Couple of authors wrote into the LA Times supporting the idea that pharmacists should be able to prescribe medicines. They say that pharmacists know more about pharmacology than physician assistants and nurse practitioners who are allowed to prescribe. The flaw of this reasoning is that pharmacists don't examine the patient. Making the right diagnosis is the most important part of prescribing treatment. I don't know how you can make the right diagnosis without examining the patient. They point to the morning after pill which someone can purchase without a prescription just by talking to the pharmacist. According to them the next logical step would be to allow medicines for migraines and cholesterol to be sold behind the counter. This does not seem logical to me. If a woman comes in and say that she needs emergency birth control, there is no need to examine her to see if she really had sex last night. But over the years I have had many patients who come in and tell me that they have migraines but upon further questioning and examination, I found that the cause of their headache was not migraines. Treating cholesterol requires ordering and interpreting test results. This is not something pharmacists are trained to do.

It is legal for doctors to dispense medications. I choose not to do so for two reasons. First I believe that pharmacists play a very important role in assuring the safety of the patient. Just like any human being, I make mistakes. When I make a mistake on my prescription a pharmacist usually would point it out to me. If I dispense the medicine myself, this layer of protection is lost. So if a pharmacist prescribes and dispenses, wouldn't that layer of protection be lost? The second reason is that it gives an appearance that I may prescribe more to make a greater profit. Most of the doctors who dispense and most pharmacists who would prescribe are probably honest. But some would be dishonest. If the government and the patients think that one step shopping is the best way to go, then I guess I may have to dispense as well to keep up with the times. I hope it won't come to that.

The authors of the article are economists. While I understand that economics teach us that free market usually works the best, it is not the case here. When the person who provides the product is able to tell the buyer what and how much to buy, free market forces are not at work. More people prescribing and dispensing will lead to higher and not lowe healthcare costs. Believe me if you can walk into a pharmacy and get medicine without being examined, you will see more advertising by pharmaceutical companies to encourage people to do so. These companies will also pitch to the pharmacists who unlike most doctors who only prescribes will have more incentive to sell more. With more medicine taken, more complications will certainly follow and there will be more healthcare spending. So the economic calculations by these authors are totally wrong.

Now that Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize, there is more interest to the idea that he would run for president. I don't think that it is likely that he would jump in now. It would be difficult to build a campaign team strong enough to knock out front-runner Hilary Clinton. It would also be awkward to go against his former boss. Gore is more popular than ever now that he is not running for any office. Once he gets back into it he becomes a target more than an admired statesman. The only way I can see him getting the nomination is if Obama and Edwards can make a race out of this, to show that Hilary is vulnerable. That way as a compromised candidate who can unite the party, Gore may be drafted. I think he would beat the Republican candidate easily. Most people like him better now and many still think he got robbed last time so he will get sympathy votes from independents.

I would vote for Gore is he declares. I don't like Hilary and Edwards. I think Obama is too inexperienced. I don't buy all the science that Gore puts out there but I applaud his effort. Even if things are not as bad as he paints it, there is no reason not to try to improve the environment. Anyone who sits in traffic behind a bus knows that fossil fuels are not good for us. Having been to China recently I am convinced that the energy policy of world is heading for a disaster, it is only a matter of when. So, yes, Gore gets too much credit and awards. But who else have any better ideas?

Of the declared candidates, I like Joe Biden the best. I think he is the most qualified and he is a moderate. Of course, he has no chance of winning. So if Gore doesn't run I don't know who to vote for yet. Biden is the most experienced, having been chairman of the judicial and foreign relations committees. He supported the war, as did just about everyone else. But he did try to delay the Bush administration from starting the war by joining with Republican Richard Lugar to try to use diplomacy first. While I don't agree with him totally, he does present a reasonable solution to the war by dividing the country into 3 parts with a weak central government. He got himself into trouble in 1988 when he ran against Michael Dukakis. He made a speech which was almost identical to one a British politician gave before. He had given credit to that person every time but he forgot once to do so. He was accused of plagerizing and lost all steam. I think he would have beaten Dukakis in 88 but probably would have lost to Bush I. He got himself into trouble right away this campaign with his remark about Obama which I think was way overblown. But he does not generate any enthusiasm which is too bad. I think he is more respected around world leaders than any of the other candidates. Maybe he will be secretary of state under a democratic administration.

