Light relief

Children Are Quick
____________________________________

TEACHER: Why are you late?
STUDENT: Class started before I got here.
____________________________________
TEACHER: John, why are you doing your math multiplication on the floor?
JOHN: You told me to do it without using tables.
__________________________________________
TEACHER: Glenn, how do you spell ‘crocodile?’
GLENN: K-R-O-K-O-D-I-A-L’
TEACHER: No, that’s wrong
GLENN: Maybe it is wrong, but you asked me how I spell it.
____________________________________________
TEACHER: Donald, what is the chemical formula for water?
DONALD: H I J K L M N O.
TEACHER: What are you talking about?
DONALD: Yesterday you said it’s H to O.
__________________________________
TEACHER: Winnie, name one important thing we have today that we didn’t have ten years ago.
WINNIE: Me!
__________________________________________
TEACHER: Glen, why do you always get so dirty?
GLEN: Well, I’m a lot closer to the ground than you are.
______________________________
TEACHER: George Washington not only chopped down his father’s cherry tree, but also admitted it.
Now, Louie, do you know why his father didn’t punish him?
LOUIS: Because George still had the axe in his hand…..
______________________________________
TEACHER: Now, Simon , tell me frankly, do you say prayers before eating?
SIMON: No sir, I don’t have to, my Mum is a good cook.
______________________________
TEACHER: Clyde , your composition on ‘My Dog’ is exactly the same as your brother’s..
Did you copy his?
CLYDE : No, sir. It’s the same dog.

___________________________________
TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
HAROLD: A teacher
__________________________________
PASS IT AROUND AND MAKE SOMEONE LAUGH
Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

The opioid epidemic

Treating people addicted to drugs as criminals, rather than people in need of medical treatment, is unlikely to stem the opiod crisis in America. “Treating it as a crime is the worst thing you can do,” says Scott Weiner at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “If we start to recognise it as the disease that it is, we can treat it and get people back on track. If you criminalise it, you take away a person’s chance of a normal life.”

But in November the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) moved to classify illicit versions of fentanyl as a schedule 1 drug – ranking it alongside heroin. The fact is that the people most likely to be arrested for possessing it are those most in need of medical treatment. Most law enforcement tends to go after the user rather than the importer or distributor. It ends up being ineffective, because it picks up people who are sick.

Some progress was made in the US under the Obama administration, with the creation of new prescribing guidelines for doctors. Since then, many states have set their own prescribing limits, and prescriptions of opioids have reduced by between 12 and 19 per cent since 2012.

Problem: as the legal supply of opioids has shrunk, people have turned to illicit alternatives like heroin and synthetic drugs like fentanyl and carfentanyl. “The number of prescribed opioids is declining, but overdose deaths have been rising,” says Scott Weiner. “It represents the shift from prescribed opioids to illicit opioids”. These drugs are more potent, so are easier to accidentally overdose on. Fentanyl is 100 times more potent than morphine, and carfentanyl is 100 times mote potent than fentanyl. They are thought to be responsible for the majority of accidental overdose deaths in the US.

In December, the Trump administration expanded access to naloxone and began funding development of new pain treatments. Aside from this barely anything new has been done since the emergency was declared.

More success has been accomplished at state and local levels. In New York City, 100,000 naloxone kits, are being distributed, mainly to people living with others at risk of overdosing, and a new program is targetting people who are in emergency care after a non-fatal overdose. These people are offered support and counselling for three months, along with a supply of naloxone. This idea should be adopted throughout the country.

Researchers are working on new treatments for overdose and addiction, and also on ways to develop opioid drugs without the risk of addiction or overdose. One approach is to make drug formulations that are harder to abuse. In the past, some opioids have been crushed and snorted as a powder for a more powerful hit. Newer formulations turn to gel when crushed.
All of this shows that there are ways of tackling the US opioid crisis. But they require money and evidence-based treatments, not sound bites and law enforcement. “As Americans, we cannot allow this to continue,” said Trump as he announced the emergency in October. More than three months later, he is still allowing just that.(New Scientist, Jessica Hamzelou,
3 February 2017)

In 2016, the annual overdose death count reached nearly 64,000, more than three times as many as in 1999. It surpassed the number of fatalities from automobile crashes and homicides, becoming the No.1 cause of death among Americans 50 and younger.

