Welcome Governor Schwartzanegger =)

[Nicole Marie]

Ignoring a situation where thousands are calling for support and ignoring the deaths of people is terrible. If he didn't spend money on research, so what? Ignoring it and not getting the facts on the virus to the public is far worse.

Back to California.

[piqaboo]

[QUOTE] jmfryar:
For instance, for all the breast cancer campaigning and awareness, prostate cancer still kills far more men than breast cancer kills women. Yet we don't seem to have any form of recognition other than the "get it checked" recommendation when we go to the doctor.

See, since it kills middle class white men, who cares? And although it may not be true, it is the prevailing thought...QUOTE]

re prostate cancer - the best early detection cancer marker products in the world are for detection of prostate cancer, and better ones are constantly being researched. I personally know of several biotech and pharma companies with major drives to improve the screening, detection and prognosis of prostate cancer, to aid physicians in selecting appropriate therapy. One such company considered advertising its product at the Superbowl - splashy enough?? None of those companies is working on detection and prognosis for ovarian or breast cancer.

I agree that breast cancer is overhyped, probably because it serves as the posterchild for women's health issues. Women'd be better served by a drive for cardiac screening. But men's health is not in anyway being neglected. Particularly not the health of the white middleclass men who run the research and drug companies.

Nicole Marie, YRH, at least 2 of these companies are in California.... keeping business in CA despite the political rhetoric of our recent campaign....
is that enough tie-in to the thread?

Piqaboo the-biotech-nerd

<small>[ 10-08-2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>

[Shapley]

Keep those threads tied tightly! It's such a mess having to come back and tie them back together!

[we have to keep a little levity on these serious topics, lest the board get dull.]

V/R
Shapley

[haggis]

Stravinsky,
I agree with you. Here part of a column by James Lileks tht pretty much sums up your comments:


“I mean, the guy’s good - as a celeb, that is. His qualifications to govern the fifth largest economy on the planet? Absolutely none, as far as I can tell. But people won’t vote for him because they think he has the magic combination of legal skill and legislative prowess to push through a calibrated series of tariffs and user fees to balance the budget. They’ll vote for him because he’s more likable and trustworthy than the alternatives, and because they think he will Do The Right Thing.

Not a complex or nuanced reaction, perhaps, but that’s what it usually comes down to regardless of who’s running.

Will he win? Well, he’ll bring new voters to the polls - we saw this in Minnesota with Jesse. People who never voted will find it cool to vote for Arnie, and even though they might not be the most sophisticated participant in the process, they’ll probably intuit that a vote isn’t just a thumbs-up statement. It means something. Yelling “I bought your video” doesn’t really put an actor in your debt, but shouting “I voted for you” somehow does.

In any case, it’ll change a few minds about the possibilities of politics. All their life they saw politicians as nothing more than nerdy bloodless grinbots, and now here’s this guy: a giant with a gap-tooth smile smoking a Montecristo the size of Gray Davis’ shinbone. Heck yeah!”

<small>[ 10-08-2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[barfle]

<hijack> My dad is a survivor of prostate cancer. He was diagnosed by a blood test, and the cancer was NEVER symptomatic. The radiation treatment was fairly debilitating, although he recovered from it enough to drive across the country this year, and his stamina and strength continue to improve.

From my understanding of breast cancer (never knowing anyone who had the disease), the best method of early detection is self-examination. It's also a much more agressive tumor than prostate cancer typically is. According to my dad, more men with prostate cancer die of old age than do of prostate cancer - it's that slow growing.

My dad was fairly fortunate - he was diagnosed early, and was treated without having any body parts removed. Many breast cancers can also be treated successfully without major surgery, but the scars are just as debilitating, and the victims are usually younger.

This isn't to say that there's no need for research on prostate cancer, but detection and treatment seem far, far ahead of that for breast cancer. </hijack>

[redlover1]

Holy Cow guys!!! I didn't think my thread would derive such raw emotion ranging from California to AIDS to Prostate cancer! Did I open Pandora's Message Board Box?? HAHA

To anyone NOT living in California for the last 4 years, it is very hard to understand what we have been subjected to. I will explain why I was soooo ecstatic on having Gray "The Prince of Darkness" Davis recalled.

