Losing pollination capabilities does not bode well for our diets!
A personal, unassociated opinion though. Isn't it interesting that a segment of our population denies the current theories of science (ie global warming, age of the earth/universe) and yet clamors for scientific remedies/advances when faced with peril (medical, environmental, etc). They'll belittle scientific endeavors if the science does not support their unsubstantiated ideology but gluttonously enjoys the innumerable benefits scientific discovery has provided us.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Question for Dennis Kucinich
From: Lisa W
To: Dennis Kucinich
Subject: 2004 Ohio Election Fraud?
Date: Tue, 2007-04-24 16:59
Dear Mr. Kucinich:
I was wondering what actions you might be taking in regards to what likely may have happened in your state. I refer to this blog entry from DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/142611/673
By the way, although I support you on impeaching Dick Cheney, I ultimately believe that ALL of them should be impeached and ALL of those appointed by this administration should be as well.
Good luck, Dennis.
To: Dennis Kucinich
Subject: 2004 Ohio Election Fraud?
Date: Tue, 2007-04-24 16:59
Dear Mr. Kucinich:
I was wondering what actions you might be taking in regards to what likely may have happened in your state. I refer to this blog entry from DailyKos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/142611/673
By the way, although I support you on impeaching Dick Cheney, I ultimately believe that ALL of them should be impeached and ALL of those appointed by this administration should be as well.
Good luck, Dennis.
How Media Mistakes Fueled the High Court Abortion Ruling
As Jane coins, "Death By Focus Group" at Firedoglake (just go to the website!), we have lost the sound, reasoned, non-biased, objective, and humanistic judgement of the Supreme Court.
This administration has so severely damaged our country; when will our 'elected' leadership begin to seriously engage in the impeachment process! I've learned to avoid saying "it can't get any worse; they've already done their damage" because it can, and usually does get worse unless you arrest the problem.
This administration has so severely damaged our country; when will our 'elected' leadership begin to seriously engage in the impeachment process! I've learned to avoid saying "it can't get any worse; they've already done their damage" because it can, and usually does get worse unless you arrest the problem.
Destroying our Constitution with a Thousand Cuts
Thanks to Jane at Firedoglake; her editorials rock! Maybe what we're seeing is man's inability to think objectively in light of their religious constitution. We would rather choose subscribing to a myth than treating each other with 'brotherly love' in reality. Jesus wouldn't have recognised it.
It's not just about someone being beholden to a living religious icon (the pope) but more about being beholden to an ideology progressively polluted by power hungry men to control the population.
It's not just about someone being beholden to a living religious icon (the pope) but more about being beholden to an ideology progressively polluted by power hungry men to control the population.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Schumer 4
Job well done, Senator Schumer; I couldn't agree with you more. Now, if he doesn't step down, is there an impeachment option?
Schumer 2
If Gonzales 'rejected the plan', then why was the plan implemented, and approved by Gonzales because it was 'his decision'?!
Many thanks to TPMTV for these videos!
Feingold 1
Isn't Al "Senior Leadership of the Department"? If it was his decision, did he not review the information to substantiate his decision? Obviously not!
Schumer 1
Show us the documents, then. Show us ALL of the documents, including e-mails!
Hoorah for Senator Schumer for directly confronting Al's gross incompetence!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Our Passive Approach to Mental Instability
This is my response to a local blog about the idea of having more people packing weapons to protect themselves from those like Cho. Here's the link: To Shoot or Not to Shoot http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=2021
I don't know, but I'm not comforted by the thought of our young adults packing weapons; isn't that what we're trying to avoid with all of our metal detectors in schools and government buildings? For violence to beget violence, is based on choice. There are many other countries, societies, and cultures who do not need overabundant weaponry to maintain order.
Maybe one of the reasons is that we need to be more pro-active about intervening when someone is imbalanced. His lack of directly threatening others should not have discounted that he was a danger to himself by mentioning suicide. Sometimes people like to have company when they throw their proverbial 'life switch'.
Intervention can be implemented if one is a threat to THEMSELVES and/or others. When a person passes the threshold of sanity, we cannot accurately predict what their behavior will entail. Suicide nor mass murder is a reasonable option. Cho obviously exhibited anti-social behavior that others felt threatened, as indicated in MSNBC article: "Cho’s words, actions fit school shooting patternBehavior typically raises concerns long before the shooting starts" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18175525/).
This is about mental health and our lack of intervening. We can no longer remain passive about helping each other out in accordance to our health, both physical and psychological.
We, as a society, need to rethink the ACLU's victory in 1968 when it was determined to be a violation of a mental patient's rights under the argument of 'false imprisonment'. A 72 hour hold doesn't even begin to detox someone let alone quality rehabilitation for the multitude of mental derailments our society manifests.
I don't know, but I'm not comforted by the thought of our young adults packing weapons; isn't that what we're trying to avoid with all of our metal detectors in schools and government buildings? For violence to beget violence, is based on choice. There are many other countries, societies, and cultures who do not need overabundant weaponry to maintain order.