Clarence Thomas is finally coming out of hibernation. He is speaking out for the first time since his confirmation hearings. Of course, he is doing so because he is promoting a book! I am not a fan of Thomas and I think he got out of trouble during the hearings by using the race card. Nevertheless I watched his interview of Sixty Minutes and I found that I agree with some of the things he said.

Thomas was brought up by his grandfather, a no nonsense guy who would not accept excuses for failures. Thomas graduated from Holy Cross near the top of his class. Then he was accepted at Yale Law. Thomas described himself not as a liberal but a radical in his early years. This gradually changed after he got into Yale. He thought the white liberal establishment believed that given the chance blacks can succeed as well as whites. What he found out was that he was treated as a token under the affirmative action program. Even though he believed that he got in based on merit, he felt that others believed that he was not qualified. He had trouble getting a job even with a Yale diploma. I believe that Thomas was right on this. When I went to college there was a strong push to recruit more blacks with the idea that leveling the playing field was the reason. But I got the sense that the powers in the universities were just trying to fill quotas so as to not make their institution seem racist. I don't think that they truly believe that blacks had the ability to compete academically on their own. I mean if they truly believe that they are just trying to even the playing field, then they should do it by economic standards. There is no reason why a black doctor's child should have preference over a poor white kid. By using race it makes people believe that all blacks at the school were not qualified. In reality some were excellent students and should be recognized just as that. There were others who did get in by affirmative action only and they would have been better off at a lowere level school. By admitting these students the school was reinforcing the stereotype of the unqualified black.

Thomas was also right in that his critics had no business saying he is an uncle Tom for being on the conservative side. When he couldn't get a job it was a Republican, Senator Danforth of Missouri, who helped him find one. Danforth was his mentor in Washington and introduced him to the powers of the Republican party. Thomas was also comfortable with the change because he was brought up by his grandfather to be self-reliant and not accept the victim's mentality. These certainly are values closer to the conservative side than the liberal side. So it is understandable that he switched parties. He should not be vilified for that. Afterall, Hilary Clinton swithced from Republican to Democrat.

While it is all right for Thomas to be against affirmative action, it is undeniable that he benefited from it. Sure he was a good student but it is unlikely that if he was white and graduated in the middle of his Yale class, he would have caught the eye of Danforth. He certainly would not have moved up in Washington so quickly. And there was no chance that a white man would have been nominated to the Supreme Court after one and half year of undistinguished service on the Appeals Court. To replace Thurgood Marshall at that. There were many more candidates that were more qualified and Bush was not being honest when he said that he picked the best man and it had nothing to do with his color.

Thomas also would have more trouble getting confirmed if he was not black. While the whole Anita Hill situation probably was leaked illegally, once it was leaked, the Senate had no choice but to investigate. By using the word lynching, Thomas was using the race card that many liberals have used. By using the word lynching, Thomas insulted all those blacks who suffered that fate. It was not a lynching. If a white man was accused of the same thing, the senate would have acted the same way. Well, except once Thomas used the word, all the liberal senators, in particulary Ted Kennedy, shut up right away. White guilt or liberal doctrination had made little boys out of these supposedly powerful men.

So I agree with Thomas on somethings and disagree with him on others. Usually I do that with liberals also. I think it is good to listen to all side and make judgment on each issue based on its merit. That's why I think dangerous and crazy men like Ahmandinejad should be listened to. I probably won't change my mind but usually I learn something. I don't think I would learn much if I only listen to people I agree with. Someday maybe America will even listen to dangerous and crazy men like Lawrence Summers! What do you think, liberals?