In 2017 14 states saw declines in the number of desths, but aside from that there are few signs of relief ahead.

Lying

Little white lies have a tendency to snowball. The more we lie, the more our brains seem to become desensitised to deception.

Tali Sharot at University College London and her team ran an experiment that encouraged volunteers to lie. They were shown jars of pennies, full to varying degrees, and asked to send estimates of how many there were to partners in another room. The partners were shown blurrier images of the jars, so relied on the volunteers’ estimates to guess the number of pennies, in order to win a reward for each of them.

When the volunteers were told they would get a higher personal reward if their partner’s answer were wrong – and that the more inaccurate the answer, the greater the reward would be – they started telling small lies, which escalated. A person who might have started with a lie that earned them £1 may have ended up telling fibs worth £8, for example. Brain scans showed that the first lie was associated with a burst of activity in the amygdalae, areas involved in emotional responses. But this activity lessened as the lies progressed (Nature Neuroscience, DOI: 10.1038/nn.4426). “This highlights the danger of engaging in small acts of dishonesty,” says Sharot. (reported by New Scientist).

Evidence that not all scientific endeavour necesarily expands our useful knowledge! We don’t need a researcher to tell us this stuff. I bet much the same information can be found in Babylonic cuneiform. The results of paying people to lie were evident several thousand years ago, which is why countless generations have tried to stop children lying. Instilling the inclination toward truth and integrity starts in the cradle, and should be strengthened by school. It’s a long and tedious business training children, but an inescapable duty of love. Do we, as a society, have the time and energy to do it properly? A glance at the news suggests that some people simply cannot distinguish truth from fiction, or don’t want to. We are all the losers thereby.

One reason American healthcare is so expensive

Five months after Hurricane Maria barrelled through Puerto Rico, much of the island remains “largely unliveable”, says emergency medicine physician Jeremy Samuel Faust. One knock-on effect of this is that America is drastically short of a staple item of hospital equipment: intravenous fluids for use in drips. The shutdown of several Puerto Rican factories that together produce upwards of 40% of the IV fluid that American patients rely on, means that the supply of these bags is drying up in hospitals such as mine.

However, far from being a disaster, it has actually had the welcome effect of forcing some sensible economising. We’ve long known that, for patients who can keep liquid down, IV drips are not essential. You can just as easily hydrate these patients using a glass of water with a bit of salt and sugar dissolved in it – that’s all IV fluid really is. Yet US doctors have a terrible habit of always reaching for the more expensive, intrusive option. The shortage of IV bags has forced hospitals to save them for people who really need them, and to give everyone else oral solutions. It has worked fine and saved a fortune. “If we could just do this in other areas of treatment before a crisis hit, then we’d truly be getting ahead.”
(Jeremy Samuel Faust, Slate)

Part of the reason for the cost of medicine in the US is the litigiousness of the public and the high cost of medical insurance for doctors. There are 1.34 million lawyers in the US, and law schools are graduating 44,000 more every year. There are about 93,000 American personal injury lawyers, all seeking an income, plus an unknown number of patients all too ready to sue, justifiably or not. The situation is not helped by the fact that there are 210,000 preventable deaths in American hospitals (the American Hospitals Association claim the figure to be 98,000, still a hugely troublesome statistic). Doctors are so afraid of litigation that they submit patients to three expensive procedures where one might be deemed sufficient in Europe. Maybe the more procedures the more likelihood of mistakes? Now American lawyers can see fresh opportunities as the British NHS is gradually privatised under the rubric “profits to the companies, costs to the taxpayer”. But more about the NHS and its death by a hundred cuts on another occasion.

Is anti-Semitism a significant problem in Britain and America?

The first post I’ve done in a long time. I’m at the busiest time of my degree, so yet again I don’t know when I’ll be able to post next. Apologies. But this is a huge issue at the moment, so I felt the need to address it. 

