Results matching “fear” from Bill's Words

(This is part 8 of a series. You can read the previous part here. New to the series? Start here.)

We had a great morning at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute today. I had been anxious all week about this visit, and I had some kind of weird premonition that something would be awry. So after we made it to DFCI at 5:45am for a full morning of thee CTs, two MRIs, and a blood draw, and the preliminary report from Dr. Enormous Brain was, “Yes, I think it all looks good. Not sure what these little things are because the neuroradiologists haven’t read the scans yet, but the thoracic radiologist and I think that’s probably a blood vessel or something” we were both overjoyed! Relief! I could stop clinching.

We went to lunch at The Mission Bar and Grill and enjoyed a delicious cucumber martini (Heidi) and Diet Coke (me—because I was running on fumes at that point—did you catch the 5:45am arrival time, which required departing Connecticut at 3:30am?). Throw in the shrimp Cilantro Lime Shrimp Salad for Heidi and The Mission Burger for me, and we had one humdinger of a lunch. And the bartender was very friendly, too!

On a whim, Heidi checked to see if the final reads had come back for the MRIs, and indeed, they had. She started reading at the top. I jumped to the last chapter. “Oh, shit.” That’s all I could say.

“What? This?” she said, pointing at the Big Word Description at the top.

I pointed at the bottom line: “…are most likely metastatic tumors.” Tumors. Plural. My innards went wobbly, and Heidi and I both began to sob quietly on the barstools with each other. I’m sure that the bartender has seen that happen there before, and it happened again today.

So that’s what a falling shoe sounds like. Silence. Quiet muscle spasms racking our bodies as we silently and tearfully recognized that the day we had been dreading… the first of the many that we have been dreading… had actually come. Our first of the worst fears had been realized.

We were fortunate that we were at DFCI which, though it is an enormous cancer institute with thousands of specialists and caregivers and patients, had enough time to see us again. We called and left a message for Dr. Enormous Brain, who had clinic hours continuing into the afternoon, and his coordinator called us back to say, “Come on up. Wait and he’ll squeeze you in.” And so we did. And indeed he did, too. He came out to the waiting room, retrieved us, and said in a compassionate way, “Well. That is not what I was hoping for.”

Though he was squeezing us in, he carefully reviewed the notes from the radiologist with us, helped us understand that the tumors are 2mm in size (which is very small, and very early days yet), and described some of the possible treatment plans. In the intervening days (I am finishing this several weeks later following that visit) we have returned to DFCI to consult with Dr. Zapthetumor, the radiological oncologist (another enormous brain!) and he’s expanded our knowledge of what’s going on exponentially.

Essentially, there are four combinations of changing drugs and zapping tumors. They are: change drugs, zap tumors; change drugs, don’t zap tumors; don’t change drugs, zap tumors; don’t change drugs, don’t zap tumors. Add in wait/don’t wait, and there are really eight paths.

Let’s do a rundown on the possibilities, starting with drug changes.

First, should she change drugs? Well, really, is there a reason to? Her current drug is crizotinib. It is doing very well at controlling the tumors in her body. From the neck down, all’s currently in check. Crizotinib doesn’t cross the blood/brain barrier particularly well. That’s an amazingly hard-to-cross physical barrier between the bloodstream and the brain tissue. It really does a great job of keeping everything out of the brain that shouldn’t be there, and only admitting the good stuff to the brain. You know, oxygen, nutrients, and so forth. However, some drugs don’t make the cut particularly well, and crizotinib is one of them. There are several other drugs that do make the crossing well: lorlatinib, entrectonib and reprotrectonib, all newer drugs of the “…nib” type. They can cross that boundary and, in theory, can find these two tiny tumors in her brain and kill them with carefree abandon. So why not go ahead and switch to one of those?

There are four reasons not to switch:

1 - Each one comes with more side effects than the crizotinib, which she’s tolerating pretty well.

2 - Every new tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that she starts means that she can’t go back to one that she’s already been on, so it’s forward motion only, so that’s the downside. Weight gain, neuropathy (tingling and numbness in fingers and toes, for example), and other unpleasant side effects can happen, but they’re not guaranteed, nor are they worse than death. So lorlatinib has a pretty good upside. If it works.

3 - We think that the more TKIs she’s been on, the less likely she’ll be accepted into a study for a drug which is entering clinical trials (we hope!) this fall. I am hypothesizing that the more confounding factors involved in her previous treatments, the less likely the statisticians will recommend her as a good candidate for the new drug’s trial.

4 - We don’t know how effective the new drug will be in general. Remember that none of these “nib” drugs were specifically designed for ROS1 fusions. Really?! Yep. They were all designed for ALK mutations and they happen to work against ROS1. There’s a risk, though pretty small, that the new drug won’t be as effective.

So, stick with crizotinib.

Second, there’s the question of what to do to the two 2mm tumors in her brain. They are very small: 2mm is a bit thicker than a penny, so they’re very, very small. (Note to Dr. Inthedark, the enormous brain who read those films: Thank you! for finding those minuscule spots!! Every doc we’ve met with who saw those spots says they were impressed that they were found in the first place! In fact, Dr. Zapthetumor said that they are at the hairy edge of being visible on an MRI—a 2mm spot is as small as can be detected!)

I’ll start with the punchline first: Dr. Zapthetumor said to wait and get another MRI six weeks after this one because there are several unknowns:

1 - Are these two spots real, and might they go away on their own? In answer to the first question, they are most likely real and not necessarily an artifact of, say, the angle at which Heidi’s head was placed in the MRI. Two of them appeared at the same time, which is too coincidental to ignore. And in answer to the second question, yes, they could. Crizotinib does have some effectivity on the other side of the blood/brain barrier, but that’s a low probability outcome. Could they just get absorbed somehow? Yes, that’s happened, too, according to others in the ROS1ders group. So a second MRI is necessary to see if they’re real and if they’re still there to treat.

2 - If these two spots are real, how fast are they growing? If they’re growing quickly, then intervention is necessary sooner than later. Again, since our goal is to preserve Heidi’s candidacy for the clinical trial this fall, we might want to delay until the study gets to say “Zap em!” or not. However, with larger size comes greater risk to surrounding tissue during SRS and greater the chance that neurological effects (when the tumor’s around 20mm or so, roughly the diameter of a penny) may be observed, so there’s a delicate balance here. Also, Dr. Zapthetumor said that the trials he’s known of have asked that SRS be performed before the trial. So we don’t know much more than that.

3 - Are there more of them? If so, how fast are they appearing? We only have two snapshots in time separated by six months, so we have no idea whether there are more, tinier tumor seeds lurking elsewhere in her brain. Beyond a certain number of lesions (fancy word for “tumors”), you don’t get to use SRS and have to look at whole-brain radiation.

Err… es-squeeze me? SRS? Whole brain radiation?! Like, Three-Mile Island?!

Yes. Well, sort of. So let’s take a moment to talk about radiation.

Every minute of every hour of every day, you and I are bombarded by radiation. It comes naturally from the sun, from our environment, from electrical devices and radio stations, and really there’s no way to avoid it. Most of that radiation, if not all, has absolutely no effect on us. But when a cell is exposed to a high enough dose of radiation, the cell is damaged beyond repair and it dies or mutates. (Of course, in the case of cancer, we hope to kill the cell, not have it mutate!) What is “enough”? Well, it’s a function of both time and intensity. Expose a cell to a low dose of radiation for a long enough time, and it’ll die. Expose a cell to a high dose of radiation for a short time, and it’ll die. Keep that time-dose exposure low enough, though, and not much happens.

The least-invasive and lowest-side-effect means of killing cancer cells in the brain is to do what is known as stereotactic radio surgery, or SRS. The procedure is entirely non-invasive and uses upwards of 200 very small beams of radiation to kill cancer cells. The procedure works because each of these 200 small beams isn’t strong enough to do much harm to the tissues it passes through. However, where all 200 of them intersect, there’s a lot of radiation and the cells in that intersection are killed. If you want to see how this works for yourself, next time you have a campfire, shine two flashlights through the smoke at each other. You’ll notice that the beams are brightest where the two of them intersect. That’s exactly what SRS does, except with 200 very low-power beams of radiation so that where they intersect, you get 200 times as much radiation.

I asked three questions about SRS which I hadn’t been able to find on the web.

First, what’s the resolution of SRS? It’s 1mm, which is amazing (to me, anyway), which means that that 2mm lesion can be zapped, and a minimal amount of tissue around the lesion will be touched.

