This article narrates the prehistory and posthistory of Personal Influence as an episode in the biographies of Paul Lazarsfeld and C. Wright Mills. It begins in 1945, when Lazarsfeld sent Mills to Decatur, Illinois, to undertake the fieldwork, and ends with Mills's death in 1962.

SummaryBrrc.kground: Guidelines for the use of telemetry in hospitalized patients have been proposed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC). However. there have been only a few studies which have investigated the usefulness of these guidelines in clinical practice.H\pof/iesis: This study assessed the role of telemetry in the decision making process outside the critical care units. M i d d s :The observational shidy, lasting 4 weeks. was conclucted in the telemetry unit ofa tertiary care teaching hospital and included 6 I male patients (age range 40-6 I years).They had been directly admitted to the telemetry unit or transferred from a critical care unit and were followed for as long as telemetry was active. Indication for telemetry and the contribution of telemetry to management decisions were assessed by ;I physician not involved in the care of the patient.Riw/r.s: Cumulative number of telemetry days was 379 with ii mean o f 6 2 days per patient. Total number oftelemetry events was 297. According to the ACC classification. 14 patients (22.9%) had class l indication, 2 l patients (34.4%) had clnss II indication, and 26 patients (42.6%) had class 111 indication. Telemetry events were seen in 18.2% of class I patients, in 39.7% of class I1 patients, and in 42.1%-of class 111 patients. Only 12 telemetry events (4%)) resulted in patient management. with none belonging to class Ill.Conc~lusinti: Telemetry findings in patients outside the critical care units are not usually responsible for major therapeutic changes. The value of telemetry in such patients may be overrated.

No abstract

No abstract

What is the legacy of The End of Ideology today? I think it lies in the sober, anti-romantic, wiser-than-thou style of political analysis and leadership on display January 25, hours after Bell died, in Barack Obama's State of the Union speech. "Obama aims to realize the end-of-ideology politics that Daniel Bell and others glimpsed," David Brooks opined in 2009, as if every Democratic president since John F. Kennedy has not feared an uprising from the Left, after the Left put them in power. Two years into Obama's administration, the ironies and fatuities of the style deserve to be clearly stated. While the president claims the post-ideological, responsible center, he stands accused of promulgating socialism by Americans who have no memory, and little understanding, of socialist ideology; the electorate fights over party dogmas awkwardly labeled neoconservative and neoliberal; civic discourse runs thick with empty rhetoric of rebellion and revolution, interrupted by sporadic episodes of passionless violence; and political society, long lacking the New Deal consensus assumed by Bell and his cohorts, swings from apathy to protest and back again. Such is life after ideology. Bell likened Marxian socialism to a secular religion and stressed its eschatological imperative. About non-Marxist forms of ideology, he had little to say. Of these forms, which focus disagreement and discipline action, contemporary America may need more.