Anybody 'sides me watching Dollhouse?

Well, then you know that there's a super secret 'service' whereby the Bill-Gates rich can buy "dolls," people who've done something they can't live with (except for Sierra. Long story.) and who've agreed to have other personas implanted over their own. Then, the "dolls" go out as midwives, high priced whores, etc. to fulfill rich folks' fantasies, after which they're "wiped."

Turns out that technology isn't so far off. Again, the Times:

Suppose scientists could erase certain memories by tinkering with a single substance in the brain. Could make you forget a chronic fear, a traumatic loss, even a bad habit.
Researchers in Brooklyn have recently accomplished comparable feats, with a single dose of an experimental drug delivered to areas of the brain critical for holding specific types of memory, like emotional associations, spatial knowledge, or motor skills.
The drug blocks the activity of a substance that the brain apparently needs to retain much of its learned information. And if enhanced, the substance could help ward off dementias and other memory problems.
So far, the research has been done only on animals. But scientists say this memory system is likely to work almost identically in people.
If this molecule is as important as it appears to be, you can see the possible implications,” said Dr. Todd C. Sacktor, a 52-year-old neuroscientist who leads the team at the SUNY Downstate Medical Center, in Brooklyn, which demonstrated its effect on memory. “For trauma. For addiction, which is a learned behavior. Ultimately for improving memory and learning."

And...for all sorts of other stuff.

What? "Spread em and grin" might be hitting the bricks? Yep, according to the Times:

A new DNA test for the virus that causes cervical cancer does so much better than current methods that some gynecologists hope it will eventually replace the Pap smear in wealthy countries and cruder tests in poor ones.
Not only could the new test for human papillomavirus, or HPV, save lives; scientists say that women over 30 could drop annual Pap smears and instead have the DNA test just once every 3, 5 or even 10 years, depending on which expert is asked.
Their optimism is based on an eight-year study of 130,000 women in India financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and published last week in The New England Journal of Medicine. It is the first to show that a single screening with the DNA test beats all other methods at preventing advanced cancer and death.
'The study is another nail in the coffin for Pap smears, which will soon be of mainly historical interest,' said Dr. Paul D. Blumenthal, a professor of gynecology at Stanford medical school who has tested screening techniques in Africa and Asia and was not involved in the study.
But whether the new test is adopted will depend on many factors, including hesitation by gynecologists to abandon Pap smears, which have been remarkably effective. Cervical cancer was a leading cause of death for American women in the 1950s; it now kills fewer than 4,000 a year.

Downside: The insurance industry will no doubt use those DNA results, if this pans out, to take our premiums for years—then deny us a payout based on our genetic profiles. But more Pap smears? Yippee!

Best Nana ever? That would be Michelle's mama, Marian Robinson.

First Nana and First Lady grace this month's Essence and 'Big Mama' just gets cooler and cooler. There's just too much good stuff to cut and paste; check the link for the full story. My fave? The First Grandma plans to evacuate the WH with a quickness, once the kiddies are all settled. Why? "I love those people, but I love my own house. The White House reminds me of a museum and it's like, how do you sleep in a museum?"

"Those people"? Rock on, Nana. She does yoga. She thinks her own daughter is too strict. She's ready to get back to her own life after tending to her grandkids while her 'other kids' do their own thing, White House be damned.

I say: let's bring Nana Robinson to Burning Man this year!

Dover and the Press

For the past 18 years the press has been banned from attending the arrival ceremonies of deceased soldiers at Dover Air Force Base.  Supposedly this was to protect the privacy of the families, despite the fact that families weren't complaining at the time the policy was changed during the Gulf War1.  But now that the ceremonies are open once again, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk has a different concern:

Last night’s ceremony was a landmark occasion. But now that the ceremonies are likely to be open so often, there’s little guarantee that the press will regularly come out in such force.

“Now that the families are giving their consent, will the media care?” asks Melnyk, who worries that families who consent to coverage, but see no journalists at their loved one’s arrival, may get the impression that the nation does not appreciate their loss. “It ain’t going to be news in a month.”

Yeesh.  It's disrespectful when the press shows up and it's disrespectful when they don't.  Sometimes you just can't win.

1More likely reason: Following the invasion of Panama in 1989, George Bush Sr. got pissed off when pictures of coffins arriving at Dover were inadvertently broadcast live on a split screen while he was laughing with reporters at a press conference. Two years later, he made sure that wouldn't happen again.

Yesterday I wrote about the latest Big Pharma scandal to crawl out from under a rock. It shows, once again, the extent to which many doctors—in this case, psychiatrists—are compromised by their relationships with the drug companies, and the damage these conflicts of interest can do to patients. The same is true of the Food and Drug Administration—and in a way, that’s even worse, since the FDA is supposed to be our watchdog, and has instead too often become Big Pharma’s lapdog.

In an op-ed in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Marcia Angell offers a seven-point agenda to “restore the FDA to its purpose, which is to protect the public from unsafe food, drugs, and devices, not to accommodate the industries it regulates.” She sees the appointment of industry critic Joshua Sharfstein as deputy FDA commissioner as a promising sign—but only a beginning.

