This blog is written by a couple of pissed-off patriots who share a fierce dedication to the Constitution - the only words ever put to paper worth dying for. We exist to remind y'all that America was founded on four boxes:
The Soapbox
The Ballot Box
The Jury Box
The Ammo Box
They should be used in that order. This is our soapbox.
To contact BG or YD, send email to:
WorthyDescendants_at_gmail.com
Your humble bloghostess is proud to be the recipient of not one, but two much-coveted Golden Monkeyfist awards!True Golden Monkeyfist - 2007
***************
Best New SoapBlox - 2008
There is a scene in The Battle for Algiers where French soldiers are manning a checkpoint and people are bottlenecked. A woman with a bomb in her basket walks up to the soldiers, smiles at them and is waved on through. The assumption that women are always safe and innocuous frequently turns out badly in real life as well, not just in the movies.
Consider for a moment JihadJane. A petite blond from the Philadelphia area, her arrest ought to serve as a brutal and vivid reminder that we can't make any assumptions based on outward appearances.
FBI analysts and national security experts have worried for years that Westerners with easy access to passports could be recruited for terrorist aims. Michael L. Levy, the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, said the JihadJane case "shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance."
Central to LaRose's case is the Internet, which is being used increasingly by al-Qaeda and other groups to penetrate U.S. borders with radical propaganda, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael E. Leiter said in a talk last month to the Intelligence and National Security Alliance.
"LaRose's actions again reflect the fact that immersing oneself in the propaganda and culture of jihadists through the Internet can lead to an individual attempting to undertake a violent act, no matter that person's age, gender, or background," according to an analysis by the SITE Intelligence Group, a private firm that monitors jihadist Web sites.
The country is full of disaffected losers who are susceptible to the wiles of radicalization, and a whole bunch of them look just like your next door neighbor. It is a symptom of pathologies in the larger society that people become so isolasted and distanced from their community that they are easily radicalized via the internet.
It isn't just radical Islam that poses the threat of radicalizing disaffected individuals. Right-wing militia types are utilizing the web as well. I don't know what we do to prevent people from becoming radicalized - I think that ship has sailed - but I do know that the successes we are having with fighting it comes from law enforcement rather than military action.
The case of JihadJane should serve as a wake-up call. Radicalized militants are like mice - for every one you see there are ten you don't, and those ten - the ones who are smart enough to stay hidden - are the ones I am worried about.
Jewish Hospital & St. Mary's HealthCare is eliminating 500 jobs, citing lower patient volume and a growing number of uninsured patients brought on by the lingering recession.
The cuts announced Wednesday - which represent about 6 percent of the Jewish's workforce of 8,100 - are the first large-scale job reductions in a Louisville hospital system since the economic downturn.
This is not rocket science, people. Illness strikes the insured and uninsured alike. Insured patients grow the economy by paying for health care. Uninsured patients harm the economy by consuming health care without paying for it. Hospitals who provide health care to people who can't pay for it lose money and have to eliminate jobs. Unemployed people lose their health insurance, and so the cycle continues and gets worse.
Ben Chandler, D-KY-6, owes us one vote in favor of health care reform.
Let me start by backing off a bit from the headline. I know there are a lot of good people in Texas and even a lot of good people with progressive politics down in the Lonestar State. But c'mon, it's a whole different country.
Anyway, over the last year our Justin Elliott has been reporting on the Texas state school board and its attempts to ban the teaching of evolution and generally rewrite high school curricula into something you might hear on the Hannity show. And not just for Texas schools but across the country -- because the size of the statewide Texas market makes its decisions highly influential with national textbook makers.
But last week something funny happened. The top right-wing activist on the board, Don McLeroy, got beat in the GOP primary by another candidate, moderate GOPer Thomas Ratliff, who specifically made McLeroy's school standards craziness an issue in the election.
If a wingnut freakazoid can lose in Texas, they can lose anywhere.