Second, when a tumor is removed from the body, a “clean margin” is established around the tumor. The margin is determined by microscopic examination of the tissue to see that there are no cancer cells at the edge of the removed tissue. Since you can live without good chunks of each organ in your body, that’s OK below the neck. But in the brain, since all brain tissue is important, the minimum amount of tissue is zapped because you might zap something important, like Aunt Irma’s recipe for carrot cake, and that would be a tragedy. (Or walking. You know, nothing all that important.)

Third, what’s the upper limit to the number of lesions you can treat with SRS? Right now, that number seems to be about six. Why six? There’s a lot of computation that goes into making sure that the current treatment doesn’t intersect with any other ray from any other treatment. Why not? Well, same reason as before—the more radiation that a cell gets, the more damaged it becomes. However, at DFCI, they’re experimenting with a randomized group of patients where they think they can treat up to 20 lesions before damage becomes a problem.

Then what about whole-brain radiation? How do the cancer cells get zapped and not the good brain cells? Well… they all do, and nobody really knows enough yet. There are very likely to be long-term side-effects of whole-brain radiation. So we’d really, really, really like to avoid it.

There’s a lot that will go into the decision whether to use SRS or WBR and when, which led to another one of my questions, Is there a risk of leaving these tumors there? Will they spawn other tumors? The simple answer is, No, they won’t, but they might get bigger and require intervention anyway. Wait a minute… how’d they get there in the first place? What I didn’t know is that when you talk about a metastatic cancer, what you’re saying is that the cancer from one part of the body left that part of the body and is now found somewhere else. These things in Heidi’s brain are most likely not brain tumors, but likely are lung cancer cells growing in Heidi’s brain. Weird. What that means, though, is that they travelled north from her lymph nodes through the bloodstream until they got caught in the brain and started to grow there. (There’s a fancy word with the root of “hemo” which I can’t remember for this activity of wandering about via the bloodstream.)

And there you have it. Wandering cancer cells, zapping tumors, the blood brain barrier, and hope.

Speaking of hope, someone asked me how we cope with this. Heidi is an effervescent ray of sunshine and somehow “optimistic”s her way through things, and if there’s one thing that you apparently need as a cancer patient, it’s optimism. (Tell somebody about cancer, and without a scintilla of expertise, they’ll assert that you need to keep your spirits up and to be positive—whether it’s true or not.) Me? I bury myself in the research and look at all possible avenues, and as long as there’s an avenue, I’ve got hope. I can tell you that I don’t place all my hope in science and that I have a good deal of faith in God, too, because there are just too many variables of the cancer’s progression (or regression!) for any of us to have true control of what’s going on.

Only One has that kind of power.

Read Part 9 here.

It has been a good day. That’s compared to yesterday, which was a not-so-good day. And the day before it, that one was a not-quite-bad day. The day before that? That was a horrible day. The day before that day? Oh, that one was superb.

And thus began the roller coaster ride that is cancer. My fiancé, Heidi, is a cancer survivor. She was accidentally diagnosed five years ago with a stage I non-small-cell adenocarcinoma tumor in her lung. “Accidentally” because she went in for a chest x-ray because she had some pretty serious bronchitis. When she woke up from the surgery which was to remove the newly-found tumor, she was told they’d removed her lower left lobe, which equates to a significant part of her lung capacity. She was a tad dismayed, but when she was told that she was clear of cancer—cured, as it were—she went on her merry way.

…until somebody reviewed what they found in her lung and decided that the lymph system had been involved. And so they threw the kitchen sink at her: chemotherapy with cisplatin. Having survived that with flying colors, she was declared cured pending five years of followup.

In the meantime, she and I met in October of last year. Because of COVID Spring 2020, we had considerable time together, learning more about each other than I think either one of us thought possible in such a short time. She watches out for my health, and I watch out for hers. Neither one of us is a spring chicken, having just turned 50-years-young, but we’re in pretty good shape. She had some bronchitis early this spring with a persistent cough, but that’s about it. And I have an array of weird genetic and non-genetic anomalies that make me just interesting enough to the docs to keep them interested.

And so it would not have been at all surprising to anybody if Heidi had called and declined a 5-year CT scan, saying that COVID-19 “is a thing” and that she feels fine, which she does! But no. Instead, the ever-compliant patient dutifully reported for her final and fifth annual CT scan, the one that decides whether she has earned the label “cured.” A few zaps of the X-rays later, and she was prepared to hear the words,

“Off you go! You’re cured.” Whee! It’s all down hill from here!

What she heard devastated her and me both. Instead of “clear” and “unremarkable,” the words were “concerning” and “suspicious.” Her oncologist called her in and explained that there appeared to be cancer in several lymph nodes. Worse yet, if it really were metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), then the treatment plan would be palliative.

Palliative Care is not End-of-Life Care (Even Though it Kinda’ is…)

For those of you not familiar with what palliative care is, let me explain that it’s not the same thing as comfort care, such as is hospice care. What it means is that the treatment is not going to cure the patient and is going to be something that lasts throughout the rest of the patient’s life. But because cancer is a mean and nasty disease, palliative care would last for months, maybe 12-18. And “years” is out of the question.

There was a lot of crying that day. I’m a big man, and yet she and I cried on the floor of her bedroom. The sobs came easily, because why wouldn’t they? Also, I thought palliative care was the same as hospice care, so I was really angry at God. We had met our ideal partners. We’d just started thinking about what retirement might look like. We had committed to each other, regardless of our marital status. Our families had adopted us into the other’s family with such rapidity that we were both amazed. Life was just getting started. Yes, even at 50. This was a blow.

What I didn’t know about her is just how feisty and fierce she really is. At 5’2” (rounding up these days), she is a tiny human, as she likes to say. “Small but mighty!” are her watchwords. And so she dragged me upward out of the anxiety and depression that I sank into. What we did worked well for us; maybe it will help you, too, whether you’re the caregiver or the cared-for.

Mentally Dealing with the Diagnosis

Any time I asked, “How are you feeling?” she would respond with, “I feel well. I’m not anxious. I’m not worried. I’m a little annoyed.” and I would repeat each phrase back to her, “You feel well. You’re not anxious.” and so forth. It became a mantra. It was edited a little bit as time went on. She stayed annoyed for some time because, really? Returning lung cancer? After five years? For a never-smoker? Who wouldn’t be annoyed?!

To this day, we continue this practice. Sometimes we add, “And we’ll be OK.” We don’t really know that in the earthly sense, of course, but we have it on good authority that the long term—eternal, that is—sees us as being more than OK.

Denial Doesn’t Usually Work

The next step, of course, was flat out denial. Well, these are lymph nodes, after all, and she was sick, so isn’t it possible that it’s an infection and the lymph nodes are doing what they’re supposed to do? Her oncologist told us “No,” and the cardio-thoracic surgeon who was consulting with us at the time, and who had performed the lobectomy years before, spotted us a “Well, maybe, but highly unlikely.” The oncologist ordered a PET scan. She reported for that PET scan and we anxiously awaited the results.

In the meantime, the oncologist had ordered a stat biopsy of one of the nodes and an MRI of the brain, but we didn’t know about the MRI yet. Let me tell you on my good authority, you don’t screw around with the emotions of a cancer patient. Here’s how I know.

Don’t Mess with a Cancer Patient’s Emotions

We had arranged a family vacation to Pawley’s Island, South Carolina, right in the middle of a COVID-19 hotspot, for late July to celebrate Heidi’s 50th birthday. My parents, my sister and her family, and the two of us would be there. While we were waiting for the rooms to be ready, a scheduler called from the imaging center (not Hartford Hospital’s, but one that will remain nameless) and asked Heidi when she would like to schedule her stat MRI of the brain and a biopsy to be performed in four to six weeks.

When it’s the scheduler telling you that an MRI to detect brain tumors has been ordered (but not mentioned by the oncology team) and she can’t explain anything, and when it’s the scheduler telling you that your stat procedure won’t happen for a month or so, you tend to explode, but in the nicest way possible. You tend to ask why these orders contradict the ones you know about. You get very sarcastic and cutting. You begin tearing the scheduler “a new one”—in a nice way. You then begin to worry about why the oncologist has ordered an MRI of your head because isn’t the cancer in your lymph nodes in your chest and just what the hell is he looking for in your head that you don’t know about?

At that point, through anger and tears, you call your oncologist who can’t be reached because it seems he’s on vacation again (well-earned—we get it!) and the oncologist’s MA turns out to be the most helpful person in the world. Kudos to Kristan; she figured out what was going on and to make a long story short, the scheduler had no idea what she was talking about, the scheduler wasn’t supposed to have called the patient at all, and Kristan would have been able to help if things had gone right in the first place.

