Eek, don’t take even slightly more percocet that you’re supposed to. It’s not the narcotic that will harm you, it’s the tylenol in it. Can seriously do damage to your liver if you take too much.

Luckily, overall, I’m taking far less than they told me to. I did add a little extra to the initial dose--which I know was bad, but, damn, it wasn’t killing the pain--but I’ve been low on every other dose since then. I’m hoping it balances out.

No, do I let the near spam stand or not?

Depends, David, do you want to be the only one on drugs in the comments or not?

Kill the spam!  Kill the spam!  The guy’s probably not even a citizen with no skin in the game ... dropping 2 different links to .es domain Spanish language webzines around his stock language post.  Damn Spanish socialists.

Also, Huck sucks.  There will be no President Huckabee.

The spam is gone. Gone gone gone.

And, Robin, I’m bogarting the drugged up commentary. Because I can.

I was listening to “World Have Your Say” and the news guy from the Cleveland NPR station made an interesting comment: “Iowa has a terrible track record for picking Presidential candidates.” I’d be curious to see statistics on how well Iowa winners do in the remaining primaries but my recollection is that winning in Iowa is almost the kiss of death.

They do.

Look under “Past Winners.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

They pick the eventual nominee about half the time on the Democratic side and about 3/4 of the time on the Republican side. The difference is likely due to the different process--the Republican caucus is more like a primary in that there’s no second-chance winners as in the Democratic caucus.

Mike: Thanks for the link - apparently me recollection was way off. Good to know!

And I didn’t know that they used a different process for each party. I thought they both had second-chance winners.

Off topic David, but it looks like we lost Andrew Olmstead.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/01/andy-olmsted.html

Nope, the Republican caucus is really a caucus in name only. In terms of the vote, it’s really a primary. It’s pretty much walk in, vote, walk out.

On the Dem side it’s far more involved, taking up to three hours. They do the first round, and then each viable candidate’s supporters elect a representative (viable meaning getting at least 15% of the vote), and then they usually do a debate, then there’s all kinds of cajoling and horse trading to attract the second-chance votes, then they caucus again, and if someone’s not viable at that point, they rinse and repeat and do a third round.

It’s kind of exciting and interesting, but it’s also intimidating, especially for shy people. So when you contrast the ease of the Republican caucus process with the Democratic turnout, it’s an interesting picture.

I’m not sure how the Republican caucus works here. I have a feeling it’s more similar to the Dem process than it is in Iowa, but don’t quote me on that. It would be nice if the Colorado GOP had a web site to explain the process, but their web site has been “coming soon” since at least last summer. I do know that the Colorado Republican caucus will be a non-binding preference poll where nobody’s votes will count for anything and the delegates to the RNC convention will be picked by the state central committee. Sucks to not have a voice, don’t it?

Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with caucuses. They’re confusing, and as such are largely attended only by party insiders, especially in non-presidential election years, though they do give people a direct voice into the platform and also give people a chance to get together and debate issues.

But it doesn’t help energize voters if a party declares your vote to be “non-binding.”

It’s not unprecedented. Party bosses always picked the nominee prior to 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt won the majority of the Republican primary delegates, but the party bosses nominated William Howard Taft anyway. The base wasn’t pleased, the party fractured, and Woodrow Wilson was elected. And now history may be about to repeat itself. Hundreds of thousands of voters may want one guy, but a couple dozen party bosses may anoint someone else. That really sucks.

Why are you in pain? I must have missed something. Two 5/325mg is OK. Percocet the next nest thing to a morphine pump, only you have to stay in a prone position.

Just the mention of it makes dizzy. I meant the next best.

Yeah, I was feeling a little high last night. I took 3 of the 5/325mg along with one Nifedipine and one Methylpredinisolone (which, according to the lable, is a generic version of Medrol) and a shot of something or other that burned a little when it went in, made me wobbly for a bit, and didn’t do a damned thing for the pain. Frankly, except for the Percs, I have no idea what the others are supposed to be doing for me.

As for the why, it was a very small problem and I feel much better today. I’ll leave it at that.

As for the why, it was a very small problem and I feel much better today.

I see commercials on cable in the wee hours of the morning for pills to fix that.

Hey!

I guess I could find a website if you want ...

I was going to say how much I like you when you’re all jacked up on drugs, but Robin wins.  Period.

Girl says I’m almost as fun when I’m high on Percoset as I am when I’m drunk and on vacation. Which I like far better than Robin’s evil accusation about the nature of my little problem.

I’m going to tell his wife that he’s being mean to me again.

Please don’t do that, the doghouse is very cold in the winter.

Anyone high on Percoset is fun.  And easy.  Even if they have a little problem.

No, no.  No “a little problem.” It is a “very small problem”.

Completely different.

Easy.

I’ve heard that before.