You can use any overused sports euphemism you want, but none of them really personify how immense tonight’s game is. The NBA Finals has come down to the final game of the season for only the 5th time in the last three decades. This will be the second time these two historic franchises play in a Game 7, with Larry Bird’s Celtics beating Magic Johnson’s Lakers in 1984. With all eyes on Staple’s Center tonight, many questions still hang in the balance; will this cement Kobe Bryant as a legend? Can they Celtics still compete without Kendrick Perkins? Will the Celtics add their 18th championship? Or will the Lakers win their 5th ring in 11 years? Will Phil Jackson pay homage to Pat Riley, the last Lakers coach to win an NBA Finals Game 7, and slick his hair back? Maybe not, but anything can happen. Welcome to Game 7.
Given the amount of anger, rancor and frustration aimed at BP in the two months since their Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig exploded and began spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, it’s somewhat shocking that anyone would rush to the defense of the giant oil company. And yet that is what a few politicians, both American and British, are starting to do as the Obama Administration begins a long effort to extract billions of dollars from BP to pay for the clean up and relief effort along the Gulf Coast. First Rep. Joe Barton from Texas apologized to the CEO of BP during today’s tense hearings in the House; then the governor of Mississippi questioned the logic of penalizing BP to the point of possible bankruptcy. Can BP possibly be viewed as a victim in this oil spill mess? And how much money will the government be able to get from BP, through civil and criminal cases, and how much of that will be funneled to the small businesses and other victims in states like Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi?
The FDA finished their review of data on the first "female Viagra", flibanserin, a pill anticipated to work in treating premenopausal women suffering from low sex drive. The data shows that when compared with a placebo, the response rate of Flibanserin was "not compelling," and the drug yielded only slight improvements for treating hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD). So, for the almost 40% of women in America who suffer from low-desire, they are back at square one. As simple as one would think, there is currently no medication that combats the issues found in women who suffer from HSDD. Many thought that “Lady Viagra”, as it was coined, would be the beginning of a new era for many women, but the research shows only a slight improvement for treating the ailment. So why is it so difficult to treat women for HSDD? With such a large percentage of women suffering from it, why haven’t they conjured up something to help?
The Federal Reserve took direct aim at credit card issuers this week. They adopted several new rules to protect credit card holders including a $25.00 cap on late fees, a reduction of penalty fees, and a ban on “inactivity” fees. In addition, they’ve asked (not mandated) card issuers to lower the interest rates that some raised at the beginning of the year in anticipation of the new regulations. The American Bankers Association claims they will “work quickly and diligently” to comply with the new rules. But some consumer watchdog groups feel the new rules don’t go far enough and warn that credit card companies will simply find new ways to stick it to consumers. Patt’s interest is piqued.
When your computer fails and you are forced to restart all you have to do is press a button but if the United States was under a so-called cyber attack would President Obama be able to turn off the internet? Sen. Lieberman has proposed a bill that would give the President power to seize control of the internet in response to a national security threat. Does the President not currently have the ability to power down? Does anyone? Should anyone? Who, if anyone, would be responsible for the economic damages of going from you’ve got mail to you’ve got nothing?
First it was a ban on plastic bags, now the City by the Bay has tentatively passed an ordinance requiring cell phone companies to post their SAR “specific absorption rate” levels next to their phones at retail outlets. Research on the link between cell phone use and specific types of brain cancer has been inconclusive, but consumer advocates feel the new regulations give consumers a choice, at least until the research is more definitive. The cell phone industry argues that the SAR levels are listed in user manuals and on the manufactures’ website. They contend that posting the levels next to the phone gives consumers a false choice. The FCC considers any cell phone with a SAR level under 1.6 watts per kilogram to be safe. So, the difference between a 1.4 and a 1.1 rating may be negligible and is still within safe levels. Patt gets the 411 on the radiation levels coming from that buzz in your pants.
Patt Morrison is known for its innovative discussions of local politics and culture, as well as its presentation of the effects of national and world news on Southern California.
