What works? We should look at the studies, see what has the highest level of curing rate, and do that.

We should do whatever it takes to fix our relationships with every country in the Americas to our south.

> ...And we should make a start, I would say, by
> repealing the laws, closing the clinics, stopping
> the benefits.

That's kinda radical and attractive.

I have no experience (yet), but they say AA is fueled by the cheapest coffee money can buy, the stale-est cookies your teeth can chew, and the goodwill of fellows. "What works", as Nic asks, isn't a big financial investment.... It's intimate involvement. Government is no good at that.

I mean, all government can do is spend money on things. Politicians don't see a problem with that... They never hesitate to take control of other people's finances, and they're not the kinds of people who can relate to a junkie's suffering on an emotional level, and be troubled by making things worse.

This is one of the many/many/many problems that would go better if people understood there was more to civilization than governmental power... But government is the only thing anyone believes in any more.

Small example: Two favorite films this year from Hollywood were Adjustment Bureau and Limitless. BOTH have pursuit of the Presidency as a central plot point, a matter of fate. There aren't that many Hollywood movies anymore... But that's the only heroic aspiration that the common man is expected to relate to.

Seriously... There have been like a dozen Republican debates (and for the Presidency only, not for the many other elective positions). And people are WATCHING them! And it's only 2011!

It's hard to imagine we'll pull together enough social coherence to respond to the fundamental human weakness of substance abuse.

"We should do whatever it takes to fix our relationships with every country in the Americas to our south."

Yes! We talk about every other country except the two biggest problems, which are: Mexico & Colombia. A relative of mine was recently decapitated, his head put in an icebox in the children's area of a park, his body parts thrown in the opposite direction and his mutilation uploaded on the internet by a drug cartel in Mexico. No charges were filed, of course.

This all happened just a few miles south of the border.

What works? We should look at the studies, see what has the highest level of curing rate, and do that. -- NicoleK at November 12, 2011 12:47 AM

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. That would be like a restaurant saying everybody likes steak, so we won't have chicken on the menu.

There are many people that go to AA and that is the answer and works for them. Some just need 30-90 days in an institutional environment and some counseling. Some can live a lifetime on methadone (or other replacement drugs) for their addiction.

...And we should make a start, I would say, by repealing the laws, closing the clinics, stopping the benefits. The take-home message from that is 'take responsibility for your own actions'.

I agree the government shouldn't pay the SSI for addicts. I also agree closing down the methadone clinics paid for by the government.

The problem, as he pointed out earlier, is that society doesn't really frown on the addicted. I spent a few years in South Korea. You could go into a pharmacy and by codeine and other narcotic drugs over the counter. And when people needed to they would. I am sure there were a few addicts; but in general they were a small minority. That is because if they couldn't handle it, they were left to their own resources.

The problem with the current solution is that the government is being the nanny.

Two examples:

The change to the 21 drinking age. The people who aren't going to be responsible at 18 probably aren't going to be responsible at 21. They might not be responsible at 30. But you are taking the responsibility away from family, friends and society to teach their youths how to act responsibly and codifying it in law.

The .08 vs the .10 DWI: I agree there needs to be an intoxication standard. But the difference between .1 and .08 is about half a beer depending on size and weight. If you look at the accident statistics (not the arrest stats) you'll see those at about .15 and higher have accidents. The change to .08 is a revenue enhancer. There is now a whole industry behind the DWI conviction to the tune of about $3-5K per person.

Part of liberty is responsibility. By taking responsibility from the people and codifying it in law, you are also taking the responsibility to be my brother's keeper. You are doing the same to the individual to be responsible for their own well being.

My god, Purplepen. I am so sorry that you lost a member of your family to the horrific violence down there.

As for stigmatizing substance abuse, I somewhat agree. I think that people should be able to use alcohol or drugs in any way they wish, provided they neither harm nor become a burden to others.

Some people even use substances intensely and manage not to descend into destructive behavior. And still more people could probably manage this, if addiction wasn't viewed as some uncontrollable, dooming force.

If someone does begin to harm and leech because of a substance habit, then the people around them--family members, friends, colleagues--need to condemn the behavior without condemning the person. A delicate difference. I don't pretend to know the best ways to go about it.