All was figured out when the MRI was explained off as standard procedure (though we didn’t understand until later) and the biopsy was scheduled for the day after we returned from vacation.

During our vacation, we prayed hard for an infection. Heck, we even prayed hard for COVID-19. Anything but cancer.

And during our vacation, the cardio-thoracic surgeon called and walked us through the results of the PET scan.

It was cancer. No two ways about it; it wasn’t an infection. It wasn’t COVID-19. It wasn’t an erroneous result for somebody named “Peidi Hartain.” It was Cancer. Again.

We cried that day, too, and we prayed for a miracle.

Why an MRI is Needed Even with a PET Scan

That didn’t necessarily make us feel better, but his explanation to us why the MRI of the brain was necessary did make us feel better. The PET scan shows the cells in the body with high metabolic rates. Cancer cells, which eat more food (if you will) and grow faster than other cells in the body, have high metabolic rates. So they show up as bright colors on the PET scan. The other cells that consume a lot more food in the body are the brain cells. The brain lights up like an orange Christmas tree! A ball of sun! A bright light! And now I completely understand why depression, which kicks the brain into overdrive, can cause weight loss! (It normally accounts for about 20% of the body’s energy use.) Looking for an orange tumor cell amongst all the orange brain cells is hopeless, like staring at the sun to see sunspots. (Don’t try that.) And so an MRI is needed to look for masses that are non-brain, e.g., cancerous, in the head.

However, we had some hope left, and we now hung our hats on the glimmer of hope that we had. Because of some other lab numbers that Heidi showed, the cardio-thoracic doc said it could be run-of-the-mill lymphoma, something that is somewhat manageable and has a pretty good prognosis with a lot of folks living five years or more. That’s still not great, but any time somebody tells you that you might have metastatic lung cancer, your assumption is that you’re going to die very much sooner than five years. (And you’d be right for the most part.) The only way to find out what it really is was to do a biopsy, and so a bronchial biopsy would be performed under general anesthesia unless… unless what? I truly don’t remember now because that was about ten years ago and I can’t remember what caused a deviation from that plan.

In any case, a needle biopsy ended up being ordered on one of the axilary lymph nodes/tumors. And so a day after we returned from Pawley’s Island, paradise of the Southeastern Seaboard, Heidi was in an exam room having a needle poked around inside her armpit while her sister and I quaffed a beer at a nearby restaurant.

Never Underestimate the Value of Family

She wasn’t my sister-in-law yet, but she was there for us both. She’d flown up that week to support Heidi and, by extension, me, through some of these more difficult events. Her presence was truly a godsend. Now, if your relatives come and all they do is sponge off you and lie about on the couch all day, maybe having your family come to support you isn’t the best idea. Having Heather here, however, was helluva good. She was calm, pragmatic, and helped us avoid the emotional pitfalls we ran into.

Pretty soon, we got those results, and the answer really was, as her oncologist had expected, mNSCLC. However, the biopsy would be sent out for what is known as “moleculars,” which is a shorthand way of saying “molecular diagnostics.” The moleculars examine the genetic materials of the sample to see if there’s something wrong with them that can be treated. The oncologist told us that day that the previous tumor was PD-L1 and ALK negative. Dammit. There go the most popular treatments including immunotherapy targeted at the PD-L1 gene. On the other hand, PD-L1 is present in more-aggressive tumors (as we learned from the Interwebs and reading many papers online), so maybe that’s not such a bad thing after all.

That day was not a good day for the people at the physicians group. Why? Here’s what happened:

We visited the oncology clinic after confirming via E-mail that the appointment would be face-to-face and not telemedicine. We were told, rather rudely, that the visit was supposed to have been telemedicine. The receptionist did confirm with Heidi’s oncologist (to be fair, a wonderful doctor and caregiver), that he would see her and announced to Heidi that “The doctor will see you after all.” It was a rude start to the visit.

The nurse who checked Heidi in was pleasant, and for that we are grateful.

However, after the visit in which the diagnosis was pronounced, the doctor took us to the checkout desk where the scheduler was clearly annoyed to have had her lunch interrupted. We were not greeted in any way. She finished what she was eating. We stood there as something happened on the computer. Still, no greeting or word from her. When prompted to set up a port placement, she was unable to answer Heidi’s questions in a way which did not cause Heidi frustration. We left that clinic with a most dissatisfied opinion of its clerical staff.

Clearly, the staff needed training in patient compassion. This clinic does not deal with runny noses all day; they deal with patients whose diagnoses are life-altering and life-ending. Their attitude should match the nature of their clientele. And if they can’t be bothered to interrupt their lunch to deal with someone who just had a Stage IV cancer diagnosis pronounced, they should have been fired on the spot.

Again, there were tears shed. There were prayers said. And as Heather has oft said, “Heidi, you can’t die yet. You haven’t pissed off the last person you’re supposed to piss off.” Ain’t over ‘til the small lady rings (and presumably pisses you off during the call).

During the visit, a treatment plan was put into place that matched what we had expected, namely chemotherapy. What we were surprised by was that the standard of care for mNSCLC included an immunotherapy drug: Alimta (a chemotherapy drug), carboplatin (a chemotherapy drug) and Keytruda (an immunotherapy drug targeted at the PD-L1 genetic mutation). That last one was the surprise, precisely because of its target, which Heidi doesn’t exhibit. But it helps—the trials say so, and, well, that’s good enough for us.

In the meantime, we got in touch with the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, with our oncologist’s blessing, because if there’s something in the works, in a trial, etc., we wanted to know about it.

Thinking that we’d have the results of the moleculars back by two weeks after the biopsy (which sounded reasonable to everybody), we scheduled an appointment with DFCI and one of their Enormous Brains. (And by “we” throughout, I really mean “Heidi,” because she is super at taking care of these sorts of things. It’s a large part of her life’s work for BrightStar Care of Hartford, her company.) So we ventured north to Boston to visit the Enormous Brain.

Without the moleculars.

Yep, the moleculars were nowhere to be seen. But Dr. EB, a research oncologist specializing in thoracic cancers and who sees patients 50% of the time and researches 50% of the time, spent a good hour educating us about mNSCLC and his thoughts on the origin of this recurrence. His thoughts: for a non-smoker, a lung cancer well-removed, and over-the-top treatment of chemotherapy which was overkill to say the least, it had to be something genetic. He recommended that we go ahead and do a blood test that would reveal if there were any mutant genetic material floating around in the bloodstream. These random bits of genetic material get tossed into the bloodstream because aggresive, rapidly-growing cancer cells are, in my words, careless and messy, throwing DNA and RNA around and making a mess of otherwise-clean blood. The results of that test would take only 7-10 days; we weren’t sure how long it would take for the moleculars to return. It just made good sense.

We learned a considerable amount about targeted therapies at this meeting and it was clear that we should be really hoping for a genetic mutation that is treatable with a targeted therapy. Chemotherapy is a non-specific therapy and targets all cells which are fast-growing. That’s the cancer cells, but it’s also hair cells and lots of other cells that get killed in the crossfire. (Why it doesn’t kill brain cells, I have no idea.) Targeted therapies, on the other hand, work to attach themselves to the genetic mutation and somehow kill the cell or otherwise prevent its reproduction. They have some side effects, too, but they aren’t nearly as destructive as chemo.

To use Keytruda, or not to use Keytruda: That is the Question

Dr. EB also recommended that without the moleculars, we not proceed with the Keytruda for the first cycle of chemo. Keytruda makes lung infections more likely, and some targeted therapies also make lung infections more likely. Because Keytruda has a half-life of 26 days (meaning it’s in the body in large amounts for a considerably long period of time, with 25% remaining at the 52-day point and about 6% at the 104-day point) and because nobody’s sure if the risk of lung infection is additive or exponential, he said that if we used Keytruda, it might prevent the use of a targeted treatment if one were available. 

We agreed. He is Dr. EB, after all.

(To be fair to our local oncologist, I’m sure he’d reached the same conclusion. He’s a smart cookie.)

The best news of all, however inconsequential to her physical health it may have been, was that the three-drug soup prescribed is not so caustic as to require a port placement. What’s a port? A port is basically a piece of plastic that goes under the skin near the upper left of the chest, right about where your fingers rest when you say the Pledge of Allegiance (provided you’re not kneeling). It connects to the vena cava, a very large blood vessel that has lots of room for caustic drugs to dilute before really getting up against other tissues. When you go in for chemo, they poke a needle through your skin and into the port and deliver the drugs through the port into the big pipe. It’s a big convenience for the nurses and protects your veins and skin from the deadly (literally) drugs you’re receiving.

