home

Manly Men? Say No More

Via DougJ, I'm pretty sure Mark Shields is joking about his desire for "manly men"

Say no more. Know what I mean?

Open thread insinuated here.

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | First U.S. Cannibis Cafe Opens In Portland Oregon >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    oops, make it to Vietnam (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    I can never type without coffee or when ticked.

    My error ratio also goes up in portion to (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:35:10 PM EST
    how much a subject ticks me off.

    Parent
    BTD has everyone beat (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:56:11 PM EST
    I remember being up at 2:00 am reading his diaries at Orange...completely fascinated with this ability to speak with all these people from every place about a given topic.

    Heh- If I w@s ad briite as you r I woud jst shoot mi fckng self.

    Parent

    Manly men. We are saved. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Compound F on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:33:02 AM EST
    What are we other males, estrus females? Ya think?

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:28:08 AM EST
    I never thought of Obama as a "manly man".  Seemed more like the popular kid who coasted through school because he was popular (even though deep inside he always worked to get more people to like him).

    For Digby, the primaries aren't so over: (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    Not sure what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    but I agree with digby on this:

    "I honestly can't get worked up about that. It's the way the court always works, I'm afraid, and I have never thought that Obama's team would be above such things. Certainly it doesn't seem beyond the pale in the case of Greg Craig who made his bones in the campaign by using his creibility as a former Clinton insider and good friend to ruthlessly criticize her claims to expertise. He did nothing wrong, of course, it's a rough game, but if he's now been maneuvered out by rivals it's hard to feel too sorry for him. Indeed, I would guess that his willingness to savage his former friend might possibly be something that made Obama mistrust him a little bit. (That's always the danger of doing such things isn't it?)"

    That seems spot on to me.


    Parent

    Exactly. My point: just because it happened (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    during the primary doesn't mean we must move on.  She hasn't.

    Parent
    I think it's a lot less about the Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    connection, and a lot more about Craig not getting on board with the administration's decision to adopt many of the Bush policies on a host of civil liberties-related issues.

    If Craig was pushing back, speaking some uncomfortable truths, challenging the administration - you know, the kind of thing Obama once said was healthier and less dangerous than having nothing but yes-men and -women around him - and that's why he got closed out, that's a lot too "dark side" for me, too.

    I think bringing Clinton into the mix is just a little too convenient, too obvious a distraction.

    Parent

    OMFG the girl was on some crazy trip ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ellie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    After being "jacked up" on marijuana and dropping some of that LSD, the fashion inhibition is the first to go ...

    "I went to the dresser and put on some pink capri [pants] and a green and brown blouse. I thought the colors looked pretty. "

    For shame! There but for the sake of Prada -- oh wait, that's standard Prada fare. Then all sense of nutrition flies out the window.

    "Then I went down to Market Street to buy a hot dog ... "

    It's Too. Too. Horrible.

    Parent

    My good friend DougJ (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:10:30 PM EST
    featured this mind-blowing quote from David Broder the other day:

    It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision--whether or not it is right.

    DougJ's comment: "I honestly believe that you can hear a civilization--our civilization--crumbling when you read this."  I find it hard to disagree.

    Any thoughts that maybe they (none / 0) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    are waiting to get health care done before slapping us upside the head with more billions of dollars for whatever it is they think they will have to do about Afghanistan?

    I used to think the urgency to pass health care "reform" was all about getting a win for its own sake, but lately, as the reform effort has slowed to molasses-in-January speed, and the calls have increased to solve the Afghanistan problem, their voices are beginning to squeak with desperation on health care, and I've begin to wonder.

    What we always hear is that it's so important to get Afghanistan right, and so, the word is that Obama is not dithering, as has been suggested, but deliberating.

    I wish the same deliberative effort had been applied to health care; but you know what they say: if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

    Parent

    U.S. has identified the best way to reduce (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    health care costs.

    For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

    But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.
    ...
    Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.

    -Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)
    ...
    The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.

    "This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.

    The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.

    That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.

    Rational for setting upper age limit at 74.

    Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.

    "You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.

    Two of the most aggressive forms (fast growing tumors, metastasize) of breast cancer, HER2 and Triple Negative are most prevalent in younger women.

