OxyClean Was The Only "Oxy" He Wasn't Ingesting..... We Think

Whoa, Billy Mays!

Looks like his sudden and tragic death at the age of 50 was not just "one of those things that could happen to anybody."

Toxicology reports on Mays revealed the following drugs....

Hydrocodone (Vicodin),
Oxycodone (painkiller)
Alprazolam (Xanax)
Nordiazepam (Valium)
Temazepam (anti-anxiety)

alcohol....

and Benzoylecgonine (a byproduct of cocaine).

Which puts Mays into the pantheon of Anna Nicole Smith, Heath Ledger, and Michael Jackson in terms of being a walking pharmacy.

Not that we are a nation that is on a runaway train of anti-depressant use and plastic surgery. Naaaahhhh....

There was this nugget I read recently which stuck in my head...


The number of Americans taking antidepressants doubled to 10.1 percent of the population in 2005 compared with 1996, increasing across income and age groups, a study found. An estimated 27 million Americans ages 6 and older were taking the drugs by 2005, while their use of psychotherapy declined, according to Columbia University researchers. The findings highlight the need for doctors who are not psychiatrists and prescribe the medicines to be trained to diagnose and manage depression so patients get the most effective treatment, said the study’s lead author.

Now, let me be clear. I know plenty about this subject from first hand experience. While I am not on any mood altering drugs, I know several extended family members who are. And trust me, they are LIVE SAVING, quality enhancing miracles.

You can't just say "take a brisk walk and think happy thoughts."

That said, the increasingly easy recreational use of these drugs does seem to be picking up tempo. And if you are rich, famous or both, you can certainly "afford" to start poppin' the pills like tic-tacs.

Until you drop dead, that is.

Analogy Fail

Recently, when Barack Obama was pushing the challenging but - he thinks - do-able task of re-arranging massive aspects of the entire health care industry in America, he invoked the Apollo 11 space mission to use as a comparative rallying point.

Uhhhh... try again.

To think that the Apollo 11 mission and ObamaCare are comparable in the least, is a joke. Analogy = FAIL.

The reasons are simple.

Yes, it took Uncle Sam's wallet to fund NASA and the people in charge of putting us on the moon. Yes, it took JFK's stated mission to land on the moon as a generational challenge to official put us on the clock. Yes, it also took Russians working hard in their own backyard on the thing to prompt us along.

But after all that, it took a room full of extremely smart - likely, brilliant - scientists and mathemeticians to get Messers Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins up and back without a scratch.

The people who populate Congress are not that smart.

Not by a moon shot.

On a good day, our politicians are stupid, lazy, corrupt, and horny. Don't ask about all their other days. The men in charge of the Apollo 11 mission wake up smarter than 99% of us will ever be on our best day.

Plus, the moon landing was relatively simple compared to overhauling the most complex part of our trillion dollar economy. Moon landings are math. Health care is complicated choices, the vagaries of personal habits and genetics, and limited resources.

Lastly, whether or not Neil Armstrong came back to earth as a national hero, or a crispy burnt chicken nugget in a tin can, didn't matter personally to every working person in America. Sure, we'd have been sad. Very sad. But we'd press on. Like after the Challenger disaster.

The cost of botching Apollo 11 was relatively low. Would we be embarrassed as a nation? Maybe. Would we lose some good, good men? Maybe. But in all likelyhood, we'd have a line of even braver men volunteering for the next mission to the moon, because that's how we roll.

And we'd have figured it out.

Good luck on fixing our complex health care system if the Democrats succeed in breaking it totally. Is it perfect now? Hell no. Nobody said that. But government's ability to complete fuck something up, is beyond debate.

Rasmussen Reports said back in February that "voters strongly agree with the perspective that “No matter how bad things are, Congress can always find a way to make them worse.” Fifty-eight percent (58%) share that view, and only 26% disagree."

This was before the $787 StimuFail package, and the now hilarious dog-chasing-his-tail economic policy of "Cash for Clunkers."

So stop the moon landing thing. As an analogy, it blows up on the launch pad. Government didn't put us on the moon, scientists did. And we paid for it anyway.

The Numbers Sometimes Lie, But You Still Have To Listen

Athletes will sometimes scold the fans by saying "It's not all about the numbers."

That usually lasts right up until same athlete produces numbers that he and his agent now claim are the keys to Fort Knox.

Consider the case of Redskins free agent defensive end Andre Carter. David Elfin of the Washington Times has an interesting take on this Dan Snyder purchase that is neither boom nor bust.

Carter defies easy classification on the free agent scorecard.

On the one hand, he's a noticeable liability against the run. He has produced double-digit sacks just once since arriving, and there have been few games where any Redskin fan has raved "Man, Carter is just dominating this game!"

On the other hand, he hasn't missed a game since arriving here, and has been no worse than tied for the team lead in sacks at the end of each year, and the 8th best run defense couldn't have sucked that much with him starting every game last year at defensive end.

Personally, I like Carter. I like his attitude, he sense of responsibility, the fact he won't duck the media, and is cut like a Roman football god. And as far as Danny/Vinny free agent purchases go, he's not even close to being in the Bottom 10.

That being said, I must take exception to this quote from defensive coordinator Greg Blache: "People base success on sacks alone, and that's not what it's about," said Blache, who added that Carter led the team with 16 hurries and was often just a half-step late. "We're trying to make something that's mostly an art into a science. Putting numbers to it just doesn't work. They didn't paint the Mona Lisa by numbers. They didn't paint the Sistine Chapel by numbers. Numbers are for the idiots that can't paint."

In the case of defensive ends in the NFL, I actually DO think it's pretty much all about your ability to get to the quarterback and take him down. Period. Just like a wide receiver's job is to catch the ball and get into the end zone. Period.

Some positions are more nuanced in the NFL, but not defensive end. Get to the damn QB and cause havoc.

Sure, you can't be just a coin-seeking stat whore like Bruce Smith was in his dying days. You have to be CREDIBLE against the run. But few defensive ends in this league brag about themselves as being all about stopping the run. Those guys are called "back ups."

I also realize how freaking hard it is to actually register a sack. With all the pass-ditching-friendly rules in place now, the absurd narrowing of the QB's "strike zone", and advent of shot-gun based West Coast offenses with snap releases, I'm amazed anybody can record 10+ sacks in a year.

But it does happen, and guys that can do it (Jared Allen, Jevon Kearse, et. al.) can pretty much mint their own gold coins.

We shall see what kind of year Carter has this season. Can he go another 16-for-16? Will newcomer Brian Orakpo steal sacks from him, or generate more chances by blitzing from the LB position?

Will Haynesworth's numbers be modest, while Carter's explodes?

In all, a good read, and worthy football "food for thought."