It’s also an emotional hurdle if you had one five years ago and fought to have it removed. It’s a symbol of the cancer’s return. It’s a touchpoint. It’s something you will fight to avoid if you can. And when you’re told that you don’t need a port, you rejoice if your name is Heidi. And that’s consequential to your mental health.

We wandered down to the phlebotomy lab and, as elsewhere, the people were kind and compassionate and willing to explain everything about everything, education seemingly part of their mission. A very nice lady poked Heidi’s arm nearly painlessly and drew the blood to be sent off to California for the testing. After that, we left for home.

Our trip home was subdued because we didn’t learn anything that was particularly promising. On the other hand, we hadn’t learned anything that was negative, either. We gained a little bit of hope in the blood test, learned about genetics and testing and targeted treatment. We also learned that Dana-Farber is a superior organization in every way to any we’ve encountered yet. That’s not saying anything about most of the individual people in the organizations we’ve encountered, but as a whole, these organizations pale compared to Dana-Farber.

Why I Would Go to Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Even if I had to Travel a Long Way

It was clear from the moment we were greeted by the parking attendant to the moment we left and were greeted by the other parking attendant that everyone at Dana-Farber was thoroughly aware that the patient and her family were there because they have a very serious illness, one which is causing mental stress, anxiety, fear, and other emotions which make coping with the myriad details of a complex visit difficult. They made every effort to make our visit as smooth as possible. Each person was efficient and effective in their roles, and yet each person we encountered was pleasant. As we left, we recognized that the pervasive atmosphere was compassion. Every single person we encountered was compassionate toward us. Though the news was no better than we had heard elsewhere, the staff around the doctor at Dana-Farber exhibited respect for the condition of the patient… and showed compassion.

Will the Waiting Never Cease?

After our visit with Dana-Farber, we consulted again with the local oncology group and set up a port-free chemo session. They agreed with Dr. EB that Keytruda would not be given for the first round and most certainly we’d have the molecular studies back sometime soon to determine what to do with the second round. They also agreed with him that a CT would be useful to assess the starting condition at the time of first round of chemo. That would give us a useful reference point to compare to when treatment is done.

Shortly after we spoke to Dr. EB the first time and had the blood draw, we had another call with him to review the results of the blood analysis. It showed almost nothing, with “nothing” being a distinct possibility. Remember that it takes an aggressive cancer to throw off enough genetic material to test? That they didn’t have enough to test is good news as far as we’re concerned. However, the results did say that there was possibly an RNA mutation, but the amount of material was so low that it was just below their threshold to call it a finding. So that report showed, essentially, nothing. And for the reason above, we considered that a good thing.

The local oncology team and Dr. EB are working well together. I do not mean to insult the local folks, either: they are danged smart and I make no comparison about their abilities to the folks at Dana-Farber. They’ve had to call the lab repeatedly to prod forward progress on the moleculars. They’ve had to answer the numerous calls we’ve made to figure out what next steps should be in light of changing circumstances. They’ve done a yeoman’s work in keeping Heidi on the right track. And it is clear that they do care. (I wish I could say the same about their support staff.)

However, the moleculars from the lab never seemed to be headed to us. It was now about five weeks after the biopsy was done, and everybody seemed to think that the results should be back. And yet we waited.

Meanwhile, the first round of chemo was administered without a hitch without a port, and Heidi was happy! Of course, after the steroids wore off, she crashed hard and was exhausted for about three days. We caught up with the oncology APRN the following week and listed off all the symptoms and were told, Yep, that’s normal. (Whew.) Things, overall, had gone pretty well.

The Waiting Ceases

We finally got the report back for the moleculars that day, too, six weeks after the sample was sent to the lab. However, they didn’t look all that great. Of the 44 DNA mutations tested for, she had only one, a PTEN mutation—and there’s no targeted treatment for that… yet. It’s an interesting mutation in that it seems to be present in a bunch of different cancers (including mNSCLC) and is a cancer suppressor. If yours is off, you’re more likely to have cancer cells running amok. And it’s hereditary. (Oh, dear, kids…)

Good news, though: initial studies have shown that cruciform veggies (e.g., broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts) have a compound which is abbreviated I3C that can, through a molecular pathway, turn that gene back on. Of course, to be effective, you’d have to eat six pounds of raw Brussels sprouts daily, so that’s not a likely solution. (There is an OTC supplement, but don’t go out and try it without talking to your doctor, of course! We asked Dr. EB about it and the problem with all of the studies so far is that they’re not in clinical trials, nobody knows whether it will help or harm tumor growth, and it might interact badly with the treatments you’re already on. So, Brussels sprouts in normal quantities, lightly sautéed in butter, please.)

Once we got that report back, we discussed it with the local oncology team and had it sent to Dr. EB with whom we had a third discussion the day before our wedding. (Yes, we got married. Heidi says I’m either brave or crazy. I just say that nobody ever talks about being sane in love and leave it at that.) During that conversation, we pointed out that the RNA results were strangely still pending. We also pointed out that the blood test showed a possible ROS1 mutation… which is an RNA mutation! In other words, there was a good possibly that there was a ROS1 mutation still out there but that the outstanding RNA tests didn’t show it yet. He was hopeful and curious in a very genuine way.

We held off on the port placement again (Heidi just couldn’t emotionally handle the port as a last resort yet) and forged ahead towards chemo round two. One week after our wedding, the local oncologist called and said that he had pestered somebody into giving him a preliminary result from the biopsy, eight weeks after the core sample. And guess what showed up?! Yep! She has a ROS1 mutation in her RNA! Yay! That’s one of the targeted treatable RNA mutations—of which there are only four tested for! He sounded genuinely pleased and happy for us because it is a big deal. The treatments available show an efficacy rate of 70% at slowing or shrinking tumor growth. That’s twice as good as chemotherapy, and some people live for years on these drugs.

Some.

But not all.

However, it’s still wonderful news. His recommendation was to continue with the second round of chemo because it would take a week to get the written report from the lab and then another week to get the drug approved by Heidi’s insurance. In the meantime, two weeks after when she would have round two administered would have passed, and leaving the cancer to do what it wants to for two weeks is not a good idea.

We called Dr. EB and he agreed with everything that the local oncologist said. His one hesitation was about round two, but after we explained why there was a two week delay, he agreed. His one suggestion was to get a second CT scan at the end of the 21 days following the second round so we know what the effect of the chemo is independent of the targeted treatment. At some point, it’s likely that the cancer will resist the targeted treatment, and it’s possible that Heidi’s in the 30%, so having an idea of the efficacy of the chemo is a good idea.

And so here we are. Heidi is ROS1 positive (ROS1+). And we’re learning all kinds of stuff about ROS1 fusions—it’s not really a mutation because some of the curly bits of the RNA have fused together at the ROS1 spot (i.e., normal RNA, just fused together where it shouldn’t be). And the more we learn, the more we can’t possibly believe that all of this stuff works and is self-repairing and so forth without a stronger belief in God. Now, we choose to believe in the God of the Bible. You may choose to believe in intelligent design. In either case, we both agree that this stuff is just too complicated to be random. It’s insanely complex. And yet… it… works….

We learned about a ROS1 treatment with a drug called crizotinib, the brand name of which is Xalkori. (I commented to Dr. EB that the generic names seem to be tongue twisters. He thinks it’s to make it more likely that we’ll call it by the brand name. I tend to agree.) Xalkori a Pfizer drug. And we will be investing in Pfizer because the daily dose is 2 capsules. At $320 each. A month’s supply is about $19,000.

Nineteen. Thousand. Dollars.

But good news! There are coupons available! (Not kidding.)

So remember we prayed for a miracle? No, we’ve not seen if this drug is effective or not, but ROS1+ is a 1% mutation of all non small cell lung cancers. So Heidi is one of about only 1,700 people annually for whom this drug would be useful. Wonder why it’s so high priced? (It’s Pfizer’s third-highest grossing drug.) Me too, but I have a good understanding of supply and demand, the economics of patents and research, and I’m not surprised that it’s expensive.

I am a little taken aback that it’s that expensive.

But we are both blessed with health insurance. And we have been blessed with each other and the support we’ve been able to give each other.

Thanks be to God.

We’ll continue to update my blog as we progress. I know this is a big brain dump, and you can see that it’s a bit of an emotional roller coaster. There is much left to come.

Resources

If you are a lung cancer patient, find a support group.