Maybe one of the reasons is that we need to be more pro-active about intervening when someone is imbalanced. His lack of directly threatening others should not have discounted that he was a danger to himself by mentioning suicide. Sometimes people like to have company when they throw their proverbial 'life switch'.
Intervention can be implemented if one is a threat to THEMSELVES and/or others. When a person passes the threshold of sanity, we cannot accurately predict what their behavior will entail. Suicide nor mass murder is a reasonable option. Cho obviously exhibited anti-social behavior that others felt threatened, as indicated in MSNBC article: "Cho’s words, actions fit school shooting patternBehavior typically raises concerns long before the shooting starts" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18175525/).
This is about mental health and our lack of intervening. We can no longer remain passive about helping each other out in accordance to our health, both physical and psychological.
We, as a society, need to rethink the ACLU's victory in 1968 when it was determined to be a violation of a mental patient's rights under the argument of 'false imprisonment'. A 72 hour hold doesn't even begin to detox someone let alone quality rehabilitation for the multitude of mental derailments our society manifests.
Not Our Finest Hour
http://scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/04/court_rules_att.html
With such sensitivity to this subject, and thinking about the possibility that the procedure is as described, I can't disagree with the ban. But this is not an insurmountable issue; though with the current Supreme Court, it very well may be. There are, however, more humane ways to resolved 'late term abortion' by calling it for what it is: premature, preterm induced labor and declaring the fetus DNR, especially if it has pronounced co-morbidities. The use of narcotic/sedative medication (versus physical "injury" to the fetus), is far more compassionate to alleviate struggling life.
The ultimate decision regarding this issue (besides it being a personal, confidential discussion between the patient [and legal associations] and her physician, is that the adult woman's risk of increased mortality be paramount in the decision. From my understanding, since I have no direct knowledge, 'late term abortion' is not about birthcontrol but preserving life AS WE KNOW IT, not as we predict it to be. The mother is present, the fetus is potential. By measure of rescuscitative means, should a fetus survive, with a reasonable POTENTIAL at descent quality of life, then the medical profession should intervene as they are trained to do. We need to be actually listening to those who have had this experience.
For example, this comes from JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/297/13/1412 with a broader article discussion at Firedoglake.com:
"…Over the next two days, the power of modern pharmaceuticals is unleashed in an attempt to quiet her uterus and save the twins. In reality, this attempt is focused on the twin who is fully contained in the uterus, since the one who is almost inside the vagina has no realistic chance of achieving viability. The efforts are valiant — these twins were conceived after 10 years of marriage — and the desire is strong to salvage as much of this pregnancy as possible….
Inducing labor before membranes have ruptured, or before there is a maternal indication such as infection, is technically an elective abortion. This hospital, like most hospitals in the metropolitan area in which they live, has a strict no-elective-abortion policy, which forbids her obstetricians from rupturing her membrances and initiating labor. Women who want elective abortions go to Planned Parenthood; the ones who want to deliver full-term babies go to hospitals; and so the woman andher husband are told they cannot exercise that option at this hospital. The two of them, recent transplants from California used to a less faith-based practice of medicine, are shocked by this. Nobody wants this pregnancy more than they, they argue. The sole reason they are doing this is because the risks outweigh the benefits. Does the hospital require emergence of a frank infection before intervention is permissible? Is this in keeping with the highest standards of practice in modern obstetrics? Her obstetricians are sympathetic but helpless. Finally, they come up with a plan. The sole hospital that does not have such an abortion policy is a university teaching hospital several miles away. Telephone calls are made, a direct admission is arranged, and the woman's husband drives her to the teaching hospital, where labor is induced. The twins are delivered the next day. They are stillborn.
You might wonder, reading this vignette, how I happen to know so many details about this case, or even whether this is a fictional teaching case that so bedevils medical students. The unfortunate truth is that this is real life: I am the husband in this story.
But the greater tragedy here, to my mind, is the straitjacket that a religious worldview imposes on the complexity inherent within clinical medicine. Our world sometimes presents us with situations that cannot be simplistically categorized as pro-choice or pro-life, and other patients across the nation will be faced with decisions like the ones we made on that fateful day.
This is why hospital policies that originate in religion rather than science can be unhealthy and unsafe. Personal religious beliefs can and should guide the lives of clinicians of faith. The extent to which they guide a clinician's professional life is the clinician's personal matter, and I hope that clinicians will choose specialties and practice settings that ensure that patients receive needed care regardless of the clinician's religious beliefs. However, the extent to which these beliefs guide hospital policy is a matter of concern to all of us, whether we are patients or clinicians. The extent to which the US medical establishment succeeds in circumscribing the circle of influence of religion-based medicine will determine the quality of health care that phsycians can offer their patients. Clearly, irrespective of what religion each of us belongs to, this is the very least that our patients deserve.". http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/18/consequences-2/#comments
The Supreme Court does NOT have sufficient qualifications to make a professional medical decision, and our competent, professional physicians should not be restricted in their practice to provide safe and competent medical care.