But it would help if self-sufficiency and contributing positively to society were once again viewed as great, yet highly attainable human virtues. Self-destructive behavior could then be seen as something negative, yet changeable. Destructive addicts would feel compelled by cultural conscience to change, and therapy and rehabilitation with such an emphasis would give them a real shot.

For this to happen, addiction must be seen as a CHOICE. Even if you're somehow more susceptible to it than others, you still create your own behaviors, and you can change them. Perhaps if people were allowed to experience the full consequences of destructive behavior, without a government safety net, they'd be more compelled to change. Sounds awfully harsh, but Jim P. provides some compelling arguments that it might work.

Changing addictive behaviors can be very hard an frightening work, to be sure. But the proper beliefs and societal encouragement can only help.

The only problem I see here is that we already stigmatize people who get help.

We don't handle mental health issues well in this country. People don't get help in part because the label "drug addict" or "alcoholic" is so hard to deal with socially. If you get medication for diabetes, no one looks at you funny. You admit to seeing a therapist and people hide their children (an exaggeration, but not much of one).

"Pete Doherty is a cult hero of our era..."

If you say so, Pops. I don't think one out of 10 American teenagers could tell you who he is. They've moved on to that "M&M" fella.

They've moved on to that "M&M" fella.

And Eminem is also an admtted addict. The point remains the same.

""Pete Doherty is a cult hero of our era..."

If you say so, Pops. I don't think one out of 10 American teenagers could tell you who he is. They've moved on to that "M&M" fella."

Never heard of him. (wikigoogle . . . ah, there it is)

Jeeze. What an asshole.

As for stigmatizing substance abuse, I somewhat agree. I think that people should be able to use alcohol or drugs in any way they wish, provided they neither harm nor become a burden to others.

***

Yes, I agree with that.

But I also disagree with that.

Because "any way they wish" is very vague. If people are being obnoxiously-loud-but-harmless, I think they should have the right to, but I think society should frown on them.

Who's Pete Doherty?

Oh. Hmm. Whatever, when I was young it was Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love being assholes.

I think many things should be stigmatized. Including drug addiction. Long-term social dependency for able-bodied is another. Get off the dole! Stop having welfare babies! Be responsible!

Sheesh. I'm a meany-face.

> This all happened just a few miles south
> of the border.

Dear Woman, sincere condolences.

''What works? We should look at the studies, see what has the highest level of curing rate, and do that.'

Why? Why not let the people who choose to use them handle themselves, in all ways? IN any event, the highest "cure" rate is honestly wanting it.

Yes! We talk about every other country except the two biggest problems, which are: Mexico & Colombia. A relative of mine was recently decapitated,..... -- Purplepen at November 12, 2011 5:47 AM

Purplepen,

I am very sorry for your loss.

A part of the issue is prohibition. Anytime you prohibit anything with law, not societal norms, you make that item more desirable.

I'm going to step off the topics of drugs and use guns for this point.

The firearm homicide rate in Colombia is 29.59 per 100K, and Mexico is 9.88 per 100K. The U.S. 3.72 per 100K. Switzerland is 0.58 per 100K.* (The numbers are years old so take them with a block of salt.) Both Colombia and Mexico have very strict gun control laws, while in Switzerland basically every home has a fully automatic weapon. Shouldn't Switzerland have the highest gun crime rate?

Back on topic: Addiction is not rational except in the addicted persons mind. Prohibiting the substance by law just makes the person's actions unlawful as well damaging to themselves and others.

The use of propaganda, as they use in the War on Drugs, saying that using substance X will immediately make you into drug fiend, friendless,and living on the street dilutes the message. I'm sure you know people who drink, smoke pot and are traveling along fine. So when the person is told that heroin will kill you quickly they no longer believe it.

If you legalize a substance, have realistic explanations of the consequence of use and some responsible control on accessibility you get a total different response to the substance.

An example of this is what happened with the U.S. prohibition of alcohol with the 18th Amendment.

* Source: www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Shouldn't this article include some statistics as to how much it actually costs to care for a drug addict? You know, like they give us the costs of caring for an emphysema patient when they preach against smoking.

Quite frankly, I'm all for letting people with chemical dependencies, unless contracting it while in the womb, drug themselves to death. It takes care of their problem addiction and ours with having them in society.