If you’re a caregiver, find a support group, too. It’s an emotional road. You’ll need your own Heather.

And donate to the American Lung Association. Please.

Lastly, if you’re ROS1 positive, check out the ROS1ders. This is a small group of people who are distilling a lot of deep science and drug info into regularly-updated summaries. Support them, too, with your time and talents.

Continue to Part 2

[Edited 9/11/2020 to clean up some punctuation, extra-long sentences, spelling (though I’m sure I’ve missed some), and such. WNE]

As I was stopped at an eternal red light on my way to work the other morning, I saw two kids in the distance. They’d stoop to pick up something and then hurl it at each other.

In my mind, I flashed back to being about 8 years old, and I was instantly aghast that I was witnessing kid vs. kid cruelty, the kind I could identify with. Emerson and Charlie and I would throw pecans and other tree droppings at each other. It was great fun… for them. I threw… let’s just say they had nothing to fear.

Pretty soon, I drove past them and saw what they were really up to. They were picking up balls and were on opposite sides of a fence. They launched the balls at minor-league pitcher speeds at the fence with the intention of getting the ball stuck in the fence, and I saw one stick in the fence. Success!

What I witnessed transformed itself from cruelty to unbridled joy, the kind of joy that I don’t think I’ve felt since I was a kid.

And I was jealous.

I’ve been listening to Tim Keller’s message called, “Real Friendship and the Pleading Priest” (here’s a link to the podcast feed). He discusses the first documented priestly interaction with God wherein Abraham pleads for the lives of those in Sodom if God can find 50 righteous people in Sodom. No no no no… wait wait wait… How about 45, no, 40? 30? 20? No, how about just 10 righteous people in Sodom?

Dr. Keller wondered aloud, “Why’d Abraham stop at 10? Why not get down to just one?” Dr. Keller posits two theories, one of which I’d like to expand on.

His two theories:

1 - Abraham just realized he was haggling with God and, doggon’ it, he’d better not push his luck! (Dr. Keller’s preferred answer.) 2 - Lot was in Sodom. If he got down to just one, all he’d have is Lot, and Lot was just semi-righteous.

I’d like to expand on that second theory.

Lot was in Sodom. If Abraham haggled all the way down to just one righteous person, and God destroyed Sodom, then Abraham would have his worst fears come true: Lot was confirmed to be an unrighteous person.

But if Abraham stopped at ten, then Lot’s righteousness would not be called into question if God destroyed the city anyway. You see, God could find as many as nine other righteous people and would still destroy the city. Lot may or may not have been one of the nine, and it would be impossible to tell. Abraham could assume Lot was among them.

(Abraham could have gone to only two, but I think I agree with Dr. Keller… that’s just pushing it!)

So you see, I think Abraham was brilliant in his role as priest here. He got

I’ve been reading The Motley Fool since Apple’s remarkable tanking two weeks ago. So far, Fool has been consistent in its observations regarding the irrational behavior of the market—namely, that what happened was nuts.

Here’s the money quote from today’s article:

There is only one basic truth why the market suddenly fell out of love with Apple, and that is exuberant expectations. The market expected Apple to grow at a double digit rate, each and every year. This, of course, is unsustainable. Because fear and greed are such dominant emotions in the market, a little sense of disappointment quickly turned into aggressive selling. It has nothing to do with the business or spirit of the company; it has everything to do with the minds and emotions of investors.

Keywords to note: fear, greed, emotions. If you have no stomach for these, you have no business investing in the stock market.

Apple’s getting into the fray, formally.

“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (disputed)

The U.S. problem of what to do with spent nuclear fuel has been highlighted by the problems that the Japanese are experiencing at the Fukushima plant as pointed out in this CNN article. The problem is that the spent fuel is stored in… well, I’ll let one scientist put it out there for you:

David Lochbaum, a nuclear physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists…:

“At many sites there is nearly 10 times as much irradiated fuel in spent fuel pools as in the reactor core,” he said. “The spent fuel pools are not housed in robust concrete containment structures designed to protect the public from the radioactivity they contain. Instead the pools are often housed in buildings with sheet metal siding like that in a Sears storage shed,” Lochbaum said.

“I have nothing against the quality of Sears storage sheds but they are not suitable to nuclear waste storage,” he said.

Not suitable, indeed.

However, the bigger question is, why are we bothering to store it in the first place? Why are we (1) storing the stuff in places it’s not safe like a Sears storage shed or (2) hauling to a place where it might be safe, namely Yucca Mountain, which isn’t even ready and may never open in the first place?

There is an alternative, one in which the French (who have an extremely good track record with nuclear energy) and the Japanese (who have a good track record, too, but maybe planned and built this particular plant a bit too hastily) have had much success with for decades: reprocessing.

In a nutshell, reprocessing takes the old, spent fuel and makes it reusable with just about the same amount of energy the second time around as it had the first time. However, Jimmy Carter killed that option in 1978 because of “concerns” over nuclear proliferation, and we’ve simply never recovered. What the French and Japanese do is much like recharging the batteries in your iPod (which do eventually wear out, true), but the United States has declared that we’ll continue to use alkaline batteries, thankyouverymuch, because rechargeable batteries are just too scary.

So. Now what?

Well, first, I’d say that we—the U.S., that is—will never get to be a more nuclear-dependent state. It’s unfortunate, but unless there are some significant policy shifts, there is a change in the technology to something more stable such as pellet-bed reactors, and there is an end to the fearmongering that the anti-nuclear community persists in conducting, we’ll never get there. Second, we do have nuclear plants which currently generate 9% of our electrical needs, and they aren’t going away; so, third, there will continue to be waste. Finally, we will never restart waste reprocessing—it’s not economically feasible anymore.

With all that in mind, I recommend that we send our spent fuel to France and other states which have embraced and perfected the nuclear reprocessing cycle. Ship it in small-but-inconveniently-sized-to-prevent-easily-losing-them bits at a time. Sell it to them, or even give it to them. Either way, it gets the spent fuel off our hands and into the hands of people who can use it, and ends the renewed debate (and commensurate spending) over Yucca Mountain at the same time.

If only CNN would would publicize something so radical as that idea…

Until recently, I didn’t fit into the former category but landed squarely in the latter. As an avid Mac user, I do have a fear of losing my sight. But this article by Matt Gemmell gave me a new perspective.

The bit that did it for me:

When you first enable VoiceOver on a Mac, you’re asked if you’d like to take a brief tutorial; I did. After the first couple of minutes, I closed my eyes, and really used it. I wept.

Yes, it will be different. But all is not lost.

And now, as an iOS developer (or at least a student developer, anyway), this article provided a significant insight into the realities of the assistive technologies of Mac OS and iOS.

I will read and heed.

Go read it, no matter which category you’re in.

[Via DaringFireball.net. I swear, it must be incredible to be paid to surf the web and produce the occasional highly-insightful article as John Gruber is.]

Arsalan Iftikhar is wrong, too.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, shall we?

Imagine if you are in a country which has been invaded by Americans wearing standard issue Battle Dress Uniforms. Think you might be nervous when you see someone in BDUs? Well, by everybody’s interpretation of this situation, you are a bigot if you say, “I get nervous when I see an American in BDUs.”

By the definition of the word bigot, however, “everybody” would be wrong.

Webster’s:

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Where’s the hate or intolerance in what Mr. Williams said?

OK, another try. Princeton University:

bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; “a bigoted person”; “an outrageously bigoted point of view”

Is Mr. Williams “blindly or obstinately attached” to his opinion—and being intolerant? I would guess that if he got up and said, “If I see a Muslim on the plane, I demand that he be kicked off the plane,” then, yes, I’d say he was being intolerant.

No, he’s just “nervous.” Shots make me nervous. Heck, doctors make me nervous. Lawyers… even more so. But I don’t hate doctors, I don’t hate lawyers, and I’m not intolerant of either. But if I say, “(X) makes me nervous?” Bigoted? Hardly.

But wait! “Bill,” you say, “that person has a reason to be nervous around Americans in BDUs. They attacked that person’s country!”

Ah, yes, “without reason.” Wiktionary:

bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause

Let’s review for a moment, shall we? Who was it, exactly, who attacked America on 9/11? Was it (a) evangelistic Christians (b) Jewish fundamentalists (c) Buddhist monks or (d) Muslim extremists?

Which of these aforementioned groups keeps up pressure on American interests with suicide bombers and the like? Oh, sure, the remaining groups have their share of extremists and nutjobs, too (except, perhaps, for the monks), but, really, which group has shown a tendency to give Americans pause for thought?

