Thursday Morning Open Thread

So, in my fantasy football league, I lost Ronnie Brown for the season and have nothing good at running back. What do I do? I offered up my best player, Peyton Manning, for the best deal I could get. The result? I got Tony Romo, LaDainian Tomlinson and Roy Williams for Manning (plus two throw ins.) What do you think?

In other fantasy news, Maurice Jones-Drew's non-TD had a big effect in FFL World:

I was one of at least two dozen non-Jaguars fans who screamed at the screens when Maurice Jones-Drew took a knee at the Jets’ one-yard-line instead of easily scoring. I can assure you we weren’t lamenting that play’s impact on the betting line. But you have to give MJD credit. In his post-game interview, he actually apologized to his fantasy owners for the play, saying he was instructed not to score so the team could run down the clock, and he had to do what was right for the Jaguars. How cool is that?

Actually it is kind of sick. Grown men and women - all of us - doing this? It's nuts.

This is an Open Thread.

< The Opt Out | Specter On Afghanistan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Reid onn Reconciliation (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    Today, at an event celebrating the unveiling of his health care bill, I asked Reid what specifically he'd said to Nelson--along with Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA)--about reconciliation. His answer left no wiggle room: "I'm not using reconciliation," he said. link

    way to drive a hard bargain Harry (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    new leader, please.

    He's gambling. (none / 0) (#73)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    He is from Las Vegas, after all.  He may think he has the votes.  Or he may think pressure put upon the "where's mine three" will result in success.  We'll soon see.

    More (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:43:06 PM EST

    The Senate is headed for a rare Saturday vote to advance its major healthcare reform bill without a guarantee of success, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated Thursday.

    At a rally with supporters of the healthcare reform bill, Reid would not say he had secured commitments from all 60 members of the Democratic Conference to vote for the legislation -- an absolute necessity given unanimous opposition from the 40 Senate Republicans.

    "We'll find out when the votes are taken," Reid said. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of three Democratic holdouts, said Thursday that he would announce his intentions prior to the vote but also made clear he still has major misgivings about the legislation, particularly on issues such as federal funding for abortion and the creation of a government-run public optoin insurance program. Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) are also uncommitted.

    Despite this uncertainty, Reid and other senior Democrats at the rally predicted they would prevail and enact a sweeping reform of the healthcare system, achieving a goal that has eluded presidents from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton.

    "I'm very confident that not only will the Democratic caucus unite around this bill but the American people will unite behind it, also," said Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa.). "We had the New Deal, we had the Fair Deal and this is a good deal for the American people."

    chuckle (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:38:58 PM EST
    We had the New Deal, we had the Fair Deal and this is a good deal for the American people."

    The Good Deal - I guess it sounds better than The Raw Deal, but still not that catchy.


    The Good Enough for Gummint Work (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:47:16 PM EST

    Today is the anniversary... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    ah... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    ...that speech makes me misty eyed every time. I can't listen at work, but I'm rather partial to the reading made by Sam Waterson.  In the visitor's center at Gettysburg it's broken up by commentary.  I always wanted to hear it in its entirety and I'm hoping that is the version here.

    A rather quiet and sedate... (none / 0) (#47)
    by desertswine on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:46:46 PM EST
    rendition by Waterson. I seems that, in front of 15,000 people, Lincoln would have been yelling it out. I read somewhere that he had a high-pitched and annoying voice. To bad there's not a recording of Lincoln reading it.

    Judge Reinhardt is making trouble again (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    the good kind (PDF):

    Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Office of Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of DOMA to the [Federal Employee Health Benefits Act] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional.

    Conyers 'tired of saving Obama's can' (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:55:27 PM EST
    Wow.  Conyers vows that single-payer is not dead and lets loose.  From The Hill:

    President Barack Obama is "bowing down" to Republicans and corporate interests on health reform, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said Thursday.

    Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a longtime advocate of single-payer healthcare, blasted the president for a perceived weakness in leadership on health reform.

    "I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House," Conyers said on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "He only won by five votes in the House, and this bill wasn't even anything to write home about."

    "The only way he could have got it through was that progressives held their nose. . . ." Conyers added.

    If Conyers (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    had such a problem with it, he should have voted no. When a bill is signed he'll likely be front and center for his photo op.

    Think maybe his constituents (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:20:19 PM EST
    are hounding him?

    So, where is the video implant of (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    that apology?  I'd like to see it.  Did he say "mistakes were made"?  Will this event alter Pete Rose's chances for HOF?

    PS  Some say this is Tomlinson's last season w/the Chargers  But he is my 11 year old tutoree's favorite player.  And, for some unknown reason, an autographed Tomlinson helmet was on display in our hotel lobby in New Orleans, although Tomlinson has always played for the Chargers and went to TCU.  Mysterious.  

