Fat
I am fat, not over weight, just fat.
Now I have that out of the way, I want to comment on this article. For a moment I was worried that the article would conclude that there should be a government benefit to cover stomach reduction surgery—but it turns out there already is in some states. Here are the money quotes (bold emphasis by me):
Raechel believes she gained steadily over the years because she's hungry all the time. ''I eat and feel full, and then 20 minutes later, I'm hungry again.'' There are both healthful foods and junk foods in their home, but she admits she frequently eats junk food because it tastes better.
When Raechel was 9, she went with her mom to Weight Watchers at the local VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) Hall in their hometown. Raechel weighed in and followed the program but wouldn't go to the meetings.
After several failed attempts at losing weight, Raechel says by this summer, she'd basically given up and was eating ''whatever, whenever. I know I eat too much, but I think, 'Why stop now?' "
Gastric bypass ''is a tool. It's not a cure,'' Wittgrove [the surgeon] says. She will have to dramatically change the way she eats and begin exercising more, and his staff will help her do that. His group conducts a nutrition and exercise class for patients a few days after surgery, and they call and check in on them monthly.
Wittgrove says there are several things Raechel needs to do for the rest of her life: drink lots of water, exercise daily, eat protein first at every meal to feel full longer and protect lean muscle mass during the rapid weight loss, take supplements and avoid snacking.
Raechel is following a broth and Jell-O diet this first week, but that's OK because she's not hungry... It's one week since the surgery, and Raechel weighs 308 pounds, a loss of 15 pounds. She's starting to add soft foods back to her diet. Her choices: soft-boiled eggs, cottage cheese and refried beans.
Okay, enough! What am I trying to say? P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-I-T-Y!!!!!!!!
I am fat because I love to eat and I hate to exercise. Given the choice of what to do in the evening after work I would choose to eat chocolate anything while watching TV. Raechel is no victim, she is a lazy slob. She goes on and on about how she wants to be a college softball player yet claims that she can't walk for very long. Hmmm. I want to play in the NFL, but am I doing anything about it? No. Do you feel sorry for me? Please don't. Does it matter to me that she is fat? For the most part no. Except there is one little problem. Read this:
Raechel's family has to pay about $3,100 of the total of $28,000 for the surgery and hospitalization. The cost of the laparoscopic operation varies widely. Insurance coverage depends on the severity of the patient's obesity and varies by provider and state. Brenda says that if her insurance agrees to cover it or if she gets the money together, she ''will definitely have it.''
You and I are paying for her surgery! Because she is too lazy to discipline herself we are paying for it with higher insurance rates. Obviously some states have caved to the fat lobby and made it mandatory. Just the simple fact that companies are required to insure employees creates too much demand for unneeded surgery!
I am so irritated by this that I have now lost my appetite for lunch. Great!
Aug 13, 2003
Liberia
This piece is a good starting point for debate. While there may be many reasons to disagree with Fareed Zakaria's conclusion, there is little doubt in my mind that he is correct that Iraq is a rarity while Liberias are to be expected. It would be good to develop an approach and strategy for dealing with these types of conflicts. I am not proposing a Clintonian policeman policy, but I am saying we need a national consensus on what to do--even if we conclude to do nothing. Without a consensus or strategy we are left to react to each new conflict that can be marketed as fertile ground for terrorists or a humanitarian crisis. I suspect this discussion will help us come to grips with what our role in the world should be when obvious national interests are not at stake.
This piece is a good starting point for debate. While there may be many reasons to disagree with Fareed Zakaria's conclusion, there is little doubt in my mind that he is correct that Iraq is a rarity while Liberias are to be expected. It would be good to develop an approach and strategy for dealing with these types of conflicts. I am not proposing a Clintonian policeman policy, but I am saying we need a national consensus on what to do--even if we conclude to do nothing. Without a consensus or strategy we are left to react to each new conflict that can be marketed as fertile ground for terrorists or a humanitarian crisis. I suspect this discussion will help us come to grips with what our role in the world should be when obvious national interests are not at stake.