OK, then, let’s get past the question of bigotry. I think I’ve made my case: he wasn’t expressing a bigoted opinion.

But let’s assume that he did, in fact, express a bigoted opinion. Was NPR right to fire him? Let’s go to Mr. Iftikhar’s opinion and coverage of the subject:

Once Williams made that factually wrong statement, he then no longer continued being a “news analyst”; he had crossed over the line into simply voicing his paranoid and irrational fears to the general public.

“Juan Williams is a news analyst; he is not a commentator and he is not a columnist,” [National Public Radio CEO Vivian] Schiller told an Atlanta Press Club luncheon Thursday. “We have relied on him over the years to give us perspective on the news, not to talk about his opinions.”

She added, “NPR news analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on our air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview — not our reporters and analysts.”

Problem: Mr. Williams was in no way, shape or form bound to not express his personal opinions in public on controversial issues. How do I know this? I read the source. From NPR’s Ethics Code:

V. Outside work, freelancing, speaking engagements

1. The primary professional responsibility of NPR journalists is to NPR. They should never work in direct competition with NPR. An example of competing with NPR would be breaking a story or contributing a feature for another broadcast outlet or Web site before offering the work to NPR.

No problem here.

2. NPR journalists must get written permission for all outside freelance and journalistic work, including written articles. Requests should be submitted in writing to the employee’s immediate supervisor. Approval will not be unreasonably denied if the proposed work will not discredit NPR, conflict with NPR’s interests, create a conflict of interest for the employee or interfere with the employee’s ability to perform NPR duties. Supervisors must respond within seven days of receiving a request.

Not a problem here.

3. NPR journalists must get written permission for broadcast appearances or speaking engagements, whether or not compensated. Requests should be submitted in writing to the employee’s immediate supervisor, and copied to the Communications Division at mediarelations@npr.org. Approval will not be unreasonably denied if the proposed work will not discredit NPR, conflict with NPR’s interests, create a conflict of interest for the employee or interfere with the employee’s ability to perform NPR duties. Supervisors must respond within seven days of receiving a request.

I have to assume that Mr. Williams followed procedure here. And, if that’s the case, then just what the heck was NPR management thinking he would do if he went onto Bill O’Reilly’s show? Would he not offer his opinion? Or just offer his opinion on non-controversial issues? Would he just offer stock facts? O’Reilly’s show is all about opinion on controversial issues. Would they have fired him if he had made a non-bigoted statement about, say, his favorite color? “The color blue makes me nervous, Bill.” Whammo, Mr. Williams! You’re outta’ here! You can’t objectively report on art anymore!

3. NPR journalists may not engage in public relations work, paid or unpaid. Exceptions may be made for certain volunteer nonprofit, nonpartisan activities, such as participating in the work of a church, synagogue or other institution of worship, or a charitable organization, so long as this would not conflict with the interests of NPR in reporting on activities related to that institution or organization. When in doubt, employees should consult their supervisor.

Not relevant.

4. In general, NPR journalists may not without prior permission from their supervisor do outside work for government or agencies principally funded by government, or for private organizations that are regularly covered by NPR. This includes work that would be done on leaves of absence.

Not relevant.

5. NPR journalists may not ghostwrite or co-author articles or books or write reports - such as annual reports - for government agencies, institutions or businesses that we cover or are likely to cover.

Not relevant.

6. NPR journalists must get approval from the Senior Vice President for the News Division, or that person’s designee, before speaking to groups that might have a relationship to a subject that NPR may cover. Generally, NPR journalists may not speak at corporation or industry functions. NPR journalists also may not speak in settings where their appearance is being used by an organization to market its services or products, unless it is marketing NPR or its member stations’ interests, and then only as permitted in Section IX, Item 5 (below). NPR journalists are permitted to engage in promotional activities for books they have written (such as a book tour), although they are expected to get approval from their supervisors on scheduling.

Not relevant.

7. NPR journalists may only accept speaking fees from educational or nonprofit groups not engaged in significant lobbying or political activity. Determining whether a group engages in significant lobbying or political activity is the responsibility of the NPR journalist seeking permission, and all information must be fully disclosed to the journalist’s supervisor.

Not relevant.

8. NPR journalists may not speak to groups where the appearance might put in question NPR’s impartiality. Such instances include situations where the employee’s appearance may appear to endorse the agenda of a group or organization. This would include participation in some political debates and forums where the sponsoring group(s) or other participants are identified with a particular perspective on an issue or issues and NPR journalist’s participation might put into question NPR’s impartiality.

Well, one might wonder if this is relevant. Bill O’Reilly and his gang are certainly not impartial. But, again, if it were a problem, why would NPR management have approved this engagement?

9. NPR journalists must get permission from the Senior Vice President for News, or their designee, to appear on TV or other media. Requests should be submitted in writing to the employee’s immediate supervisor and copied to mediarelations@npr.org . Approval will not be unreasonably denied if the proposed work will not discredit NPR, conflict with NPR’s interests, create a conflict of interest for the employee or interfere with the employee’s ability to perform NPR duties. The Senior Vice President or designee must respond within seven days of receiving a request. It is not necessary to get permission in each instance when the employee is a regular participant on an approved show. Permission for such appearances may be revoked if NPR determines such appearances are harmful to the reputation of NPR or the NPR participant.

Interesting as this is more specific to TV appearances. It doesn’t contradict section 3, certainly, but neither does it say, “You’ll be fired.” It just says that the permission will be revoked.

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

I’m going to have to guess that Mr. Williams would have said what he said no matter the forum. If this isn’t the case, then, yeah, he was wrong. What are the consequences of violating Section 10, then? Firing? Disciplinary action? Indeterminate.

11. Any NPR journalist intending to write a non-fiction book or TV or movie script or other guiding documents for non-radio productions based in whole or substantial part on assignments they did for NPR must notify NPR in writing of such plans before entering into any agreement with respect to that work. NPR will respond within 14 days as to whether it has any objections to the project.

N/A

12. NPR journalists considering book projects or TV or movie productions based on stories that they have covered must be careful not to give any impression they might benefit financially from the outcome of news or program events. They should before taking any actions with respect to such matters seek guidance from the Senior Vice President for News, or their designee.

N/A

And that’s it. That’s the entire section of their Ethics Code which applies here. Nowhere does it mention that “news analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues.” Since Mr. Williams presumably has read and acknowledged receipt of this Code, perhaps a good, stern talking to is more appropriate than a firing. But his entire conversation with NPR was, in essence, “You’re fired.” “Why?” “Because we said so.”

NPR unfair? Never!

Mr. Iftikhar argues that he knows the difference between a commentator, of which he is one, and an analyst, of which Mr. Williams is one. The interesting thing is that the Ethics Code quoted above does not differentiate between the two, so presumably, Mr. Iftikhar is also under the same responsibilities as Mr. Williams.

So, Mr. Iftikhar, perhaps you’d better keep your opinions—outside NPR, that is—to yourself.

The guy who wrote this article is the same Ruben Navarrette Jr. who prompted my reaction to another one of his illogical diatribes. This piece of so-called “reporting” is merely the liberal mainstream media at work, celebrating itself for standing up for something which makes little to no sense to those who don’t have their liberal blinders on.

Let’s take his article apart, shall we? This should be fun.

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) — It was an ethnic twist on an American classic, the kind of thing that some people consider appealing and others frightening. Pinto beans, diced tomatoes, salsa and jalapenos top a hot dog that’s grilled to perfection.

It’s 10 o’clock on a Saturday night at ground zero in the immigration debate. The hot dog vendor, a woman from the Mexican state of Sinaloa, would normally be doing a brisk business. Her cart is across the street from a popular Latino dance club that used to be frequented by Mexican-Americans but is now normally crammed with Mexican immigrants.

No mas.

Was that Spanish you were trying to use? I’m sure it was, but stick to English, which you haven’t gotten right. You see, I can’t make head or tails out that last paragraph. Is the place normally crammed with Mexican immigrants? Or was it frequented by Mexican-Americans? I can’t tell what the heck is happening across the street from the vendor’s cart. I get the idea, though: she has no customers at 10pm across the street from a dance club. What kind of town is this?!

“The city feels abandoned,” the woman tells me in Spanish. “Everyone has left.”

It sure looks that way during a drive though the city’s predominantly Latino west side, with its abandoned buildings, deserted homes and empty parks.