Addendum:
Another story to think about:
"One Woman's Late Term Abortion Story (a must read):
http://texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3116
With such sensitivity to this subject, and thinking about the possibility that the procedure is as described, I can't disagree with the ban. But this is not an insurmountable issue; though with the current Supreme Court, it very well may be. There are, however, more humane ways to resolved 'late term abortion' by calling it for what it is: premature, preterm induced labor and declaring the fetus DNR, especially if it has pronounced co-morbidities. The use of narcotic/sedative medication (versus physical "injury" to the fetus), is far more compassionate to alleviate struggling life.
The ultimate decision regarding this issue (besides it being a personal, confidential discussion between the patient [and legal associations] and her physician, is that the adult woman's risk of increased mortality be paramount in the decision. From my understanding, since I have no direct knowledge, 'late term abortion' is not about birthcontrol but preserving life AS WE KNOW IT, not as we predict it to be. The mother is present, the fetus is potential. By measure of rescuscitative means, should a fetus survive, with a reasonable POTENTIAL at descent quality of life, then the medical profession should intervene as they are trained to do. We need to be actually listening to those who have had this experience.
For example, this comes from JAMA: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/297/13/1412 with a broader article discussion at Firedoglake.com:
"…Over the next two days, the power of modern pharmaceuticals is unleashed in an attempt to quiet her uterus and save the twins. In reality, this attempt is focused on the twin who is fully contained in the uterus, since the one who is almost inside the vagina has no realistic chance of achieving viability. The efforts are valiant — these twins were conceived after 10 years of marriage — and the desire is strong to salvage as much of this pregnancy as possible….
Inducing labor before membranes have ruptured, or before there is a maternal indication such as infection, is technically an elective abortion. This hospital, like most hospitals in the metropolitan area in which they live, has a strict no-elective-abortion policy, which forbids her obstetricians from rupturing her membrances and initiating labor. Women who want elective abortions go to Planned Parenthood; the ones who want to deliver full-term babies go to hospitals; and so the woman andher husband are told they cannot exercise that option at this hospital. The two of them, recent transplants from California used to a less faith-based practice of medicine, are shocked by this. Nobody wants this pregnancy more than they, they argue. The sole reason they are doing this is because the risks outweigh the benefits. Does the hospital require emergence of a frank infection before intervention is permissible? Is this in keeping with the highest standards of practice in modern obstetrics? Her obstetricians are sympathetic but helpless. Finally, they come up with a plan. The sole hospital that does not have such an abortion policy is a university teaching hospital several miles away. Telephone calls are made, a direct admission is arranged, and the woman's husband drives her to the teaching hospital, where labor is induced. The twins are delivered the next day. They are stillborn.
You might wonder, reading this vignette, how I happen to know so many details about this case, or even whether this is a fictional teaching case that so bedevils medical students. The unfortunate truth is that this is real life: I am the husband in this story.
But the greater tragedy here, to my mind, is the straitjacket that a religious worldview imposes on the complexity inherent within clinical medicine. Our world sometimes presents us with situations that cannot be simplistically categorized as pro-choice or pro-life, and other patients across the nation will be faced with decisions like the ones we made on that fateful day.
This is why hospital policies that originate in religion rather than science can be unhealthy and unsafe. Personal religious beliefs can and should guide the lives of clinicians of faith. The extent to which they guide a clinician's professional life is the clinician's personal matter, and I hope that clinicians will choose specialties and practice settings that ensure that patients receive needed care regardless of the clinician's religious beliefs. However, the extent to which these beliefs guide hospital policy is a matter of concern to all of us, whether we are patients or clinicians. The extent to which the US medical establishment succeeds in circumscribing the circle of influence of religion-based medicine will determine the quality of health care that phsycians can offer their patients. Clearly, irrespective of what religion each of us belongs to, this is the very least that our patients deserve.". http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/04/18/consequences-2/#comments
The Supreme Court does NOT have sufficient qualifications to make a professional medical decision, and our competent, professional physicians should not be restricted in their practice to provide safe and competent medical care.
Addendum:
Another story to think about:
"One Woman's Late Term Abortion Story (a must read):
http://texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3116
Daily Kos: [UPDATED] Carol Lam, Alberto Gonzales, and the 19 Congressmen
Daily Kos: [UPDATED] Carol Lam, Alberto Gonzales, and the 19 Congressmen
I don't know if there's enough septic/sewer sucking services to clean up this corrupted filth. Practically everything this administration has touched has turned to s**t. What alchemists they are!
I don't know if there's enough septic/sewer sucking services to clean up this corrupted filth. Practically everything this administration has touched has turned to s**t. What alchemists they are!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)