This is certainly not confined to Somalia. "Up to half the food aid in Somalia is diverted to corrupt contractors, local UN workers and Islamist militants, a leaked UN report says. The report, by the UN monitoring group in Somalia, is particularly critical of the UN's own World Food Programme and recommends an independent inquiry. It says WFP contracts are awarded to a few powerful individuals who operate cartels that sell the food illegally. The report has not been made public yet, but its contents have been leaked."
Neglect in the aftermath is what kills recovery. "US President Barack Obama has warned of a second disaster in Haiti, saying people should be under no illusion that the crisis there is over. Mr Obama said the situation in Haiti remained "dire" almost two months after the earthquake struck. He was speaking after talks with Haitian President Rene Preval in Washington. Mr Obama told Mr Preval that the US would continue to help Haiti in its recovery and reconstruction efforts. He praised Mr Preval for being a "profile in courage" in the aftermath of the 7.0-magnitude quake. Mr Obama said there remained a desperate need for humanitarian help, especially as seasonal rains could threaten the more than a million Haitians left homeless by the quake on 12 January."
UN caves to the climate deniers. "UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has asked the world's science academies to review work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Work will be co-ordinated by the Inter-Academy Council, which brings together bodies such as the UK's Royal Society. The IPCC has been under pressure over errors in its last major assessment of climate science in 2007. Mr Ban said the overall concept of man-made climate change was robust, and action to curb emissions badly needed. The Inter-Academy Council will convene a panel of experts to conduct the review, and will be run independently of UN agencies. "Let me be clear - the threat posed by climate change is real," said Mr Ban, speaking at UN headquarters in New York. "I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of [the IPCC's 2007] report." Nevertheless, he said, there had been "a few errors" in the 3,000-page report (known as AR4), and there was a need "to ensure full transparency, accuracy and objectivity". "
You should be eating salmon anyway. "EU nations have decided to support a ban on international trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna until stocks recover. The bloc has agreed to back a motion for a ban during next week's meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The US has already given its support, but Japan - where most bluefin is eaten - may opt out of CITES controls. The EU is backing exemptions for traditional fishers, and deferring the ban for a year. Malta was reportedly the only EU member to vote against supporting the ban proposal, which was originally lodged by Monaco last year. Conservation groups were generally pleased."
Pressure won't do it; time for sincere threats. "Israel is coming under growing international pressure following its approval of new housing for Israelis in occupied East Jerusalem. Britain, France, the EU and the Arab League have all added their protests against the decision. The housing row has overshadowed a visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden which is meant to promote a new round of US-led negotiations. He has condemned the move, saying it undermined trust in the peace process. Israel and the Palestinians had agreed to hold indirect "proximity talks" in a bid to restart the process, which has been stalled for 17 months. But earlier this week it approved 1,600 new homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem. The international community considers East Jerusalem occupied territory and building on occupied land is illegal under international law. Israel regards East Jerusalem - which it annexed in 1967 - as its territory, but Palestinians want it as the capital of their future state."
Criminal charges in massacre. "Nigerian police say 49 people are to be charged with murder after communal violence left scores of villagers dead. Most of those facing charges are Muslims from the Fulani group, police spokesman Mohammed Lerama told the BBC. The number of those arrested since the killings near the city of Jos has risen to 200, he said. Police say 109 people - thought to be mostly Christians - died in Sunday's bloodshed. Earlier reports put the toll at more than 500. The violence followed sectarian killings near Jos in January that left more than 300 dead, most of them believed to be Muslims. Plateau State, in central Nigeria, sits between the mainly Christian south and the predominantly Muslim north. Although the violence takes place largely between Muslims and Christians, analysts say the underlying causes are economic and political."
Meanwhile, nobody's really trying to solve this one. "Businessman Boris Berezovsky has won a libel case over allegations he was behind the murder of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko in London. He was awarded £150,000 ($224,000) at the High Court over a claim made by Russian TV channel RTR Planeta. Mr Berezovsky, 63, said he had been a friend and supporter of Mr Litvinenko and the comments were "outrageous". Mr Litvinenko, a fierce critic of ex-Russian President Vladimir Putin, was poisoned with polonium in 2006."