OK, let’s see, Ruben: How many doors did you knock on to assess how many of those homes were abandoned? How many buildings did you survey? How many were abandoned before April? And at 10pm, I’d expect most lights to be out, and the parks darned-well better be abandoned. Oh, you drove through during the day? Hmm. I’d expect the homeowners to be out working and the parks to be filled with… nobody! They should be working.

Since April, when Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 to punish illegal immigrants for the sins of the employers who hire them, estimates are that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have left Arizona for a warmer climate in Utah, Colorado, Texas or New Mexico.

Score 1 for Arizona, then, in spite of the gutted law. I’m going to guess that this trend won’t stop until the wave reaches Canada.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton struck down four of the most grotesque and illogical parts of the law, including the requirement that local police attempt to determine the immigration status of individuals they suspect of being in the country illegally and language making it a crime to solicit work.

I’m glad you’re not trying to pass this off as objective reporting. “Grotesque” and “illogical” are hardly objective terms.

I have been watching this drama play out from California. But as someone who lived in Arizona about 10 years ago, I needed a closer look to see what life is like in this desert metropolis now that the law has taken effect — or rather, what’s left of it.

So you visit a Latino section of town and decide that there’s not much left of Phoenix. I’m guessing that the rest of Phoenix is disappointed to hear that pronouncement.

I’m a U.S. citizen; my parents and three of my four grandparents were born in the United States.

Relevance, Ruben, relevance.

When I lived here a decade ago, I was struck by how comfortable Latinos and whites seemed with one another. There was the occasional conflict, but more often there was compromise and cooperation, even on the issue of immigration.

A decade ago, the Obama administration was not in office. Much has changed since then. Obama and his acolyte Nancy Pelosi are hell-bent on spending as much of your tax money—and mine—on feeding, housing, clothing, educating, and treating illegal immigrants as they possibly can. Their solution to avoiding class warfare is to make the illegal immigrants into legal immigrants—merge the classes—at tremendous cost. Arizona’s solution to avoiding class warfare is to enforce the laws as they stand at significantly less cost.

Your world of ten years ago doesn’t exist anymore. It evaporated last November.

Today a heated debate has produced hard feelings. The everyday interactions between Latinos and whites are much more frayed than when I was covering Phoenix as a reporter for The Arizona Republic.

No observations? No data? Oh… wait, here comes some data:

Seventy percent of whites, according to polls, support SB 1070 but 70 percent of Latinos oppose it. Until the judge’s decision, there were many whites who were happy the state was taking action against illegal immigration; now they’re unhappy with the judge’s ruling, meaning almost every group in the state is up in arms for one reason or another.

Weak, at best.

Point one: cite the polls—I hate reporters who don’t cite statistics, but since this is an op-ed piece masquerading as reporting, I’ll give you a pass. Anyway, do these polls include illegal immigrants? I’d be surprised if they didn’t.

Point two: who cares if the people who support the bill are up in arms? Who cares if the people who don’t support the bill are up in arms? Is there anything wrong with that? That’s what a democracy is all about, Ruben: expressing your opinion and voting in support of that opinion. Get used to it. Or, rather, don’t, because the Obama/Pelosi machine will ensure that the only branch of government that counts is the judiciary, and your opinion, and vote, will not be heard.

Point three: you make some very sweeping generalizations. Are they based on observations? Or just your gut feeling?

I ask the hot dog vendor how “los Americanos”—her landlord, the people at the supermarket, etc.—are treating her. “Everyone is different,” she says. “Some are friendly. Others look at you funny, like you’re not welcomed.” I think about my question. Unwittingly, I had invited her to engage in the same kind of racial profiling that most opponents of SB 1070 deplore. She prefers instead to judge people as individuals and not generalize based on stereotypes.

Whew. At least there’s one sensible person involved in this article.

Good for her. I wonder if this woman is available to give seminars to Arizona law enforcement officers who might soon find themselves in need of that skill set.

Woah… wait a minute. You have automatically placed all Arizona law enforcement officers into the role of bigot. Where do you get off doing that? Did you interview any law enforcement officers and report on equally open-minded officers? No, you sure didn’t. It wouldn’t support your story well, would it?

Later, I interviewed a married couple who came to the United States legally but lapsed into illegal status when their visa expired. They should have gone back to Mexico, but they’d already put down roots in Phoenix, where the husband could earn at least 10 times what he could make in Mexico. We talked about how some conservatives insist that illegal immigrants take jobs from U.S. workers.

There’s so much wrong here, it’s not even funny: First, the couple “should have gone back to Mexico.” They are illegally here, and yet somehow, “putting down roots” and “earn[ing] at least 10 times what he could make in Mexico” buys them a pass. Next time I’m pulled over for a traffic violation, I’ll be sure to use that defense. “I’m sorry, officer, but it’s OK because I’ve sped before and my car is fine at these high speeds.”

Second, “some conservatives” should be “some people,” because otherwise you are typecasting and stereotyping just as much as the next guy. I guarantee you can find a liberal who thinks the same thing, but it wouldn’t help your story, would it?

“That’s not true,” says the husband, who’s worked his way up from manual labor to an office job for a jeweler. “Americans are lazy. They don’t want to work.”

But then, he catches himself — and corrects himself.

“I shouldn’t say that,” he says. “They’re not all like that, but some are. They’re spoiled. They think it’s easy to come to the United States legally, and they speak from ignorance.” It’s interesting that even in a state that recently made it legal for police officers to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about who is or isn’t an illegal immigrant, there are illegal immigrants who are fair-minded enough not to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about the rest of us.

Wow. Yet another open-minded person who supports your cause! Wow! Two for two! You’re batting 1.000, Ruben! Next time, interview the guy on the corner with the sign that says, “Will work for food.” See if he doesn’t say, “Los estadounidenses son perezosos.”

The rest of that paragraph is just crap: you characterize the entire state of Arizona as bigots, except some illegal immigrants. Good job.

No matter what Bolton decided, the hot dog vendor is still worried. She thinks a lot of Phoenix police officers and county sheriff deputies, under the command of cartoonish Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, have been champing at the bit for a law like this to give them an excuse to hassle people with brown skin. People like that, she says, won’t let the judge’s ruling get in the way of enforcing a law which they support.

Ah, so she’s not quite as open-minded as you portray her to be. Apparently, your assertion that officers of the law are bigots is shared by her. Well, fair enough, she’s entitled to that opinion. But until the law can actually be tried, and until we can see how it works, there’s really not much point in worrying about it, is there? If you’re not an illegal immigrant, that is.

Since the law took effect, Arpaio’s deputies have raided residences thought to be “drop houses,” where illegal immigrant smugglers harbor their human cargo.

And good for them! After all, immigrant smugglers are often enslaving unwitting illegals. Should they not prosecute this crime because you’re paying attention to their actions? Put another way, do you raise hell because they raid crack houses? And should people ever be in a position to be referred to as “human cargo?” Isn’t that worthy of prosecution?

And stop using the error of omission to distort the truth: deputies also raided residences thought to be “drop houses” before the law took effect, too.

No wonder immigrants are afraid. Those who haven’t left the state are living as shut-ins. They go outside when they have to go to work. Otherwise, they stay behind closed doors.

Since that’s by their choice, tough. Do they really think that if they look/act/do as normal legal citizens do (such as drive to work, do yard work, perhaps take a walk with the kids, fix their cars in their driveways, go to the store) that they will be accosted by police for acting suspiciously? Don’t they think that it’s the people who stand around on street corners for hours a day, doing nothing, who are most likely to be challenged by police? Apparently not, I guess.

Anyway, eventually, when the illegal immigrants are few and far between, the suspicion that someone is here in the US illegally will naturally die down, won’t it? In the meantime, the legal immigrants should be out and about and should enjoy showing up Officer Bob and his ilk when they are hassled for their documentation. Oh, and of course, they should avoid activities which would get Officer Bob’s interest in the first place, just like you and I should.

By the way, I think Officer Bob should ask every suspect of some offense, including me, lilly-white Bill Eccles, for my proof of citizenship (whatever that is), and should not be asked to make a determination which might be misconstrued as “racial profiling.”

There is another kind of racism at play here. You’ve heard how Arizona tried to empower local police to arrest gardeners and housekeepers to crack down on Mexican drug dealers. Baloney. That’s just how the state’s anti-immigrant efforts are packaged for public consumption. The Mexican drug dealer is the Willie Horton of the immigration debate. I get it.

Huh? The state somehow has an anti-immigrant effort? No, there’s no anti-immigrant effort. There’s an anti-illegal-immigrant effort, however, which is what SB1070 is all about. You are confusing your issues, Ruben.