    The article did state that insurance and Medicare coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines (at this time).

    Parent

    StupakPitts not the end but the new starting point (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ellie on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    A weasely gift to insurers:

    • pre-identifies (and targets) a huge group of already insured; streamlines denial of coverage for a huge variety of legal medical procedures;
    • creates early acceptance of increased monitoring and permissions that do an end-run around patient / doctor privacy
    • pre-emptively targets the newly insured with a new impediment to receiving actual coverage and care.

    And don't forget the other rotten side of this two-headed coin toss:

    Even when the fanatics "lose" a fight on paper, it doesn't stop them from simply persecuting with the silent blessing of all political stripes who'll look the other way, except when they need to drag Abortion Girl out to make political hay.

    Like I posted previously, it's the plumbing, Stupid. A woman doesn't have to be seeking an abortion to exercise her rights and needs for Reproductive-related & Sexual Health. At any age of femalehood, the plumbing's there even if the sink's not being used.

    Yeah, I'm cynical. [spit]

    Parent

    Here are some more goodies in the bill (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by suzieg on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    This has always been the case (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    The politicians have never promised anything other than insurance mandates for all. Not one of them...! Single payer barely gets spoken before someone is shoving a sock in it.

    Write to your reps and senators and all you get back is a lengthy explanation for all the good this reform is going to bring. Challenge them.

    Parent

    One breast cancer that is never mentioned is (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by suzieg on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:54:22 PM EST
    intraductal carcinoma caused by microcalcification which can only be seen on a mammogram. I had never heard of it until I was sitting with a young woman afflicted by it while waiting for our radiation treatment.

    Parent
    Forgot link (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 06:51:53 PM EST
    It sure sounds like (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    they are pointing to more of a downside than simply the fact that some of the tests will be unneeded.  "Unneeded biopsies" sounds like a real issue.

    Parent
    Biopsies are done when a mammogram (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 08:14:19 PM EST
    shows abnormal results. The test are not perfect and sometimes have false positive results or show benign cysts, calcifications and other conditions that may not be cancer but indicate an increased risk.

    Improving the technology would better eliminate unneeded biopsies due to false positives than eliminating screening to save money.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:05:14 PM EST
    I would certainly be interested in seeing the government's rationale in some more detail.

    Even the cancer society seems to acknowledge that the line has to be drawn somewhere.  I mean, the lower you drop that age the more cancers you're going to catch, that seems indisputable.

    Parent

    The other thing that was not discussed (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:18:40 PM EST
    is the fact that catching a tumor in the earlier stages means that rather than having a total mastectomy, a much less drastic and less disfiguring surgery (lumpectomy) can be performed.

    As a breast cancer survivor, I find the idea that avoidable deaths in younger women and women over 74 going untreated on the assumption that they will die of something else (probably another form of advanced cancer after it has metastasized) unacceptable.

    During this whole discussion, the emphasis has been on what women health care issues need not be covered. I have yet to see a government panel or politician declare that men do not need to be covered. After 74, should men who have possible prostrate cancer be restricted from having tests or treatment. They after all on average die at an earlier age than women so it could be assumed that they will die of something else before the cancer gets them.  

    Parent

    Was it the AMA that refused to (none / 0) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    endorse this idea? Some important medical group did...because they did not want it to appear they agreed with it. Thank goodness. I'd like to see the stats on what age group of women experience the greater number of cases. The majority of survivors who are out there walking and running for the cure don't appear to be in the 50 and older set.

    The recommendation was careful to exclude people with a family history, though.

    I firmly believe that women and their doctors need to have 100% of the control over when these tests need to be done based.

    Parent

    Is that whackjob talking about (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:22:43 PM EST
    manly men who can't put the stem on the apple?  Or is he talking about manly men who are out on the barren Texas plain burning brush while terrorists stalk America?  Yes he was a chest pounder, with the mind of a Quarter Pounder.  I am so glad he is gone.  Maximum spouses won the SGLI lottery for no definable reason in my lifetime under his Decidership.  I miss him like I miss rapists.

    Somehow the manly man (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    couldn't quite make it Vietnam though....or even make it to duty.

    Parent