kbordson

Very true.

Wonderful post. Excellent topic. I have no answers for you. Why do men and women have low self value? Why do I? Is it "the media"? Is it conditioning? Is it parental/friends/..... I'll likely post more later, once others have given other opinions and insights... but right now..... no answers.

I have never said that it's not "ok" - just questioned why there is such venom and malice directed toward a woman that has a personal belief that is just different. And pointed out that the reality is that she is NOT the current president, nor did she run for the Presidency. If McCain had won the election.... if he had died.... if she had THEN become president.... then she could have possibly appointed some Supreme Court justices that might have held views similar to her with respect to female reproductive options.... and those might have changed standing laws that respect a womans right to make decisions with her body. But, how many "if's" and "could haves" "mights" are in that paragraph? It just seems like a waste of energy and anger to spend time insulting her ... but that is just my opinion. OK? - But.... if you feel so directed to attack her for Sen. Palin beliefs because you are SUCH AN ADVOCATE FOR WOMENS RIGHTS AND HEALTH.... what is your opinion on female fetocide? where is your efforts with respect to fistula repair in Africa? Where is the outcry on female genital mutilation? Or is it truly just easier to attack one woman who has an opinion different from you and then be proud and pat yourself on the back for being so much more of an advocate of womens rights than Sen. Palin "obviously" is.

It would be a big deal to me if she decided to run for President. It is one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for her. So... do you believe in checks and balances? Do you think that she would be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling? If President she will have the power to nominate SC justices. So does Pres. Obama. And the concerns that others have about his appointments are just as valid as yours would have been had McCain been elected (and do note... McCain was the one running for President; not Palin) But when anyone considers questioning his selections, then they become either "racist" or "Anti-American" or some other attack. Would Pres Obama make his SC appts based on a single item issue? VERY UNLIKELY. Same probably could have been said for McCain. But since he wasn't elected, and since Palin was never in a position to nominate one at all... I think many are just trying to slander her cuz it's just a popular thing to do. Of course her opinion on this is important. It illustrates very clearly how extreme her position is compared to the American mainstream. See.... here, you're just proving my point.

It would be a big deal to me if she decided to run for President. It is one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for her. So... do you believe in checks and balances? Do you think that she would be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling? (not attacking, just asking. and do note - single topic decisions do make and break elections... not just this topic, but another example would be second amendment rights. Do you consider both topics to be as valid a reason to vote or not vote for a candidate)

She is absolutely allowed to have that opinion. Just as others believe in the rights of the women. And as a politician (ALL OF THEM - governors, senators, representatives, VP, Pres), they do have some limited ability to enact laws. BUT... that's why we have checks and balances so that one persons opinion doesn't become King (or Queen). The Supreme Court has decided that it is the womans right to make that decision. But basically, she CAN have that belief. Why is her belief such a big deal to you? Because it goes against what you believe? So what. Many people don't share all of my personal beliefs (for example: STAYING ON TOPIC IN DEBATES, firearms, universal coverage). I'm told to "get over it." Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't. But deep down I know that what you or her or anybody else believes really isn't as important to me as what I believe. I would listen to opposing arguments, consider how those conclusions are made and it might make me re-examine my thoughts... but ultimately, MY opinion is what is important to me. Gov Palin can think and do as she feels appropriate.

Look at post #74

NOT MUCH OF A CHOICE FOR A RAPE VICTIM, IS IT? The one that Palin wants to force to bear the child of her rapist. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't rape his girlfriend. SP is on record as opposing abortions for rape victims. SP believes the government should decide that a rape victim should bear her rapist's child. A rape victim has no choice in the sex and SP want her to have no choice in the aftermath. Maybe you were so star-struck you weren't paying attention to what she has said. Maybe you should read what's going on before jumping into the conversation. Although you are correct that jerryzflies didn't take the personal comments that Rhys gave into his reply, he did re-direct the conversation back from personal confessions to at least a little more topic related. But... in discussing jerryzflies comments... does Palin truly think that the woman should be FORCED to carry, or does she just oppose government funding of an act that many people consider murder? (Note: I didn't watch the youtube clip because I don't have the privacy right now to listen and determine from that what her personal beliefs really are) Other points: Some have argued that they consider "war" as murder.... as an argument, that isn't really the same situation; apples and oranges. Those service men/women are part of a voluntary service (at least here in the US).... The "unborn child" is not there voluntarily. But even the term "unborn child" can begin a separate topic. A debate on "when does life begin" will bring lots of sanctimonious "truths" from many "experts" on "life." Personally, I don't know when it begins... I don't know if it's a fertilized egg or at first breath... but, since I don't know, I wouldn't call anyone "stupid" for their beliefs on either end of that spectrum... rather that they just have different beliefs than I do. But... all of this wandering of this discussion really doesn't have anything to do with the topic of Palin and the Stimulus package.

"What be troubin ye?"

In Houston? Check. Wasted $1200? Check. Drinking cause your wallet was just raped to prove that you can speak English? Check. What is the Step II CS Board Exam? Do I win a prize? I, myself, was thinking "where's my ?"

Awesome, isn't it?!

Sir? Feels like 1130am (just got back to the US last night from over in the UK)

Morning. 5:30am here... but it "feels like" 11:30 and couldn't sleep.

Having recently spent some time over there, I was a bit surprised when I was told of the situation of the Ghurkas. Glad to hear that they are getting a bit more respect for what they have given.