    I thought it was funny... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    ... that MJD also complained about having himself on his fantasy team. :)

    That is funny (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    Decent trade (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    Though Romo is up and down and all over the place this season. Hell, I traded him and Greg Jennings for Joe Flacco and Jerrico Cotchery earlier, thinking Flacco and Cotchery were going to have a breakout years. LT is the mystery. He is looking like he's getting stronger, but tweaked his ankle again last game. But the last few weeks he's seemed to have a little more bite to his runs. Then again, this is my worst fantasy season ever, just getting killed. I started with Westbrook and Portis, thinking they'd both stay healthy, which is akin to believing in Santa.

    Good luck.

    et tu, Dadler? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    guilty (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    the fantasy league i play in is actually the best/only way i can keep up with the nine other guys i've known since the college daze. nice excuse.

    what can i say, i'm an old gym rat. or former gym rat. still got that jock in me somewhere.


    Sounds like my brother and his high school friends (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    they are in their 40s now and living all over the country...still in a fantasy league together. Always seems like they have a great time with it.

    I wouldn't want both Romo and Williams... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:04:33 PM EST
    ... since Williams's drops will hurt twice as much.

    good point (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    who says fantasy managing is easy?

    Update from my biking bro. Behind (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    schedule, which was to bike 60 miles/day, six days a week, to reach Austin from Chicago by Dec. 21.  Plus he is out of $$.  And it has rained the last several days.

    I see a plane or (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by coast on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    bus ticket in his future.  Keep the updates coming.

    Did you know you can send money via (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    PayPal to anyone with a PayPal account?  I didn't.  And didn't really want to know that!

    Didn't know that, but I don't (none / 0) (#11)
    by coast on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    deal with Paypal.  Thats my wife's area since she is the family's Ebay expert.  She did move money from her PayPal account to our checking account last night for the first time, which I was happy to see.  Pass along best wishes to your brother.

    Big adventure but worrisome to me. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    Maybe not thoroughly thought-out in advance?

    Does your brother have access (none / 0) (#58)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    to a credit card, atm card, wireless phone?  The trip sounds phenomenal.  Where is he now?

    Somewhere south of Rantoul IL, (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:22:40 PM EST
    assuming he decided to ride today.  He has a debit card but nothing to debit apparently.  Well, except my PayPal deposit late last night.

    Good for you (none / 0) (#71)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    that you sent him some cash.  I'm sure it'll be an experience he'll always remember.

    New mammography guidelines (none / 0) (#6)
    by Manuel on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    Conservatives are attacking the guidelines as an example of rationing (a vivid example of the death panels).  I am curious about the views on this topic from the TL community.  Apologies if this has already been discussed.

    I think of a friend who died last week (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    at 59, after 10 years since her diagnosis with breast cancer.  In the decade since, she gave of herself so much to hundreds and then thousands of other women, founding a foundation for survivors and their families that goes on in her memory.  

    I cannot tell you the extent of her impact, as this entire major city (she was a well-known journalist) watched her in awe as she battled on and on -- and the entire city mourned her loss last week.  Had she not been diagnosed in her 40s, she may well have been dead many years ago.

    I would be less concerned about the new guidelines if the panel had included at least an oncologist -- and if the panel had not been appointed by Bush.  

    So doesn't its timing seem interesting, amid the health care debate and the concerns about "rationed health care," and after the opening salvo against women by Stupak, Pitts, and the Family, et al.?


    The first thing my daughter sd. was I (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    bet that panel was appointed by George W. Bush.

    Had a mammogram yesterday.  Technogist sd.:  watch the insurance companis.  


    As hard as the Republicans are (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    pushing against this entire HCR idea, and how good it is for the insurance industry, it makes me think it really needs to be defeated...seems as though the R's want it to pass and are using reverse psychology.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    about your friend, Cream City- she sounds like a really special and strong person.  I find the Task Force's recommendations to be, frankly, patronizing and paternalistic.  I think most women would be willing to chance false positives, worry, and even unnecessary biopsies, if that means a 15% risk reduction for all women in their 40's.  Women are stronger than that.  We don't need the pat on the head and the "there, there, we don't want to worry you."  Give us the opportunity to make our own decisions, if faced with a questionable mammogram.  And as for "don't bother with self-exams"?  What in the world is wrong with them?  My own mother found her breast cancer because of feeling a suspicious lump, had it looked into, and was successfully treated.