Bibliophiles rejoice! The Italian government has signed a deal with Google to put the contents of two national libraries on the internet. Up to one million antiquarian books - including works by Dante, Machiavelli and Galileo - will be scanned and made available free on Google Books. There is no copyright issue as all the works were published before 1868. The Italian authorities welcomed the scheme as budget pressures have cut the amount that can be spent on preserving the collections in Rome and Florence. Mario Resca of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage said the deal would help save the books' content forever, noting that the 1966 Florence flood ruined thousands of books in the city's library."
Biology Moment of Geek "Two studies published on Wednesday show it is possible to sequence the entire gene maps of families with inherited diseases and pinpoint the offending bit of DNA. ... The studies, which would not have been possible a year or two ago, are the first real delivery of the promised transformation of medical science from the Human Genome Project's mapping of the human genetic code. ... One was also made possible by some of the $5 billion that U.S. President Barack Obama directed to the National Institutes of Health in September from the $787 billion economic stimulus package."
Head of the Arab League says peace talks are off "Arab League chief Amr Moussa said on Wednesday that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had told him he would not enter indirect talks with Israel, only days after the Palestinian side had agreed to the contacts. ... The about-turn puts on hold U.S. efforts to bring together Israel and the Palestinians in so-called proximity talks. The proposed talks, the Palestinian chief negotiator said this week, were a "last chance" to keep the Middle East peace process alive. ... The decision came after Israel announced on Tuesday it would erect 1,600 settler homes in an area of the occupied West Bank it annexed to Jerusalem. Abbas had only agreed to the talks on condition that Israel imposed a Jewish settlement freeze."
Recognition, finally. No small share of the credit for America's victory in WW II goes to 1,102 women who served as Women Airforce Service Pilots. They served as test pilots and trainers, they drew live fire in training missions and delivered planes to the theater of operations. They had all of the responsibilities and none of the benefits, and the way they were treated by the nation they wilklingly, eagerly served is shameful. Several of these brave women gave their lives in service, and when they did the Army didn't even pay to send the body home, the women she served with chipped in to see that her remains were returned to her family. Today, 65 years after the war ended, the WASPs were finally recognized in a ceremony on Capitol Hill that awarded the women who served as pilots with the Congressional Gold Medal. So many of the 300 surviving WASPs and their families turned out for the ceremony that it had to be moved to a larger venue.
Seven years after Rachel Corrie's death beneath an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza her parents are getting their day in court. Their civil suit against the Israeli defense ministry started today in Haifa. "The more we found out, the more likely that the killing was intentional, or at least incredibly reckless," Craig Corrie said. "And, as a former soldier, I was even in charge of bulldozers in Vietnam... You're responsible to know what's in front of that blade, and I believe that they did."
The impact of 'Cash for Clunkers' was significantly underestimated "According to federal government data, 677,000 purchases were made through Cash for Clunkers from late July through August. Maritz's research showed that 542,000 were incremental new car or truck sales, meaning those purchases would not have occurred without the incentives. Previous estimates by industry analysts put the incremental sales figure between 125,000 and 346,000. ... The government's Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, offered vouchers of $3,500 or $4,500 to owners of older, gas-guzzling vehicles who traded them in for new, fuel-efficient models. The program, which was expected to last several months, was so popular that it ran out of its $3 billion in funding in two months. ... "Our findings not only provide strong evidence that many more vehicles were sold as a direct result of the incentive program than were previously estimated, but they also debunk the myth that Cash for Clunkers mortgaged future car and truck sales," said Dave Fish, a Maritz vice president. "In fact, the program resulted in sales of vehicles to people who don't normally buy them.""
And finally...