First, there are those people that stated he shouldn't have been recalled because he won the 2002 Gubernatorial election fair and square. Fair enough. I can agree with that statement if I didn't know all of the facts. First off, Gray Davis is one of the biggest MUDSLINGERS that I have EVER seen. This guy will discredit you in the most horrible way possible to win. Do you want to know why this guy won in 2002? He won because he eliminated the competition even before he got to the Gubernatorial race. Richard Riordan, had he been the Republican nominee would have BEAT Davis hands down. Instead, Davis cuts him out of the loop and instead get Bill "Tricky Dick" Simon as the contender against Davis. The 2002 election has only a 38% voter turnout (LOWEST EVER) because they both stunk! No one wanted either of them in office but us Californian's had to pick someone! So of course we go with the incumbent PRAYING he would do better the 2nd go around. Can we say, NOT! That was issue one with the recall.

Secondly, I have to admit, I have reservations about voting for Ah-Nuld myself but consider this: Voting NO on the recall rewards Davis on the Energy Crisis, The Tripling of our Car Registration Tax (Ours is one of the highest in the nation ANYWAY!), Legalizing Illegal immigrants to get Driver's Licenses (which back in 1997 he faltly vetoed.... hmmmm why have a change of heart NOW!), a 35 BILLION dollar budget shortfall, the inability to get our budget balanced in our state congress (it took basically rounding up all the state politicians and LOCKING THE DOORS until they came up with a messed up budget compromise for 28 hours to get them to pass a budget resolution), etc, etc, etc. That was something I could not condone.

If you voted YES like 54% of us did, then what are our options. HMMMM. Sure as heck not gonna vote for Bustamante since he is essentially a Davis Clone. McClintock was a good option but voting for him would strengthen Bustamante's chances of winning by taking a vote away from Arnold. Peter Camejo???? Snowball's chance in hell winning there. So we are left with Arnold as the ONLY option of removing the inept Davis. Maybe I shoulda voted for Mary Carey the Porn Star or Gary Coleman hahaha!


Arnold may not be the best person for the job. Heck he may not be able to honor even half of his 100 day turnaround plan, but this was more to show those career politicians that you had better serve the people or your job ISN'T SECURE even if you think it is. We elected you and by god, we can remove you as the recall showed.

Just my two cents.

Devin

[dai bread]

Originally posted by jmfryar:

....Kidnappings, Rapes, Fires, Gigli, AIDS, SARS, SIDS - it's just lost in the mix.

The life expectancy charts are about to be configured DOWNWARD for the first time since WWII because the obesity problem is so out of control in this country and they fully expect that children will have all the health issues associated with it. DOWNWARD...by YEARS...

I don't see portions getting smaller or less fatty...

What's this Gigli I keep reading about? Not Benjamino, surely!

*******

My younger son was in the U.S. a few years ago. He is a very large person, 6'+ high and darn near as wide, yet even he found that if he went to a cafe or restaurant he could get by with only 2 meals a day, and no snacks. We in N.Z. serve meals to suit Polynesians, who are also large people usually, and who for whom food is to varying degrees ceremonial, so we don't skimp our portions. But even we quail before the U.S. servings!

We have an obesity problem here too, largely among our Polynesian brethren. Our health officials are trying to get them to change their very fatty diet, but it's a slow job. Particularly since much of the flavour is in the fat. Yes, I know there are ways around that, but people need convincing and as I said, it's a slow process. If you reduce portion size, you are considered mean.

[Shapley]

I remember, back in the '60s and '70s, when eating out was a rare treat. If you only went a restaurant once or twice a month, you wanted to be sure to get your belly full. This was particularly true because of the high prices you paid for your meal. Simple economics, if the restaurants weren't full all the time, they had to charge more per meal to pay the rent.

Nowadays, the portions are twice as large, and the prices haven't changed that much, but we eat out several times a week. The restaurants here are always full, with lines out the door on weekends.

You can measure our prosperity by measuring our belt sizes!

V/R
Shapley

[jmfryar]

yes, but at the cost of our childrens health and the countries future?

Understanding that there is some jest to Shape's comment, but it's not an uncommon one...

We might as well go back to the late 1800's and let the robber-barons rape and strip the land if that's the goal. After all, does it matter what type of air the next generation will breathe if we're not paying attention to what we're feeding them?