What are nativists supposed to do? Convince Arizonans that the nannies they give their babies to every day are dangerous, that the gardeners to whom they volunteer their security code are a threat. You need drug dealers in this dialogue. Who else are people going to be afraid of?

I’ll just leave this paragraph with a, “Huh?” because I can’t make any sense out of it whatsoever. I’m not sure how nannies and gardeners and drug dealers are relevant to illegal vs. legal status.

Not a hot dog vendor. Think about where that woman was from — Sinaloa. That state is the capital of the Mexican drug trafficking industry. It’s quite simple.

This ought to be good…

If you’re from Sinaloa and you sell drugs, you can live a luxurious life in Mexico. If you sell hot dogs, you work long, hot nights in the desert. Arizonans are ginning up fear of one to rid their state of the other.

So, let me translate Rubenese to English: Sinaloans who come to America are drug dealers. Since that fact hasn’t been brought into the debate by either side—until now—I have to assume that Ruben is ginning up fear of one to get rid of the other.

Or maybe I’m missing something here, so I’ll try again: Illegal immigrants who are from Sinaloa should get a pass just like illegal immigrants who are hot dog vendors or drug dealers. There. I think I got it.

I finish my second hot dog—the best I’ve tasted this side of Coney Island—and pay the bill. Oh, by the way, I ask the woman: “What’s your name?”

Who pays after they eat their hot dogs? This story smells fishy to me. You get your dogs, you pay the vendor. Then you eat them. Strange…

She smiles, looks away and shakes her head. She won’t tell me. She must figure, why take chances? For immigrants, there’s enough of that going on already in this city, where just getting in a car or walking down the street can be a high-stakes gamble.

“She must figure…?” Ruben reads minds. Enough said.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Thank goodness for that. More like him and… well, too late. They’ve already been elected.

According to this CNN report, the ACLU has issued a “travel alert” to people who might be going to Arizona for the Fourth of July weekend.

The money quote:

“Although the law is not scheduled to go into effect until July 29, the ACLU is concerned that some law enforcement officers are already beginning to act on provisions of the law,” the ACLU said on its website.

Nothing like a little fear, uncertainty and doubt to really help make your case. Where possible, eschew logic and even observance of the space/time continuum.

Hadn’t read this E-mail until just now. Even if only half the stuff this guy says is true, then voting for Obama is, well, despicable.

Anyway, here it is:

To Barack Hussein Obama,

The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about “race” contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America .. While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without “preparations” at lower levels… Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin… while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered “I would” to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without “any” preconditions. While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately… not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar… and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a “Captain” of a platoon in Afghanistan “the other day” when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan .. You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a “professor of Constitutional law” when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you “taught a law class” and never mentioned being a “professor of Constitutional law.” You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn… and he was right… corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America …

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn… who all helped cause the financial problems of today… and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator… and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America …

During your campaign, you said: “typical white person.” “They cling to their guns and religion.” “They will say that I am black.” You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America ..

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America ..

The drain to America ‘s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America …

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you “changed” your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America …

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA .. They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves… not America. Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America.

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.

Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

1. You lied to America. You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.

3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

4. You divide America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with “Country first.” Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? Of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security… and you are preying on their fears with empty promises… and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for “change” like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They loved his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you… your style has camouflaged your dishonesty… but many of us see you for who you really are… and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr. Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

Mr. Obama, you are not the “change” that America deserves. We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, you are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves… just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon… Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events… false witness… perjury… your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own… but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.

Michael Master McLean, Virginia

Article here.

Now there’s a shock.

The weird thing is that the article says, and I quote:

The stunning decline of oil prices in recent weeks has left oil-exporting countries fearful that they will have to cut government budgets, including the popular social programs that cement many leaders’ hold on power.

So what social programs did these dictators put into place in the course of less than two years? In the United States, the only social program we managed to put into place in the course of less than two years (which was the last time prices were this low) was to hand out cash.

Hmmm… Is that what they’re doing with our money?

Or is it this?

Or is it both?

Drill, baby, drill!, indeed!

Article here.

Well, whaddaya’ know. Even the bastion of the liberal mainstream media agrees with me:

It was fear, not greed, that was driving everyone’s actions.

As I’ve said before, and will probably say again.

Article here.

I’m supremely confused. Gustav hasn’t even come close to the oil supply and yet we’re paying more at the pump as if there were an actual change in the oil supply.

The referenced article is full of “if“‘s and “fear“‘s and “doubt“‘s and “could be“‘s. Why are we allowing futures trading to affect now prices?

WTF?

I just don’t get it. Those who are supposedly in the know say that traders and funds and stuff have nothing to do with the high price of oil. And yet the cost of oil has risen to five times what it was a few years ago. Is it suddenly worth five times what it used to be worth? Have the Saudis had a sudden labor shortage which has driven up their costs? Or have the world’s ships crews demanded millions to transport the stuff in a show of solidarity? Or is there anything else out there which has changed the price of production that I’m unaware of? Heck, has there been a single constriction of supply in the past few years?

I really don’t think there is, but I’ve been known to be wrong before. (It happens.)

So, if the cost of getting a barrel out of the ground to the refinery hasn’t really changed all that much, why are traders willing to pay more for those barrels?

I expect it has something to do with the news reports that I keep hearing and reading. Go ahead, Google for a news story about oil prices and note that every single frickin’ one of them has the words “worry,” “fear,” “anxiety” and their synonyms in them. That’s right, they’re not buying and selling oil based on reality, they’re trading based on their own insecurities. It’s not like OPEC is saying to the market, OK, folks, the price today is $200, take it or leave it. They’re a monopoly and could do that, you know, but instead they just say, What are you willing to pay us? and we, like idiots, outbid ourselves for the privilege of paying them more.

And if I’m more afraid than you are, I’ll pay more than you will.

(Stupid me.)

OPEC doesn’t think that supply is constricted. And you know what? I trust ‘em. After all, though demand in the world has increased, I don’t think we can realistically say that demand has increased so hugely in the past few years so as to make anybody think the Saudis are going to run out any time soon. Supply has kept up because OPEC has kept supply up. And, for that matter, there’s nothing that some rogue state, such as Iran, can do that the US and every other oil-consuming country wouldn’t do something about if they got uppity and plugged up the Persian Gulf. In short, demand and supply seem to be running pretty well together and it’s not likely to change a bunch.

So what are the traders afraid of? Well, pretty much anything. Their shadows. Spiders. Weak dollars. Things that go bump in the night.

Now, how do we fix this problem? First, stop trading futures. Right now. Put a halt to it. Sure, let the people with futures finish out their deals, but after that, no more! Second, if you aren’t an oil consumer with real refineries and big honkin’ boats or if you aren’t prepared to take delivery of the barrels you bought, you can’t buy the stuff, either. Sure, you can still buy those barrels and sell them later on, but you damned well had better take delivery of the stuff you bought. And there can still be a market with people screaming about buying and selling, but those are real barrels that they’ll be buying and selling and if there aren’t enough barrels to go around today, the price will go up. If there are too many people yelling about selling and not enough takers today, the price will go down. No fears. Just real oil which either is or isn’t there.

(Who invented this futures stuff anyway? I realize that in some markets, such as those associated with real variable supply and demand, such as agriculture, there’s a purpose. But until we’re trading iPod futures, oil futures don’t make any sense. Monopolies are different.)

Now, are these ideas probably stupid, unrealistic and ridiculous? I’m sure they are. But to the layman who doesn’t get to trade on my fears but has to pay whatever the going price is for an iPod, they make sense.

Portland (AP) - In a press conference today, Chicken Little reported that the sky is falling.

“Unequivocal evidence witnessed firsthand points to the possibility of a sudden Earthward trend in the sky’s location,” he said. When pressed further about the nature of the evidence, he revealed, “Though I have witnessed only one acorn’s transition from the sky to the ground, there is certainly the possibility that the entire sky will, indeed, fall.”

Traders reacted with fear, driving up futures. “With the possibility of the falling of the sky,” said Henny Penny. “We can certainly expect prices to edge north of $150 throughout the trading day.”

Other traders had similar reactions.

“We’re afraid,” said Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky and Turkey Lurkey. “We expect that space between Earth and Sky will constrict, driving up futures rapidly.”

Foxy Loxy, reserve chairman, could not be reached for comment. It is widely expected that he will eat the traders for lunch, though, in an effort to keep futures in check.

Article here.

Another take: Don’t miss the investors list of the Burkle Firm, especially the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum. Fear not, though, Billary supporters! Somebody on staff will certainly come up with a question about a definition, a blatant lie, or something misspoken to explain it.