House of Saud
This is an interesting, even if long, read. I am still pondering the question of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. However, there is one postulation I am certain of. Read this quote first: "SOON AFTER the 9/11 report was published, Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal flew to Washington and challenged President Bush to release the redacted portion. This dramatic gesture notwithstanding, the Saudis will maintain their posture of denial in the near term, regardless of what happens in Washington. If the 28 pages are withheld, the Saudis will claim unfair intrigues based on concealment; if the pages are released, they will complain of false accusations emanating from the Jews." This very well may be the simple explanation about the Saudi interest in releasing the redacted portion, but my theory is this: they want it released so they can figure out who is giving the Americans information. They want to catch the leak and chop his or her tongue off. Rhetoric aside, they know how professional and accurate our intelligence can be and they fear that we might be on to them. What is there to be on to? I think the biggest problem is that the monarchy is weak and divided. There is a fair chance that there could be internal strife in the near future. Unwilling to confront this reality, or force the issue, the Saudis who would be our friends are looking the other way while their rivals court fundamentalists. Again this is my theory, grounded in little fact. But I suggest you ponder the possibility.
This is an interesting, even if long, read. I am still pondering the question of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. However, there is one postulation I am certain of. Read this quote first: "SOON AFTER the 9/11 report was published, Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal flew to Washington and challenged President Bush to release the redacted portion. This dramatic gesture notwithstanding, the Saudis will maintain their posture of denial in the near term, regardless of what happens in Washington. If the 28 pages are withheld, the Saudis will claim unfair intrigues based on concealment; if the pages are released, they will complain of false accusations emanating from the Jews." This very well may be the simple explanation about the Saudi interest in releasing the redacted portion, but my theory is this: they want it released so they can figure out who is giving the Americans information. They want to catch the leak and chop his or her tongue off. Rhetoric aside, they know how professional and accurate our intelligence can be and they fear that we might be on to them. What is there to be on to? I think the biggest problem is that the monarchy is weak and divided. There is a fair chance that there could be internal strife in the near future. Unwilling to confront this reality, or force the issue, the Saudis who would be our friends are looking the other way while their rivals court fundamentalists. Again this is my theory, grounded in little fact. But I suggest you ponder the possibility.
Something is Wrong Here
I hate to admit this, but I finally read a Maureen Dowd column I enjoyed AND agreed with. Dowd is a liberal if I ever met one, but she is taking pot shots at most of the Democratic candidates for President--and she did it without once criticizing Bush! I often skip her pieces, but she gave it an irresistible title: "Blah Blah Blog". I was sure this would be a criticism of me (you are supposed to laugh now), but it turned out to be critical of the many phony blogs created by the various candidates for President and even Tom Daschle. Incredible. Maybe pigs can fly after all.
I hate to admit this, but I finally read a Maureen Dowd column I enjoyed AND agreed with. Dowd is a liberal if I ever met one, but she is taking pot shots at most of the Democratic candidates for President--and she did it without once criticizing Bush! I often skip her pieces, but she gave it an irresistible title: "Blah Blah Blog". I was sure this would be a criticism of me (you are supposed to laugh now), but it turned out to be critical of the many phony blogs created by the various candidates for President and even Tom Daschle. Incredible. Maybe pigs can fly after all.
Aug 11, 2003
Introduce a Friend!
It is time to increase the number of readers. I am making a shameless plug for you to promote this site by telling a friend. I'll even make it easy for you. Click on this link and most of the email has already been composed for you:) If you prefer just use the "email this" link at the bottom of each post to refer a friend to a post.
It is time to increase the number of readers. I am making a shameless plug for you to promote this site by telling a friend. I'll even make it easy for you. Click on this link and most of the email has already been composed for you:) If you prefer just use the "email this" link at the bottom of each post to refer a friend to a post.
Buckley Weighs in on Gay Marriage
I will have to let these articles stand alone with little comment for now. But I do think Buckley makes some good points on the issue of gay marriage, from the viewpoint of conservative principle, here and here. For the conservative it would be preferable to not change existing laws or amend the constitution. But faced with the intent of the gay marriage movement and the reality of current interpretations of the constitution by the Supreme Court conservatives are faced with a choice of accepting gay marriage or amending the constitution. To be honest, I am still undecided on the issue of an amendment so I find these pieces worth reading in my own decision making process.