Take this for what it's worth from a conservative Republican...there's a serious issue here.

Teen suicide is another one. It's quickly climbing to the Number 2 (from number 3) cause of death, but who's advocating on their behalf?

And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think you can measure success by weight...

<small>[ 10-09-2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: jmfryar ]</small>

[haggis]

Jmfryar

"The life expectancy charts are about to be configured DOWNWARD"

That's a bold statement. Can you give me some reference please?

To affect overall life expectancy rising deaths from obesity would have had to been happening for years. That hasn’t happened. Total deaths from all causes declined in 2001 and have declined every decade since 1950



According to the department of Health and Humans Services, life expectancy for Americans increased reaching an all-time high in 2001 of 77.2 years, an increase of two-tenths of a year from 2000.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says a drop in major causes of deaths, such as heart disease, cancer and stroke contributed to the increase.

The national death rate dropped slightly from 869 deaths per 100,000 people in 2000 to 855 deaths per 100,000 in 2001. The 2001 infant mortality rate remained the same from 2000 at 6.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

Deaths from HIV and AIDS dropped nearly 4 percent between 2000 and 2001, a downward trend since 1995.

Deaths from heart disease and cancer dropped by 4 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Stroke deaths dropped by 5 percent. The biggest drop was 7 percent for influenza and pneumonia deaths.

Heart disease accounts for over 50 percent of all deaths, As those numbers decline, they have the greatest impact on life expectancy as opposed to diseases that aren't as common among Americans.

"Teen suicide is another one. It's quickly climbing to the Number 2 (from number 3) cause of death, but who's advocating on their behalf?"

Again, reference please. according to the CDC <img src="http://www.aecf.org/cgi-bin/kc.cgi?action=graphimage&variable=tdr&year=1990&year=2000&area=United+States" alt=" - " />

teen deaths from accidents, homicide and suicide accidents have been declining since 1991, at least

I certainly don't mean to make light of young people taking their lives intentionally or in a vehicle accident - the highest cause of death of teenagers in the U.S. by a wide margin - but I also don't see a reason for despair.

Personally, I think we have much more reason to to be grateful than to despair.

<small>[ 10-09-2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[jmfryar]

you're comparing apples and oranges I think...

My statement on teen suicide was in reference to societal political correctness and media's attention to cause celebre - we react to skin eating diseases that cause 4 deaths and ignore an epidemic that causes 10's of thousands.

Focus is placed on certain issues but not on larger ones...this all started with me pointing out that we focus on Cali and the Governors race while one of the most catastrophic issues facing us - the Alternative Minimum Tax - goes on without a whisper of mention...

Every death of a teen by suicide is preventable, yet we do little more than put up a few posters and offer a grant or two to school counselors. It's pathetic.

As to the future forcast of a reduction in the life expectancy - this is a reaction to the growing rate of obesity and the health risks associated - It is not the CDC that produces these charts, it is health insurance companies. They are the ones who create them because they are the ones taking the gamble. You won't find that info at the CDC who looks backwards - you need to look at a site that looks forwards. The information was shared with my by an insurance adjuster and an actuary (two different compainies).

Here are several articles...the one that specifically discussed it is eluding me...I'll post it as soon as I locate it.

AETNA
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/EMIHC000/333/333/359858.html

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/EMIHC000/333/333/356866.html

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/333/21142/352518.html

Johns Hopkins
http://www.hopkins-arthritis.som.jhmi.edu/news-archive/2003/years_lost.html

Journal of American Medicine
http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/Obesity-Life-Lost8jan03.htm

NCBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12545586&dopt=Abstract

[jmfryar]

Here's one of the articles:

www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/newspaper/word-files/mar24b03.doc

Here's the testimony before congress on the subject:
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_060303.html

[Nicole Marie]

Back to California...

Here's some food for thought: Last night I was reading Elizabeth Wurtzel's "Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women”. She wrote this book 5 years ago and she was able then to see a disturbing trend in our society. I think her comment sums up this past election. She said, “The problem with Arnold Schwarzenegger movies is that they are dumb and senseless-the violence is all for special effect. On the other hand, San Peckinpah’s chiaroscuro Westerns are beautiful, full of red red blood in black and white. And they don’t pass off a three-day affair as the great love of one’s life. What I am trying to get across is that the ruin of the country will not be the bombs and machine guns and blood and guts flying through the air that constitute a large part of what we consider entertaining; what will kill us is the inability to think critically about these images or to raise children who know how to interpret them sanely.”