Angell, who teaches social medicine at Harvard Medical School and wrote a sharp book on how Big Pharma operates, suggests a series of changes to the system under which drugs are developed, approved, and marketed. Personally, I’d like to see something slightly more dramatic—maybe along the lines of replacing the lab animals used to test new drugs with pharmaceutical company executives. But as a realistic starting place for public policymaking in this area, Angell’s agenda is as sound as anything I’ve seen. 

Via Paul Krugman, this comes from a recent paper by Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef.  Basically, they created a metric of financial regulation and graphed it against the relative pay of people in the finance industry.  Guess what?  When the market is lightly regulated, pay skyrockets!

Now, sure, a lot of other stuff was going on during this period too, so take this with a grain of salt.  But still: the amount of money being shoveled into the FIRE sector over the past 30 years has been pretty phenomenal, and it's hardly a stretch to think that that's pretty tightly correlated with loose regulation, massive leverage, and opaque rocket science derivatives.

What's more, as Krugman points out, the amount of money going into finance has been so stratospheric lately that it actually has a significant impact on overall income inequality.  It's only a part of the story, but it's still a part.  One of the reasons there's been less money for the middle class, thus spurring ever greater indebtedness in order to keep living standards on the rise, is because our financial titans kept so much of it for themselves.  It's time for that to stop.  Finance should be the servant of industry, not its master.

This week the world--that is, those in the world who give a damn about such things--is marking the 15th anniversary of the horrific Rwanda genocide. On Tuesday, President Barack Obama released a to-the-point statement on the Rwanda nightmare. It's below. Read it, and tell me if you can spot what's missing:

This week marks the 15th commemoration of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. It is a somber occasion that causes us to reflect upon the deaths of the more than 800,000 men, women, and children who were killed simply because of their ethnicity or their political beliefs. The memory of these events also deepens our commitment to act when faced with genocide and to work with partners around the world to prevent future atrocities. The figure of 800,000 is so enormous, so daunting, that it runs the risk of becoming a statistic. Today, we must remember that each of the 800,000 individuals who died in 1994 had their own story, their own family, and their own dreams. As we mourn their senseless passing, we must also acknowledge the courageous men and women who survived the genocide and have since demonstrated remarkable strength and generosity in forgiving those who committed these heinous acts. These individuals inspire us daily by working to restore trust and rebuild hope in Rwanda. The United States is committed to its partnership with Rwanda and will continue to support efforts to promote sustainable development, respect for human rights, and lasting peace in Rwanda.

What's not there? Any mention that the United States essentially did nothing at the time to halt the slaughter in Rwanda. At that crucial moment, Bill Clinton was president, and Hillary Clinton, the influential First Lady. In her memoirs, Living History, Hillary Clinton, the current secretary of state, does not write about what went on in the White House during those god-awful weeks in the spring of 1994, when human rights activists were begging the Clinton administration to do something--anything--to stop or slow the mass-murder frenzy underway, and the Clintonites steadfastly refused their entreaties. Clinton does note that later on she came to "regret deeply the failure of the world, including my husband's Administration, to act to end the genocide."

As Obama and others commemorate the tragedy of Rwanda this week, they ought not to shy away from reminiscing about the cowardly and consequential inaction of the United States, particularly that of President Clinton and his top aides and advisers.

As lawsuits and vote counting continue in the Minnesota Senate race, Al Franken is gaining votes. Many believe that Norm Coleman isn't going to give up until every legal recourse has been exhausted -- not because he thinks he can win, but becuase the longer he can wrangle with Franken in the courts, the longer the Democrats have to operate with 58 votes in the Senate. But if Coleman wants to run for governor or continue his political career in some other way, he may withdraw before he does too much more damage to his public image. I'd give this even odds for going to the Supreme Court.

Several academic economists published a paper a few days ago suggesting that toxic assets are priced at pennies on the dollar because that's exactly what they're worth.  Anyone who thinks they're undervalued because of illiquid markets and forced fire sales is just kidding themselves.

Maybe!  But Economics of Contempt isn't convinced.  It turns out the authors analyzed investment grade corporate debt, not housing securities:

Are they serious? The Treasury is arguing that the prices for mortgage-related securities are artificially depressed because of illiquidity and fire sales. No one is arguing that investment grade corporates are underpriced due to illiquidity and fire sales. That's why ABS and CDOs backed by investment grade corporates aren't eligible for the TALF or the PPIP. The fact that prices for tranches of CDOs backed by investment grade corporates are accurate is completely irrelevant to whether prices for mortgage-related securities are accurate.

This is above my pay grade as usual, so just consider it useful data for now.  Seems like a pretty reasonable criticism, though.

Via Megan McArdle.

Via Variety comes the news that Fox News entertainment columnist Roger Friedman was fired yesterday for reviewing a leaked version of the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie (or, as I call it, Double the Wolverine, Double the Hotness) last Thursday. The internet leak drew attention for two reasons; one, because it was so far in advance of the film's anticipated May 1 release date, and two, due to its quality, as it was apparently an early studio cut and not a "hand-held camera in a theater" style copy. Friedman's review has since been removed, but it caused ire among hardcore fans as well as at Wolverine studio 20th Century Fox (a division, like Fox News, of everybody's favorite media conglomerate News Corp.). In far less significant but oddly coincidental news, the morning show at my old alma mater LIVE 105 was fired last week and rumors are flying that it was due to their playing 30 seconds of a track from the upcoming Green Day album. Have media companies reached the breaking point with this gol-durned internet and its leaky tubes?