I will have to let these articles stand alone with little comment for now. But I do think Buckley makes some good points on the issue of gay marriage, from the viewpoint of conservative principle, here and here. For the conservative it would be preferable to not change existing laws or amend the constitution. But faced with the intent of the gay marriage movement and the reality of current interpretations of the constitution by the Supreme Court conservatives are faced with a choice of accepting gay marriage or amending the constitution. To be honest, I am still undecided on the issue of an amendment so I find these pieces worth reading in my own decision making process.
Oops, You Didn't Do Your Research
I hate to call a liberal pundit into question for his facts. But so much of his piece in the Wall Street Journal rests on an incorrect fact. Who am I talking about? Peter Beinart. He states, in reference to Howard Dean, that: "The mystery of the 2004 Democratic campaign isn't that a governor has caught on--that happens in most presidential years. The mystery is that there is only one governor in the field, and that he comes from such a tiny state." OOPS!!!! Not only was Bob Graham a Governor, but he was Governor of FLORIDA! It is really hard for me to slam on Peter too much since I like the way his piece blames Clinton for the destruction of the Democratic Party. But he is either not paying attention to the campaign, OR he is flying loose and free with the facts. I guess he might just be buying the Dean line that Graham is not a major candidate. I suggest that this calls into question Peter's premise that Dean is doing well because he is a former governor and the only one available to the Democrats. Dean is doing well because he is new and original.
I hate to call a liberal pundit into question for his facts. But so much of his piece in the Wall Street Journal rests on an incorrect fact. Who am I talking about? Peter Beinart. He states, in reference to Howard Dean, that: "The mystery of the 2004 Democratic campaign isn't that a governor has caught on--that happens in most presidential years. The mystery is that there is only one governor in the field, and that he comes from such a tiny state." OOPS!!!! Not only was Bob Graham a Governor, but he was Governor of FLORIDA! It is really hard for me to slam on Peter too much since I like the way his piece blames Clinton for the destruction of the Democratic Party. But he is either not paying attention to the campaign, OR he is flying loose and free with the facts. I guess he might just be buying the Dean line that Graham is not a major candidate. I suggest that this calls into question Peter's premise that Dean is doing well because he is a former governor and the only one available to the Democrats. Dean is doing well because he is new and original.
Religious Litmus Test
Here is a piece by Robert Novak about the Democratic litmus test on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that warrants some fair discussion in American politics. If I firmly believe because of my religion that abortion is wrong, is it acceptable for me to stand on that issue politically? More appropriately, is it acceptable for a judge to be influenced by deeply held religious convictions? To turn the issue on it's head, if I was a scientist in the field of space travel and therefore had firm views that there was no life on Mars worth worrying about would this disqualify me to work at NASA? Sure you might say, this is a straw man, but my point is simply that he would or would not qualify depending on my own view of researching life on Mars. Like it or not, abortion is a highly charged political issue AND religious issue. There is no way to remove the influence of religion from thinking on the issue of abortion. I think Democrats are making a mistake. They should be honest and say that they want no judges that favor the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Stop attacking deep personal beliefs as evidence of the wrong temperament for the court. Surely Democrats would not disqualify, for reasons of judicial intemperance, a judicial nominee with deeply held beliefs about abortion being a right for women?
Here is a piece by Robert Novak about the Democratic litmus test on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that warrants some fair discussion in American politics. If I firmly believe because of my religion that abortion is wrong, is it acceptable for me to stand on that issue politically? More appropriately, is it acceptable for a judge to be influenced by deeply held religious convictions? To turn the issue on it's head, if I was a scientist in the field of space travel and therefore had firm views that there was no life on Mars worth worrying about would this disqualify me to work at NASA? Sure you might say, this is a straw man, but my point is simply that he would or would not qualify depending on my own view of researching life on Mars. Like it or not, abortion is a highly charged political issue AND religious issue. There is no way to remove the influence of religion from thinking on the issue of abortion. I think Democrats are making a mistake. They should be honest and say that they want no judges that favor the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Stop attacking deep personal beliefs as evidence of the wrong temperament for the court. Surely Democrats would not disqualify, for reasons of judicial intemperance, a judicial nominee with deeply held beliefs about abortion being a right for women?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)