Less than $200 to go We have been ending the roundup each night with an appeal to hit the 'donate' button and throw some spare change in the open laptop case. Here's the deal: to keep the lights on around here costs about fifteen hundred bucks a year, about a third of which is covered by ad revenue. That leaves about a thousand to come up with every year. We are passing the hat for five hundred dollars, and we are $210 away from our goal. That's it. That's all we need to raise. We have hundreds of readers every day - if half of you made a five dollar donation, we would be home free in one day, and have a cushion to help out other bloggers who may have needs arise in the coming months.
It's sad to witness a once proud newspaper like the Washington Post debase itself by surrendering valuable real estate on its editorial page to a deranged partisan like Marc Thiessen whose obsession is with protecting an embryonic police state of illegal torture, secret prisons, indefinite detention, and unlimited executive power.
But there's no reason the Post must compound its error by abandoning ancient and honored journalistic standards and traditions in the process, as if logic, intellectual honesty and fair argument have a disqualifying "liberal bias."
No matter what a columnist's personal beliefs or commitments might be, his or her readers must always be that writer's first responsibility. And that means respecting them enough to never, ever, deliberately deceive or manipulate them in order to advance some pet ideological agenda. The same holds true for a columnist's editors.
Sadly, Thiessen's editors at the Post were derelict in their duty this week when they allowed the former Dick Cheney and Jesse Helms mouthpiece to misuse their readers by peddling propaganda packaged as journalism on behalf of attempts to savage lawyers who've represented alleged terrorists in the past.
It's possible that a serious argument could be hammered together against the Department of Justice employing attorneys who think suspected terrorists deserve to be treated like human beings. But Thiessen doesn't even try. Instead, like most committed ideologues, Thiessen wants to get from Point A to Point B and isn't too particular how he gets there. Point B in this instance is keeping any attorneys who've expressed even the slightest misgiving about Dick Cheney's Terror Regime as far away as possible from positions of influence within the DOJ where they might aid efforts to close down Cheney's Little Shop of Horrors -- even if this includes throwing these lawyers to fear-crazed lynch mobs.
Take a look at Thiessen's very first paragraph: "Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases?"
"Mob lawyers?" Does Thiessen really expect us to believe that representing suspected al Qaeda terrorists before military tribunals, often at the request of the JAG itself, makes these pro bono counselors full-time employees of al Qaeda? Because that's the impression Thiessen leaves behind, and almost certainly by design.
And then there is this gem which argues that liberals and the media are guilty of a hypocritical double standard: "Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals "war criminals" and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the "al-Qaeda seven" when a Spanish judge tried to indict the "Bush six"? Philippe Sands, author of the "Torture Team," crowed: "This is the end of these people's professional reputations!" I don't recall anyone accusing him of "shameful" personal attacks."
Nowhere in his piece does Thiessen mention that the reason these Bush lawyers were attacked in the first place was for shredding the Constitution and deliberately misinterpreting the law, calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint," in order to give their "clients" -- the president and vice president of the United States -- exactly what they wanted, which was a blank check to wage the "war on terror" however they saw fit.
And the reason we know this is because it was Republicans like Jack Goldsmith who said so. Goldsmith, who replaced John Yoo as director of the Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ, was appalled and outraged by what he found once he was given security clearance to read the classified legal briefs that Yoo had written.
Think about that. Bush and Cheney were so confident about the legality of the tactics they were employing in their "war on terror" they had their lawyer's legal brief providing the Constitutional justification for their unprecedented use of power stamped "Top Secret" so no one would find out that they thought the republic they were elected to serve had somehow become a dictatorship.
And once Goldsmith got his hands on Yoo's classified briefs, he quickly "took them down" -- overruled them -- to protect government officials who might rely on these abominations for legal guidance in the future.
Yet, in Marc Thiessen's mind, attacking Republicans, attacking Democrats, it's all the same thing. The reasons do not matter. Criticize one without criticizing the other and you're automatically a hypocrite.
And what are we to make of Thiessen's final outrage -- his belief that suspected terrorists held for years at Gitmo are entitled to neither legal representation nor any of the other protections customarily provided by the American legal system just because most of these detainees have never been formally charged.