Because, Momof4, having lots of drug addicts around is bad for everyone. You want to live/work/shop in a neighborhood with lots of drug addicts? I don't!

Having lots of drug addicts costs society.

I think that a stigma is the least of an addict or alcoholic's problems. Maybe its time we start dealing with some of the issues that go on in families. Is it that alcoholism is a disease or a pattern handed down in dysfunctional families? Is it that people don't have the emotional tools to deal with things so they get drunk or high to mask hurt? Why are some families split evenly with drunks/addicts and enablers?

My father was an alcoholic, a very high functioning alcoholic. Two brothers are alcoholics and one is the classic enabler. My sister is married to a very high functioning alcoholic, but an alcoholic who behaves very badly when drunk. She is the most classic enabler, right down to correcting her daughter's assertion that daddy is drunk again by telling her that no daddy is just tired.

Trust me when I tell you not one of them gives a flying you know what about stigma. They believe what they want to believe. An addict or drunk needs to hit rock bottom most of the time. Do you think some crack whore giving $5 blow jobs on the corner is concerned with a stigma or is she concerned with where her next high is coming from?

Swiss guns, btw, are VERY regulated. Lots of people have them, but you don't get to take yours home until you've gone through your soldier training, every gun is registered. There's none of this random person buying one at a trade show stuff.

Switzerland also has low poverty, and a lot of social welfare. You don't see a lot of panhandlers, just classical musicians and the occasional Rom. Switzerland absolutely does NOT have a culture of letting people starve on the street. (They do have a high drug rate, though). Most of the users of this forum would hate Switzerland. It's a very regulated country.

Also, Switzerland's crime rate is up in the cities, on par with the rest of western Europe.

As the Swiss would say, C'est ces foutus étrangers!

Also, the whole question is kind of moot... we DO stigmatize drunks and druggies.

If it weren't for Harry Anslinger, this might not have even become an issue:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Harry_Anslinger

From the article: "Harry J. Anslinger (1892-1975) is widely considered to be "The first United States drug czar". Currently, many firmly oppose Anslinger for his rhetoric-based crusade against marijuana, fueling decades of misinformation about the drug based on racism and fear. He served as the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, before being appointed as the first Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics on August 12, 1930, serving until 1962 when he was dismissed by President John F. Kennedy."

There's more, but before he beame the "first United States drug czar", you could buy drugs here over the counter just as Jim P. says they do in South Korea. I had an old old Sears/Montgomery Ward catalog that belonged to my great-gramma. In it were lovely sets of hypodermic needles in pretty wooden boxes that you could order and have sent right to your home. She used to tell me about going to the local drug store, which had a soda fountain, and she and her girl friends would sip on Coca Cola and eat aspirin, for the buzz they'd get. This was before the cocaine was removed from the cola, of course.

End of article: "Later in his career, Harry J. Anslinger was scrutinized for insubordination by refusing to desist from an attempt to halt the production of publications by Professor Alfred Lindsmith of Indiana University. He wrote, among other works, The Addict and the Law (Washington Post, 1961), a critical book on the War on Drugs, specifically indicating Anslinger's role. This controversy is often credited in ending Anslinger's position of Commissioner of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Narcotics. The responsibilities once held by Harry J. Anslinger are now largely under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy."

Ppen, I am SO SO sorry to hear of your loss. I cannot even begin to imagine your pain, or that of your relative's family.

I have no idea what the solution is.

"There's none of this random person buying one at a trade show stuff."

And it does not happen in the USA, either, where about 250 THOUSAND fully automatic machine guns are in private hands. Do be sure to visit the Treasury Web site about who can and cannot legally sell a firearm, and under what circumstance. Too many people simply do not know, and most of the time, "popular" news media gets it wrong.

-----

Back to the topic: Let us not forget that a stigma is attached to a group of people known for unsavory behavior. It doesn't come out of nowhere.

These are the people who would magically become responsible citizens if they didn't have to break the law to get high, right?

No. Obviously not.

Who in the world, on the surface of this planet let alone the visitors of this blog, sold you a solution by which anyone would "magically become responsible citizens"?