I think she nailed it. On CNN yesterday I saw a young women, she was asked why she voted in this election. She said, as she snapped her gum, “Because I wanted to see the Terminator elected!” Is this what it has come down to in this country? The only way we can get people to pay attention to our government is if we put a star in the running. No wonder the rest of the world is laughing at us.

On the board we bitch, we complain but I think we can all agree that this past election was a bit offensive. So instead of complaining, I’d love to know what everyone is doing about it? For example I support AIDS Project Hartford, NOW, the Nature Conservancy, ACLU, Elmwood Renaissance (http://www.elmwoodrenaissance.org) and the Democratic Nation Party and I support with money and time. The point is not my views but that I am trying to change a bit of the world and hopefully get more people to recognize who the Attorney General is and that the phrase American Idol can start to mean more than a glorified game show. So, I’m interested in what other people on this board are doing to change what Wurtzel calls, “the inability to think critically.”

[piqaboo]

originally from Devin73: Do you want to know why this guy won in 2002? He won because he eliminated the competition even before he got to the Gubernatorial race. Richard Riordan, had he been the Republican nominee would have BEAT Davis hands down. Instead, Davis cuts him out of the loop and instead get Bill "Tricky Dick" Simon as the contender against Davis.

Yeah, thats politics. It cuts both ways. Can you say "Dukakis"?

[jmfryar]

I applaud her answer - it's honest and reflective of the times. It doesn't matter who you put in place, the politicians aren't the real power. hers is a statement of the general public - who cares anyway?

The problem with your authors world view is it ignores 15,000 years of history, basically stating that it neither matters or applies.

Italy elected a porn star to parliment. Don't even get me started on the make-up of the German or French governments (remember a certain leader who had an "open" mistress and the laughter we got for persecuting Clinton for his affair?). The last thing we should do is look at Europe as our guiding light. As soon as they can get themselves straightened out and create a stable economy, then they can start offering advice.

Humans have marched through time and will continue to march through time despite any and all roadblocks and obstacles dropped in our way. The Chinese proved it by operating with a dynasty that made all major decisions by consulting with turtle entrails. For several hundred years. No damage. Rome at it's height was essentially run by a group so incestuous and filled with political intrigue that they made hardly any decisions. It continued to expand despite this.

Sure it fell, but due to its own success, gained under this sort of thing.

To point at "violent bloody" movies and call that the harm also ignores history. We've always had bread and circuses. We will always have bloody violence for entertainment. The day we don't is the day that we stop being human. I am male and proud of the fact that I attend ONLY films with the big explosions and guts and gore. Anything else I can view on my television at home. You don't need dolby surround sound for "Like Water for Chocolate".

There is a time and place for contemplation in the films you describe, but escapist entertainment is not it. Naval gazing has a place. So does pounding the crap out of other people. One I go to a theatre for, the other to a local Dojo.

We are, though, in agreement when it comes to being involved.

Where we differ is in our application. As I stated above, no matter what occurs in government, we march on. Because, ultimately, it's the woman who owns the drive thru cleaner, the teacher and the barber that will ensure that it continues to protect their livlihood and their families.

I volunteer for Big Brother/Big Sister, read aloud to children in the library, attend BGLAD meetings to assist parents with coming to grips with their childrens sexual orientation (apparently it helps to have a straight person there for them to talk to) and do what I can to be kind to people I meet. In my opinion, it's not through broad political agendas that we effect change - they're JUST as bad as the organizations they take on - but through simple human contact and the offering of sympathy and a chance that as we continue on, we do it in comfort and with dignity.

Don't get me started on people who truly believe that they have "THE ANSWER" to all life's troubles. They are one step away from concentration camps and turning planes into missles as far as I am concerned, no matter how good their intentions. No one has an answer, we move on despite this, and short of an all out nuclear holocaust, we don't have much to worry about.

[haggis]

"You won't find that info at the CDC who looks backwards - you need to look at a site that looks forwards."

There is no question that being obese is unhealthy

Nevertheless, it is the past data that defines life expectancy, not predictions. I agree obesity is and will become a problem if we don’t tackle it. I’m just saying it take A LOT of deaths – millions – to have any affect on the life expectancy rates.