So, the lesson we should draw from that is this: If you want to detain someone indefinately -- never let them get their day in court -- the best thing to do is to never officially accuse them of anything.
And where did Thiessen say he got this bang-up piece of legal advice? Why, from a former assistant US Attorney named Andy McCarthy. And who is Andy McCarthy? He's a frequent contributor to National Review Online, where Thiessen also posts, as well as one of the very first conservatives to call for the names of the "al Qaeda 7?" Do you think Thiessen mentioned any of this in his Washington Post piece? Catching on?
There is a larger point to make here than simply Marc Thiessen is a vicious partisan thug who will lie, distort and stop at nothing to get his way -- or that the Washington Post should be ashamed of itself for letting him get away with it.
The more important point is that this episode puts into stark relief the many ways that right wing elements in our country are trying to grab and consolidate political power by going around the normal democratic rituals and traditions we've put in place to preserve government of, by and for the people. It is also a cautionary tale about how traditional democratic institutions, like a free press, seem unable to stop them.
Political legitimacy in our republic rests of two primary pillars. The first is popular sovereignty, which ensures that the actions of the state will be undertaken only with the consent of the governed. And the second is Rule of Law, which inserts the predictability and impartiality of fixed rules and procedures in place of the arbitrary and capricious whim of individual leaders. Both these pillars have been undermined in this present case.
Since power rests on consent of the governed, our democratic system must ensure that this consent is not coerced in any way and is freely given. Physical force or intimidation is not always required to undermine this basic right. Deceptive and manipulative rhetoric of the kind Marc Thiessen traffics in every day is equally good at undermining voluntary consent because it robs from The People the factual basis upon which they are able to meaningfully deliberate and reach an informed decision. This was the epiphany that Scott McClellen had when he resigned as George W. Bush's press secretary to write a book apologizing to the American people for lying to them.
At the same time that the Radical Right is undermining democracy by manipulating public opinion, it is also trying to subvert rule of law as the governing principle of our democracy.
Right wing authoritarians like Thiessen and Cheney -- as well as lawless renegades like Tom DeLay and George W. Bush -- do not so much promiscuously break the law as show sneering contempt for it. When Tom DeLay says he wants judges who apply the law not make the law what he really means is he wants judges who do as they are told -- by populist demagogues like him. In the name of law and order and protecting the regime from danger, these authoritarians instinctively work to undo any legal regime that cramps their style or restricts their freedom of maneuver as the nation's "Deciders."
Rule of law involves the precise application of specific law to specific circumstances. What Jack Goldsmith says John Yoo and other right wing lawyers did in giving Dick Cheney his green light to spy and torture at will -- and to do it all in secret -- was to use vague and abstract legalese to effectively define the law away, creating what Walter Lippmann once called the "lawless legality" of those whose commitment to particular political agendas leaves them willing to abandon the law by denying that in making law or interpreting law they are in any way bound "by the spirit of law."
Seen in this broader political context, Marc Thiessen's support for Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol's assault on American legal traditions is but one more piece of evidence that there exists out there a powerful right wing movement that is attempting an authoritarian grab for power by evading those established norms and standards we have put in place over two centuries to preserve consent of the governed and impartial rule of law.
And the scandal of it is that once-great institutions like the Washington Post are letting them get away with it.
The archdiocese of Denver, Colorado, is defending its decision not to re-enroll two children in a Catholic school in Boulder next year because their parents are lesbians.
"The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are 'bad,' or that their children are less loved by God," wrote Archbishop Charles J. Chaput in an article to be published in Thursday's edition of the Denver Catholic Register.
"Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Wrong. According to the New Testament, Jesus never spoke one single syllable on the subject of homosexuality. Or abortion for that matter. He did make crystal clear his position on sexually liberated women, however: he was on their side.
And his opinion of the Pharisees on whom the Vatican still models itself is unfit for print.
Don't even try to tell me that a liberal Democrat who stands tall for what he believes in and calls the motherfuckers out for fucking their mothers can't garner a majority of the vote - from even the most unlikeliest of places.