Trust me when I tell you not one of them gives a flying you know what about stigma. They believe what they want to believe. An addict or drunk needs to hit rock bottom most of the time. Do you think some crack whore giving $5 blow jobs on the corner is concerned with a stigma or is she concerned with where her next high is coming from? -- Kristen at November 12, 2011 10:38 AM

Why? Why not let the people who choose to use them handle themselves, in all ways? In any event, the highest "cure" rate is honestly wanting it. -- momof4 at November 12, 2011 9:28 AM

m4 nailed it on the head.

If the crack whore on the corner is provided money for services rendered, who am I to interfere. When she can't afford it anymore or doesn't want to be that way -- she will seek her or way out or die.

The same with your family -- if they want to enable or do addictive behavior that is their choice. If you could, right now, institutionalize your family you are then taking responsibility away from them for their actions and the consequences. If, and when, their actions no longer work they will make the change.

I am sure there were a few addicts; but in general they were a small minority. That is because if they couldn't handle it, they were left to their own resources.

I read Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom" and it helped to show exactly that dynamic at work in the UK's NHS.

Switzerland also has low poverty, and a lot of social welfare. You don't see a lot of panhandlers, just classical musicians and the occasional Rom. Switzerland absolutely does NOT have a culture of letting people starve on the street. (They do have a high drug rate, though). Most of the users of this forum would hate Switzerland. It's a very regulated country. -- NicoleK at November 12, 2011 10:41 AM

Is that social welfare coming from the government or from a private social networks.

My fault that I wasn't clear above -- once you start involving the government there is a distortion in the private sector. How many private orphanages, shelters, food banks, etc. do you know of. Outside of the Salvation Army I can think of none. The government's requirements that you ignore ethnicity, race, culture, etc. in crafting the assistance the organization provides and the requirements to get assistance that makes a large difference.

If a homeless shelter could say "You can't come in here when you're high" would that make a difference to those in need.

You can see this distortion from abuse shelters. How many of them will take in men and children. But if you tried to open an abuse shelter for men only, then the government would step in and shut it down.

A quote from Star Trek IV:

Admiral, if we were to assume these whales were ours to do with as we pleased, we would be as guilty as those who caused their extinction.

Change that to humans and it gives a whole new meaning.

> Switzerland absolutely does NOT have a culture
> of letting people starve on the street.

True.

They have a culture of letting western superpowers fund and staff the vast majority of their international defense, allowing much budget flexibility to care for the homeless.

Thank you all. I appreciate your condolences.

They have a culture of letting western superpowers fund and staff the vast majority of their international defense, allowing much budget flexibility to care for the homeless. -- Crid at November 12, 2011 1:51 PM

Crid,

Switzerland is the neutral country that provides the guards to for the Pope.

They had one foriegn (U.S.) military unit in their country for a brief period in 1946. (I'm discounting the military units assigned to embassies.)

www.milhist.net/88/swiss.html

Look, I'm an addict, family history of alcholism(literally every man on my mother side of the family was a drunk) - luckily my personal pathology compells me to seek an overriding control of everything in my life, I'd probably died of an overdose years ago otherwise.

But I dont think anyone who isnt an addict can truly understand the compelling nature of getting high.

When I had my lung cut out they put me on morphine, and I dont know how to describe how liberating it was to be incapable of forming any thoughts or feeling any emotion. Even though I was still in massive amounts of physical pain, the fact that my brain was truned into a fairly useless paperweight was absoulte hevean, and years later I still long to experince it again

I understand the allure of that, but I'm also smart enough to know it isnt real and doesnt last and feels so much worse everytime it ends and takes more and more of whatever your posion is to get back there.

And Kristen is right, those chasing their high wont care how bad the societial stigma is if they are desperate enough.

And momof4 is absolutly right in saying until they want it more than they want the high, nothing else will get them to stop.

By all means stigmatize away, it might prevent some from starting down the path.

But in my opionon the simpelst solution would be to legalize everything and let those who want to fall go

Right, Vatican Hill, the cute boys in yellow tights. "Neutral!" But, see, I hate them anyway. If the United States WEREN'T sheltering the whole continent –from Ivan and each other– there'd be a lot less cuteness from those people, in finance and elsewhere.

Drezner says no Republican candidate even MENTIONED Europe in the debate tonight, even as their proud new "union" collapses. May I state, for the record, that the Europeans don't seem to be good for much?

> let those who want to fall go

Cool with me, as long as I'm not also responsible for those who decide, late on some desperate, pathetic day, to try to claw their way back.