How recently have we decided that obesity is a potential ”spoiler” to our life expectancy? 1 year? Two? The two most common causes of death relating to obesity are heart disease and diabetes. Here again, the data isn’t there to support a claim that we are about to undergo a health crisis of such proportions that it would change our life expectance

Remember, the most common causes of deaths among Americans are preventable i.e. diet, exercise, reducing input of alcohol, and avoiding risky personal behavior.

As the treatment of the few diseases that are still at the top improve the numbers of “preventable” deaths will be skewed even more towards the “risky behavior” categories and that included attendant deaths that are obesity related; diabetes, heart disease, etc.

To summarize, the available DATA indicate that the most common causes of death among Americans, especially diseases, have been dramatically declining since at least the ‘50s and probably longer. There is no available meaningful statistical evidence that would indicate that life expectancy will decline in the immediate future (10 – 20 years)

[jmfryar]

you didn't read a single one of the articles I posted, did you....

sigh...

You don't buy insurance in 20 years to cover the previous 20 years.

You buy insurance now for the next 20 years. It is the insurance companies, not the CDC, that sets the life expectancy rates. I appreciate that you think the insurance companies won't react until there are "millions" of people. Unfortunately, you're wrong. They'll turn on a dime if they have a chance to pick it up. They're rubbing their hands together and calculating the premiums they can charge for this.

The insurance premium is calculated based on life expectancy - it's going down - it's getting more expensive.

If you don't believe me or the articles I posted, call your local insurance agent. They'll tell you, it's going to be a fortune to acquire life insurance in the next 5-10 years for 20 year policies for 18 year olds.

[Shapley]

I think the situation is quite simple. AIDS, cancer, teen suicide, taxation, garbage collection, joblessness, job stress, etc. etc., we all have our concerns, to some degree, about all the problems, but we can't solve them all, so we deal with the ones closest to us. Subconsciously, we categorize the worlds problems and place them in our own order of importance, then deal with them as best we can.

The problem with groups like ACT-UP and other militant groups, both on the right and on the left, is that they want everybody focused on the problems that are near and dear to them.

That is self-serving and arrogant. It suggests that they alone understand the priorities we must place on issues. I devote time and money to the causes I believe in, and many of them may be contrary to or even directly in opposition to the causes others here on the board support or assist, but that is my right, and my belief.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Shapely, of course we only support organizations that we find interesting. If I went to work for the Young Republicans I'd probably hang myself at the end of the day. I find points that ACT UP make interesting, not sure why you are so offended by them, but I don't support them. I want to support an AIDS organization that is right in my backyard, AIDS Project Hartford. They give counseling, deliver food, take people to appointments, walk your dog and raise funds for people living with HIV/AIDS. They give basic support that many people loose when their family and friend find out they have the virus. Most people leave their loved ones to die alone with no help. AIDS Project Hartford fills that gap.

We support want we find fits our belief system. That's only natural. But I find people love to bitch and complain, they vote on impulse and react when the shit hits the fan and then say, "How did we get here?" Gandhi forced an entire military to leave his country and he did it non-violent ways. I find the board is (at times) filled with people who grip but never do anything to change the situation. One group may not change the world but one person can get people thinking. That's part of what Wurtzel was saying. I'm just interested in who is actually doing something about it.

[piqaboo]

by jmfryar:
yes, but at the cost of our childrens health and the countries future?

jm,
ya lost me. :confused:

How does a shortened projected life span cost our country its future?

Many great things were accomplished in the US prior to the steady increase in lifespan we've enjoyed over the past decades.

In some fields, the country might even benefit from a greatly shortened lifespan. This would bring younger people into the workforce at higher levels faster, and inexperienced people are often the most creative. Those of us with decades of experience in our fields tend to have habits which help us accomplish a lot in a hurry, but which also impede our free-flowing creativity.

Now personally, I'd like us all to enjoy the benefits of a longer life span. They are numerous, and show up socially as well as in health-related fields. Obesity is not only a health problem, its a quality of life problem. Its just harder to get thru each day carrying all that extra weight. So I dont disagree with you re the downside of fat children, I just dont follow the logic of shorter lifespan = no future for the US.