right now. He's got another invasion to plan, tax cuts to expand, social programs to whack and civil liberties to violate. The guy just doesn't have time to sit around verbally sparring with the elected representatives of the US People. Plus, sending Bush to verbally spar with anyone would be like sending a man armed with a pen knife into a gun fight.
The second reason it wouldn't work is that our elected representatives aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, either. Elected largely because of their outstanding heads of natural hair, trim yet muscular figures, bank accounts, and ability to slip expensive pork barrel projects into the federal budget unnoticed, our reps and senators aren't really a breed of people who have placed much importance on the ability to think quickly, clearly and logically. They've all learned through experience that those talents are of little use in Washington DC. And even if they wanted to, true wit and erudition in all its forms vacated the Capitol Building sometime during the second Roosevelt administration and has not returned, even though it left its toothbrush in the Senate VIP bathroom. Erudition, which involves intelligent, coherent and engaging commentary, was abandoned for empassioned 10 second sound bites shortly after the invention of television. It is also nearly impossible to be erudite while speaking out of both sides of one's mouth.
So, it seems that the "conversations," like many other outstanding British entertainment exports such as "The Weakest Link" "The Office" and "Coupling," simply wouldn't translate well at all from the British version. You will find me tuned to BBC each Tuesday, gazing whistfully at a form of democratic discourse my nation will likely never see.
