Grotesque....

Time Runs Out for an Afghan Held by the U.S.

Another example of "the worst of the worst," Abdul Razzaq Hekmati. For two starkly differing versions of the detainees at Guantanamo, read these different analyses of the CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunal) profiles released by the U.S. government, done by:

Professors at the Seton Hall School of Law
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point

Exit without grace..

Mitt Romney suspends his campaign, and simultaneously proves that he is not fit for the position of head dog-catcher...

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Transcript of Romney’s Speech Withdrawing From the Race

$515 billion.. or is it?

$3 Trillion Budget mentioned the $515 billion DOD budget. Well, an article in Slate looks at that a little closer and makes some observations, including:

• It may be closer to $713 billion for defense...
  
• "... The "Overview" section of the Pentagon's budget document contains a section called "Program Terminations." It reads, in its entirety: "The FY 2009 budget does not propose any major program terminations."..."
  
• And, somehow, the three branches get approximately the same amount of money ("... Army gets 33 percent, the Air Force gets 33 percent, and the Navy gets 34 percent.")

Slate article: What's Really in The US Military Budget

Color-coding - is this a good idea??

Dennis Quaid and wife sue drug maker

Back in Novemeber 2007 the two children of Dennis Quaid and his wife Kimberly, along with a third patient, were mistakenly given an overdose of heparin while at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The mixup resulted when the wrong strength of heparin vials was used, a 10,000 unit per ml vial instead of a 10 unit per ml vial. The Quaids subsequently are suing the manufacturer of the drugs, Baxter Healthcare, alleging that Baxter was negligent for making different doses in similar vials with similar blue labels. An attorney representing two families affected by previous overdoses as a result of labeling mix-ups says that these are not new problems and will likely continue, as human error is inevitable given the similar labeling on the two sizes of heparin vials.

Looking at their filing it appears that they feel that the label colors should have been different ("... Since a medical error in administration could lead to a dangerous or fatal result, the background colors should have been different."), as should also be the size and shape of the vials ("... Since a medical error... the vials should have been in completely distinguishable size and shape.")

OK, a couple of thoughts. Given the huge number of different drugs on the market, their varying dosage forms, their multiple strengths (e.g. heparin comes 1 unit per ml, 10 units per ml, 100 units per ml, 1,000 units per ml, 5,000 units per ml, 10,000 units per ml, 20,000 units per ml, etc.), the fact that their generic equivalents are often also manufactured by dozens of other manufacturers, it is fairly obvious that it is well nigh impossible for all possible variations to have different color labels and different shaped/sized vials... And, were such a system possible it would contribute to the natural tendency of folks to use color and/or shape and size as a proxy or 'shortcut'. It could well be argued that making every label color uniform would improve patient safety, as providers would then be obliged to actually read the label and confirm the drug/dose rather than rely on color or some other visual cue...

Bottom line, the Quaids are well-intentioned but misguided in this. They are not doing this for the money but "so that this doesn't happen to another child". However, they would be better to push for barcodes on unit of use and for the providers to have reader systems in place to use them!

Pablum re a Nuclear Free World

On January 4th George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn wrote an oped in the Wall Street Journal endorsing the eventual goal of a nuclear free world, and proposing "...a series of agreed and urgent steps that would lay the groundwork for a world free of the nuclear threat." See:

A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

Unsurprisingly enough, this did not include the one thing that might really jumpstart the process and move this from the realm of "chatter" to the realm of possibility - the elimination of the British and French nuclear weapons.

The British make much of the fact that they have reduced their nuclear warheads to 160, and have cut back from three to only one delivery system (submarines). However apparently they can not actually eliminate this residual capability since it is "needed" given that they can not "... be sure that a major nuclear threat to our vital interests will not emerge over the longer term..." per

The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent.

It is exceedingly difficult to imagine any scenario in which the British would employ these weapons without the acquiescence of the U.S. Britain could as easily reside under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, with no need for its own weapons. Clearly they maintain these for reasons of national prestige, an illustration (were it needed) to all the "non" nations that possession of these weapons confers significant benefits in this regard. While the British may have no incentive to denuclearize, the United States should force their hand. Ditto with regard to the French. This would be evidence of real commitment and have an outsize psychological effect. Unfortunately I don't see this happening while platitudes from 'notables' are apparently deemed sufficient.

On a lighter note: The British white paper has some canned responses to arguments against the British deterrent. In response to #5 in Box 3-1 Responses to Counter Arguments "The UK retains nuclear weapons because of the international status that this might bring, in particular the UK’s permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council", the reasoned and weighty response of Her Majesty's government is:

"We maintain our nuclear forces as a means of deterring acts of aggression against our vital interests and not for reasons of status."

A Question for Senators Obama and Clinton

There's a death match going on between the two Democratic presidential hopeful finalists, Senators Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, re who is more apt to be an agent of change - to change the tone in Washington, to get things done, to move beyond rancor, to reach across the aisle, blah, blah, blah.

Perhaps someone could ask each of them, "Senator, since the Democrats took over the Senate the Republicans have used the "silent" filibuster over one hundred times, thereby stymieing Democratic effors to pass legislation on topics that you feel strongly about e.g. FISA, SCHIP, and a host of other issues. Given your position in the Senate, can you provide even one solitary example of when there has been a serious philosophical difference between the two parties and you have been able to bridge the difference, or create a coalition, or "reach across the aisle" to defeat the silent filibuster and get the legislation passed?"

$3 Trillion Budget

President Bush proposes the nation's first 3-trillion dollar budget, with $515 billion for the DOD... And this only has Iraq/Afghanistan "war on terror" funding for the first four months of FY 2009 (October - January) i.e. only until he leaves office...

Bush Proposes First $3 Trillion Budget

The $70 Billion Hand-Off