The "compelling" experiences and "liberation" felt in the hearts of others aren't big factors in my day, knowutimean?

I've got a different set of associates than I did back in the day. Part of the reason is the absolute horror of watching a good friend turn into a next-fix machine. Eventually I had to accept that (redacted) was gone, and his smack-revenant would lie cheat and steal from anybody. And cut all contact. Still sad and obscurely guilty 30 years later.

Having both cut contact and had contact cut, I don't think you should feel guilt, obscure or otherwise.

Some people even use substances intensely and manage not to descend into destructive behavior.

I'm a textbook case of a functioning drunk, and I don't know what the answer is either. Social stigmatism only goes so far. If you are self-sufficient, you can ignore it easily. My social circle has changed significantly over the last couple of decades. They're not all drinkers (in fact some of them never drink) but they're all people who aren't horrified by seeing me have a glass of wine with breakfast. The ones who couldn't cope either left or I ditched them.

Phunctor, what Crid said. Also, I have a rule about always turning up to barbeques or dinners with my own booze supply. The day I start mooching of others, you can shoot me.

People make different amounts of space in their life for alcohol, religion, (bad) music, food, weird sex, scuba.... Being in the wrong company can make you miserable.

I remember when Ebay took off a few years ago. Many of us found ourselves having to brush up on our auction skillsets. Tool #1 –the instrument that will carry you through good times and bad– is knowing to the penny how much something means to you. When you're carrying that knowledge, you don't weep for the ones that got away and you don't drop your wallet on unworthy loves. See also, "Moneyball". (The book is better than the movie, they say.)

(I only hurt myself once, on one of these... And it was one of the best mistakes I ever made! But the principle applies to a lot of things in life.)

Ltw,

The current mantra is that you can't have an active addiction and be functional. It seems that you can.

This is the telling line: The day I start mooching of others, you can shoot me.

You are taking responsibility for your actions. You aren't looking to the government to subsidize you.

They may not be factors for you personally Crid, but they are for those chasing a high, or better put running from something they cant deal with.

While you dont care what drives an addict, they dont care that you dont care

Like anything else in this world you have to understand properly it before you can reliably and consitently effect it

"Who in the world, on the surface of this planet let alone the visitors of this blog, sold you a solution by which anyone would "magically become responsible citizens"?"

Well, you have no memory. That principle is at the core of pleadings on this blog to legalize drugs - a central tenet: if drugs were not illegal, then no one using them would break the law.

> They may not be factors for you personally

You understand then... Very good. Your needs, whether for drugs or recovery support, are not my needs... Great.

> no one using them would break the law

Right. Nobody said "magically become responsible citizens". Nothing is being oversold, and you shouldn't pretend to have been taken in by the nasty cad with handlebar mustache.

If people are being obnoxiously-loud-but-harmless, I think they should have the right to, but I think society should frown on them.

Obnoxiously loud is not always harmless. OK, maybe in a designated environment--a lively bar or a noisy but well-insulated party. Not a nice restaurant, or the streets of a residential neighborhood.

Is puking on the sidewalk harmful? I think so. Sure, it's not quite on the level of a drunk beating his wife. But it's letting the substance get the better of you and subjecting innocent bystanders to the resulting unpleasantness. This behavior is the already the beginning of an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, and it should be stigmatized more than it is.

Many of us lose control at some point. But some are mortified and ashamed by the experience, and never go quite so far again. Others, helped by society's indulgence--why, it's perfectly normal for young people to scream and puke and pass out every weekend!--develop some very damaging habits.

Keggers and similarly drunken parties are far less common in Italy, France, even Germany where I live, than they are in America. Yes, even on university campuses. Even Oktoberfest is remarkably good-natured and contained compared to the wild, near-violence of many American frat parties. A few people at Oktoberfest piss or puke in the bushes and need to be carried home, but they are a tiny minority of the MILLIONS that attend--and this at an event that is entirely about drinking beer!

That is because some societies have higher expectations when people drink. A measure of control is expected along with the enjoyment. Stigmatizing substance abuse does just involving looking down on uncontrolled behavior; perhaps more significantly, it involves modeling and expecting controlled behavior by the vast majority of people. As others in these comments indicate, even drunks and addicts can hold themselves to a standard.