Could it be that instead of a single thinking organism, maybe there are actual PEOPLE with independent thoughts that might not entirely agree exactly with every one else within that collective group?

Ok, I don't understand it there either. Both of the example studies use a very low "N" which raises serious questions on the possibility of selection bias. Meaning that jf I only need to have 80 people in my study, I can pick any 80 people that will support my theory - which doesn't necessarily PROVE my hypothosis.

I think my same comment applies to this thread.

That is not a piercing, that is a wound. It may be a jagged cut which is superficial, or it may be worse requiring medical attention. None of us can tell from here now can we? But hey maybe you are a physician. how deep is the laceration, do you know? If it was very deep at all she would be at the hospital. Honestly... these questions and the half joking comments on the pictures are actually VERY VALID points. When the piercing was ripped from the tissue, how much damage was done? If this is a true laceration, depending on the type of scar you want, you should get it looked at by a professional. It might need to have the wound closed... maybe even surgically. Without seeing it and without a full history, any advise you get over the internet is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. Especially if it continues bleeding.... GO TO THE DOCTOR!!

Equine excrement? I would probably comment on the possiblity of a type 1 error and would question the methodology of that study, specificially the selection bias'

I wish him well.

See. Now THAT would make this "conservative" happy. (legal disclaimer: I am not really a "conservative" - I'm just portrayed as one for the humor and entertainment of others)

I do see it as a conservative thing... MOST of the conservatives are vociferous in their support of any repubican candidate that tells them how horrible any kind of government intrusion into health care will be..... regardless of the facts. The insurance compaies.. and pharmacutical companies have paid those "conservative" politicians for their votes in deregulation....oh thats right.. its CAMPAIGN contributions.. not bribery... to maintain the status quo. They are bought and paid for. Politicians and government employees don't have to wade thru this crap... their coverage is golden.... gee I wonder why that could be???? The current system is not working for most of the people. Trouble is.. most of them will not see the problems until they have to use their "medical coverage". When they find out they are not covered its a little too late.... and that my dear is a rip off.. legal or otherwise and I for one believe if something is broke.. it needs to be fixed. You make some very good points. But... there are lobbiests on both sides. There should be correction in that. And it should be across the board.

"weasel out of"? I have no deep love for insurance companies and in fact have cursed several of them a time or two, but I wouldn't cry foul unless I can see the insurance contract that was signed by the insured including the fine print... that might list exclusions or requirments that would allow them the right to refuse payment for care. Those contracts are ridiculously complex. Lots of "pre-requirement" and "authorization" issues. Many times the patient, the physician and even those within the insurance company don't truly understand the benefits provided. So... a lot of times the insurance companies just deny the claim and (per the insurance contact) it is now the responsibility of the patient to refute that denial. And, as stated in the article, the "high denial rate is partly due to government rules that give insurers only 14 days to decide the validity of a claim." Then the article further excuses the insurance by stating they "paid without dispute "when the proper supporting medical evidence has been received."" (again... very complex contracts and listing an improper ICD#9 code ie listing 309.81, but not listing one of the 12 index entries - which might be required on the submitted forms might cause it to be refused or they might require for the diagnosis a confirmation by a separate second opinion or...) without seeing the contract signed, I have no valid way to argue for or against the denials. And it's not all the insurance companies fault. One of the contractor workers mentioned in the article didn't even have insurance prior to going over there. So blaming the insurance company isn't always the right option. Overall, I don't see this problem as a conservative or liberal thing. That's a business, legal, responsibility point. Personally, I am saddened by the situation. I have friends that are/were civilian employees in dangerous situations. I don't want them to have to go through similar troubles if they were to get hurt, but I also don't know what insurance plans they signed up for and what the fine print on those policies were. But they should.

Golden Knights Alumni Ass'n Airborne and Special Operations Museum Not forgotten, my good friend.

She asked for thoughts: You gave yours. I gave mine. Mine comes with the experience of having actually done an internship - not in pharm, but in medicine. Mine comes with the understanding that her time may soon be worth more to her than her money. Mine included the caveat that "if finances allow...." Yours came with insults - to her, to me... just throwing them out there like candy at a hometown parade. If you decide to go into a profession where persuasion is important, you might want to reconsider how you present your recommendations. edit to add: even with re-reading it, I still would advise against the new job. It's April 19th. She states that she graduates May 6, then starts the internship. That's only a three week window. IF she goes to the interview on Tues, 4/21, she likely won't hear from anyone for 1-10days (typical time frame to complete interviews and make decisions). But... even if she might hear by the 22nd, then would she start on the 23rd or would she more likely be starting on 4/27 or 5/4? Unknown variables, but it could be reasonable to assume that she would likely be starting no sooner than 4/27. She also hasn't mentioned if there might be finals or board reviews prior to finishing school. Nor has she said how many hours her internship will consume or how intense it might be. Starting a new job (even if it's in an prior field) AND starting a new internship is a HUGE demand. Is she capable of doing both and giving her internship the time that it would deserve or will one suffer... and considering that she might have a better paying job if she focuses and shines at the internship? My thoughts are based on assumptions made due to info not provided (not that she is misleading), but I still recommend (even with my rusty reading comprehension) that she NOT take the new job. edit yet again: I actually voted to join the circus - with a great big RUN! Make your life by playing for a living . . . party with the clowns, swing on the trapeze and get shot out of cannons. . . but the medical field. . . even the pharm field. . . . .