Anti-Semitism is on the increase in both Britain and America. But the phenomenon has very different causes in each country.

In America, anti-Semitism is primarily a product of the extreme right. Jews are often associated with the ‘Deep State’, a conspiracy theory that liberal globalists are always in power, even when patriots like Trump are elected. Jews are seen as plotting to make America more socially liberal and ethnically diverse. Anti-Semites on the American Right point to the fact that most American Jews vote Democrat, and are more likely to sympathise with the plight of non-white minorities than other white Americans. In the US, there has been a notable increase in neo-Nazi and neo-Confederable demonstrations, both of which direct their ire against Jews for subverting their vision of an America dominated by white Protestants. Moreover, the American far right diverges from neoconservatism insofar as they view America’s relationship with Israel to be detrimental to American security; a close relationship with Israel contravenes the notion of ‘America first.’ America is similar to European countries like France, Poland and Hungary in its prevalence of right wing anti-Semitism. However, American anti-Semitism has virtually no clout in today’s Republican Party, which remains pro-Israel and somewhat neoconservative, despite an increase in paleoconservative nationalism and isolationism under Trump.

But in Britain, anti-Semitism is far more common on the far left. The British far right directs its anger at Muslims and EU migrants, but rarely exhibits anti-Semitic views nowadays. Neo-Nazism is less common in Britain than America or continental Europe. Left-wing anti-Semitism partly derives from the fact that unlike American Jews, most British Jews vote for the centre-right Conservative Party. Class hatred plays a role, with the stereotype of the Jewish banker exploiting the ordinary British worker. The British left is far more anti-Israel than the American left, whereas the British right is generally pro-Israel.

Recently, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has been accused of anti-Semitism. He failed to denounce an overtly anti-Semitic mural in Tower Hamlets, instead praising it for critiquing capitalism. He has repeatedly met with Islamists, even describing Hezbollah and Hamas as his friends. He was a member of several Facebook groups where anti-Semitic views were publicised. Corbyn is also a long-standing ally of the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who was suspended from Labour for his view that Hitler was a Zionist.

Now I personally have no doubt Corbyn isn’t an anti-Semite. But that doesn’t been he’s innocent. He has repeatedly failed to denounce specific insensitive remarks made by other Labour Party members, instead offering general remarks on the evils of anti-Semitism. He hasn’t explained the ideological origins of left-wing anti-Semitism: class hatred, militant Palestinian nationalism, conspiratorial anti-elitism. In the past, he’s played down the extent to which it is a problem in the British left. He’s also shared platforms with known anti-Semites when he’s approved of their views vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Western foreign policy. He used to be a regular guest on Iranian state TV, despite anti-Semitic views being pretty prominent there.

Worse is the behaviour of Corbyn’s supporters. Many of whom have expressed the view that anti-Semitism has been exaggerated by the conservative press in order to discredit Corbyn. They remain relentlessly partisan, refusing to accept that there’s a problem. Jewish Labour MPs like Luciana Berger, who say they’ve received racist abuse online, are ignored or dismissed out of hand. They constantly try to divert attention away from issue, preferring to attack the Conservatives than address the issue head-on.

What Corbyn needs to do is reassure Jewish Labour members that anti-Semitism is a significant problem that will be taken very seriously from now on. He needs to make it plain that anti-Semites cannot ever share a platform with any Labour members, even if they hold left-wing views on all other issues. He needs to demonstrate that he understands the specific reasons why there is anti-Semitism on the left. He should also apologise for his past track record.

If he does all that, the current scandal need not be an impediment for Labour. The party has a good record of supporting equality and anti-discrimination legislation. It is perceived to be notably more socially liberal and welcoming of ethnic diversity than the Conservatives. Their liberalism, combined with the shortfall in local government funding, should result in a successful sweep for Labour in May’s local elections, where they could win Conservative London boroughs like Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster. The electorate have notoriously short memories, and most of them aren’t following the scandal closely anyway. More importantly, 99.6% of Britain’s population isn’t Jewish. Non-Jews may care about anti-Semitism. But they also care about public services, and I predict they will vote accordingly.