See... I think there's something very strange about showing up to an event with your own booze supply. I wouldn't invite you back.

Jim, the social welfare is from the government. We were recently asked to vote on how much to raise the rates we pay out.

Switzerland just doesn't have the miles and miles of urban blight. Its not like Philly, where I lived from '07-'10, where you've got miles of broken down houses with boarded up windows and misshapen people wandering around. Sure there are some poor people, and some neighborhoods are better than others. Bad neighborhoods are a couple blocks around the train station. You don't have the same sort of despair you see in the US.

Crid is right in that Switzerland falls under the general umbrella of US protection. Switzerland does have its own army, which every able-bodied male is a part of, unless he was out of the country during his youth or something.

On another note, here's a private women's shelter that I volunteered at when I was a teen:
http://www.rosiesplace.org/page.aspx?pid=196
Note the sentence at the bottom where they mention where they get their funding. I'm guessing you haven't spent much time working in the non-profit sector.

There are shelters for men only. In Philly, at least, the neglected group was not men, it was boys 16-18, too old for the family shelters and too young for the male shelter. I worked with kids in a family shelter, and this was a problem my colleagues discussed.

See... I think there's something very strange about showing up to an event with your own booze supply. I wouldn't invite you back.

Interesting. I was taught when growing up that you should always bring something to a party, if only a bottle of wine. The way my father put it was "You always kick the door when you arrive." "Why?" "Because your bloody hands should be full!"

I'm really just trying to be polite, I recognise that others may not have a lazy six-pack lying around in the fridge so I bring my own.

And Jim P, yes. I could go on disability support, treatment, etc tomorrow. Instead I'm going to keep fighting it on my own. Which is where the social stigma argument fails, because I'm outside the system. It helps that I'm very good at hiding it, and to a certain extent controlling it.

> You don't have the same sort of despair you
> see in the US.

Nor, I'd argue, do you see the soaring (if all too rare) personal achievement.

Jim, the social welfare is from the government. We were recently asked to vote on how much to raise the rates we pay out.

NicoleK,

Did you see anywhere, in this blog item or anywhere else, that I said anything against private charity? My objection is when social welfare is part of the government.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can you find SSI, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and many other items. Your individual state may have it in it's Constitution, but I doubt it.

I was a member of several different organizations for years. Whenever the members would need something, we would do anything from pass the hat to have a major function -- gratis for the member in need -- that would supply them with what they needed.

But the government is not the answer in general. Look how well they do with welfare, schools, health care, and just about any other topic you can name.

Crid, given its small population, Switzerland is doing just fine achievement-wise. We've got a guy flying around the world in a solar plane.

Jim, I don't understand your post, you asked me if the Swiss social services I was talking about were govt or private, the ones I was talking about were govt.

Someone mentioned that there were no private shelters in the US except for the Salvation army, that's flat-out wrong and I provided a counter example.

On the govt note, -most- attempts to privatize public schools have failed and made the schools worse, not better.

LTW, bringing a bottle of wine as a hostess gift or to be shared amongst the guests is NOT the same as "showing up with your own stash", as an acquaintance of mine did when she brought a flask for her own use. That's like a fat person, worrying that the hostess might provide an inadequate dessert like sorbet or fruit salad, bringing their own chocolate cake, hiding it in a large purse, and taking bites of it all evening. Rude, strange, and pathetic.

I always bring enough for others Nicole! And it's not hidden. It's not my stash, it's my contribution. If people want some, that's fine by me. If they don't, that's fine also. I'm not violent and I'm rarely obnoxious. Maybe a bit over-talkative. Strange - I'll cop that. Rude and pathetic - piss off.

My point is I'm very honest and open about it. No hiding in purses. If you can't cope with that, well, you're in the category of "friends" I've shed over the years. I'm not in any way trying to insult my hosts for inadequate provision - mostly they give me warning anyway so I know whether to stock up on the way, some will tell me "there's still some here from last time" or whatever. I just don't like to turn up empty handed and drink their place dry. What's bad about that?

> We've got a guy flying around the world in
> a solar plane.

We've got a guy trying to wipe out malaria.

I like our guy better.

This article is right on so far as I'm concerned. I would like to blog about my personal thoughts and blog it here too.