Republicans like a politician who stands up for what he believes -- even if he believes the Republican Party is populated by a bunch of "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals."
The candidate leading the Florida GOP primary to determine who will take on Rep. Alan Grayson, the Democrat who represents the Orlando-based district, is none other than Grayson himself, according to a poll paid for by his campaign. Grayson is a freshman congressman who has drawn scorn from the GOP and has quickly built a nationwide following of progressives.
The poll has Grayson leading the 13 Republicans -- among Republicans -- with 27.8 percent of the vote. The congressman who mocked the GOP health care plan by saying that it amounts to telling people not to get sick and if they do, to die quickly, received more support than all of the Republican candidates combined.
No GOP candidate scored above 3.7 percent; 57.7 percent said they were undecided. Grayson did particularly well with women, undercutting the notion that referring to a Washington lobbyist as a "K Street whore" would turn female voters away. (Grayson later apologized for the word choice.)
The poll was conducted on Feb. 26th. There were 324 respondents, all registered Republicans in Florida's eighth district. The poll was conducted by Middleton Market Research.
Grayson told HuffPost that some of the support comes from Republicans who appreciate that he speaks his mind, while some is due to his far-superior name recognition. But the poll also found at least one area where Republican voters thought favorably of him.
In 2009, Grayson, who carries a copy of the Constitution with him, passed a resolution calling on schools to teach the document for one week in September each year.
Over half of the Republicans polled said that they were more likely to vote for Grayson because of the resolution. He has distributed tens of thousands of copies of the Constitution throughout the district, including one to each high school senior. This September, he said, he plans to go to high schools and teach the Constitution personally in the district.
And if the poll really is bogus, that just makes it funnier and more true.
My experience as a patient in traditional fee-for-service medicine is, by my own admission, quite limited. I worked in the civilian healthcare system here in Kansas City and for about a year I bought the insurance my employer offered and got my care from physicians I worked with in that hospital. I have told you before what freaked me out the most about that experience - even thought every physician I saw - a gynecologist, a breast specialist/oncologist, an internist and an orthopedist - was in the same clinic tower, each office maintained their own chart. The internist was all about performing every service he could think of and collecting that fee, and every appointment he loaded us up on samples of some drug or another. This is the doctor who wanted me to take antidepressants for the pain in my knees that is caused by osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease, and who ended up firing me for being a non-compliant patient.
This development did not hurt my feelings one little bit. I ran as fast as my well-muscled legs would carry me to K.C.'s public health system, where I threw myself into the arms of my friend and colleague, the late Dr. Frederick DeFeo, and sobbed that it was just awful, the oncologist didn't know what the orthopod was doing and the Internist was just a middle-aged white drug pusher who wanted to start chopping parts off of me - the parts that make me a woman, at that!
That is what he fired me over. My refusal to let him turn me into a female eunuch for no good reason.
I have a family history of breast cancer. I have buried several cousins and aunts who died from the disease. Those who died succumbed to an aggressive cancer that presented itself in their late twenties and early thirties. I managed to dodge that bullet. My experience with breast cancer was a non-event. It was a stage zero ductal carcinoma in situ, a diagnosis that many researchers don't even bother to count in the breast cancer statistics. Indeed, many researchers refer to it as "precancer." It was a pinpoint-sized cluster of cells, confined to a mammary gland. I missed a grand total of two days of work, and my treatment consisted of taking one pill a day for two years. I have remained cancer free for almost seven years.
The internist I was seeing decided, after looking carefully at my insurance cards and doing a quick financial calculation, that I should have a hysterectomy and bilateral mastectomies and breast reconstructions.
I thought this was a pretty severe overreaction to a handful of cells gone bad and the genetic profile of an Ashkenazi Jew.
I would be a liar if I tried to discount or downplay the role that vanity played in my reaction to that proposed care plan. My reaction was to recoil in horror at the very thought. A hysterectomy would have thrown me into menopause immediately, and I am not a candidate for hormone replacement therapy.
Doctors visits were unpleasant encounters. He would come into the exam room and inform me that he was having the nurse schedule surgery, stop at her desk on the way out and get the information. I would then say no, I was not going to have major surgery as a preventive measure, and he would get annoyed with me and try to lecture me, and I would remind him that I read the same journals and research papers that he did, plus a few and I was not convinced that I would derive any benefit from the procedures he wanted to schedule. After the third time I refused to schedule surgery, I got a surprise the following week. My mailman knocked on the door to deliver a certified letter to me from my doctor. He was firing me for being a non-compliant patient.
The percentage of women asking to remove both breasts after a cancer diagnosis has more than doubled in recent years. Over all, about 6 percent of women undergoing surgery for breast cancer in 2006 opted for the procedure, formally known as contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among women in their 40s who underwent breast cancer surgery, one in 10 opted to have both breasts removed, according to a University of Minnesota study presented last week in St. Louis at the annual meeting of the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Surprisingly, the practice is also more popular among women with the earliest, most curable forms of cancer. Among women who had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ, sometimes called Stage 0 cancer or precancer, the rate of double mastectomy rose to 5.2 percent in 2005, from 2.1 percent in 1998, according to a 2009 study in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Women with a known genetic risk for breast cancer can lower the chances of developing it by having both breasts removed before cancer appears. But for most women given a diagnosis of breast cancer, cutting off a healthy breast does not improve the odds of survival.
A new study in The Journal of the National Cancer Institute reviews data on 108,000 women who underwent mastectomy, including 9,000 who chose to remove a healthy breast along with the cancerous one. It found that for most women, having a healthy breast removed after a cancer diagnosis had no effect on long-term survival.
I resisted because I know the risks and how to read the statistics. My greatest risk was not of a secondary cancer occurring in the other breast, it was of the previously diagnosed stage zero cancer returning and spreading to either bone or lymph nodes. I knew that removing the healthy breast would do nothing to change those odds. But hey! As an added bonus, I would have lost all sensation across my chest!
The decisioin I made was the right one for me. At the end of the day, it is the decision of the woman who finds herself in that situation. I made my choices and I have no regrets, but the article linked has a couple of personal accounts by women who made the opposite choice that I did, and they have no regrets either.
What ultimately swayed my decision was not just the science, though. It was other, more personal and more human factors. Intimacy and vanity were definitely on the top of that list when I was weighing my options.
"My options."
Say that out loud. And should you find yourself in a similar situation remember that you have options - and they are yours to choose from. No one else has the right to make those choices for you. They are yours. Not your doctors, not even your partners. Yours. Don't make them lightly.
Now this is what I expect from an elected representative.
March 9, 2010
Washington, DC
Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Fla., today introduced a bill (H.R. 4789) which would give the option to buy into Medicare to every citizen of the United States. The "Public Option Act," also known as the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act," would open up the Medicare network to anyone who can pay for it.
Congressman Grayson said, "Obviously, America wants and needs more competition in health coverage, and a public option offers that. But it's just as important that we offer people not just another choice, but another kind of choice. A lot of people don't want to be at the mercy of greedy insurance companies that will make money by denying them the care that they need to stay healthy, or to stay alive. We deserve to have a real alternative."
The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish enrollment periods, coverage guidelines, and premiums for the program. Because premiums would be equal to cost, the program would pay for itself.
"The government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of the population. That's like saying, 'Only people 65 and over can use federal highways.' It is a waste of a very valuable resource and it is not fair. This idea is simple, it makes sense, and it deserves an up-or-down vote," Congressman Grayson said.
In keeping with the "Grayson style," the bill is clear and concise. It is only four pages. You can read the bill here.
I go back a few years with Dan, and he has always come through for me like a champ. I honestly can't say enough good things about him or his business. --BG
Show Me Blue Girl's Favorite Missouri Blogs
***************
Best New SoapBlox - 2008