    Thanks -- and yes, I get false positives (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:43:10 PM EST
    almost every time.  I'm just built that way.  It used to freak me out as the tech would call in other tech and then go up the line and then come back to say they needed to do it again. . . .  When I got the explain why, I just tell the techs what is going to happen, and I bring more reading.

    And thankyouverymuch, but I will continue to self-exam all I want, although I may spare a finger for signaling to this panel what I think of its -- did you read this? -- rather cavalier prediction of number of lives to be lost.  But it's just wimmin.


    I hear you, sister (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    I did get a "suspicious" mammogram a few years ago.  I had to wait awhile, then the tech did a sonogram, then I had to wait even more while the "Powers That Be" were consulted.  After some time, the radiologist came in and did a sonogram himself (and if you think that mammograms are unpleasant, try having a breast sonogram- he pressed down very, very hard on my left breast).  He thought it was a cyst.  I was content to take his recommendation and come back in six months for another check, by which time it had disappeared.  I don't recall being particularly upset at this whole scenario, despite the fact that there is breast cancer in my family.  And, yes I, too, do regular self-exams, and will continue them.  (Does anyone but me remember the kerfluffle that Marilyn Quayle caused years ago when she spoke about breast exams, and urged husbands to also be aware of changes in their wives' breasts?  It was the only thing that I liked about her and Dan.)  

    New recommendations on PAP tests released (none / 0) (#111)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 01:38:52 AM EST
    First it was the mammograms, now new guidelines have been released recommending later and less frequent PAP tests. The group making the recommendations called it an unfortunate coincidence that both came out at the same time. That seems like an understatement.

    Suggested changes include:

    - No cervical exams until age 21 because of the damage the exams and any subsequent procedures to remove growths can cause in a teenage girl, damage can affect future pregnancies.

    -Ending cervical exams for women who have had hysterectomies that removed the cervix. This does seem reasonable.

    -PAP tests and cervical exams every 3 years if a woman has 3 consecutive negative tests.

    There are others. Read this NY Times link. What do you think?


    I was wondering what the other shoe was (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 03:54:28 AM EST
    they mentioned this on the local news yesterday, but didn't say what it was. Just that we likely were going to be raising eyebrows again.

    I'm not sure how I feel about this as I have friends that have had cervical cancer. . . .


    Seems wrong to me (none / 0) (#114)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 07:26:41 AM EST
    #1 it's not an expensive test as I recall.

    Cervical cancer is very curable when caught early, and the guidelines are completely discounting the contributors to cervical cancer.

    Are they attempting to push the vaccine through this?


    That oft repeated line . . . (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    "it causes anxiety" was causing me multiple head explosions.

    I was happy to see the swift backlash though. It wasn't all that long ago they were practically begging women to do self exams/mammograms.


    Thanks -- and yes, cases such as (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    your friend's (and I have heard of these and how rare it is) point up exactly why it makes so much sense for routine exams for the group more often likely to have this health issue.  Why turn women in their 40s into another group whose undetected cancers would be statistically far more fatal per capita?

    I am so sorry your friend had to go through this -- but he is yet another who turned it to good for others in the time that he had.  That was brave.


    Yesterday's New York Times letter section (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by tigercourse on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:43:11 PM EST
    was filled with women pointing out that if they had waited until turning 50 before getting a mammogram, they'd be dead. Many of them develpoed cancer at 40 or before.

    I think this change is a very bad idea.


    17% of cases are found in the 40s (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    and 22% in the 50s.  Based on that, the panel decided that those 5% of women were expendable.  Collateral damage in the culture wars. . . .

    I am trying to figure out (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    applying the logic I am reading in these comment threads, why there should be any lower age boundary at all.  You will always save some number of lives if you lower the age, right?

    Oh, quit being so . . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    sane/rational/logical and humane! That's a very bad approach to health care  ;)

    Of course. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    There even are a very, very few cases of women detected in their 20s.  And a slightly larger but still very small number of cases detected when women are in their 30s.  

    But there is a significant increase for women past 40 -- generally premenopausal -- if you agree that one-sixth of the cases, 17%, is significant.  And that's why the guidelines previously stated that.

    So why should there be any lower age boundary at all for men to get prostate cancer exams?  Why not put ten-year-old boys through it?  Now do you see?


    It is very significant (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by hollyfromca on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    1 in every 1300 mammograms for women over 50 will find a real cancer and 1 in 1900 in women from 40-49.  That's a lot of women who might not detect their cancers in time.  

    Even fewer have strokes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:44:03 PM EST
    women or men, before 40 or even before 50 -- "mini-strokes," TIAs (transient ischemic attacks), etc.   So ought we stop checking blood pressure annually?  Of course not.  You see it.

    But I did stop checking -- I skipped a few physicals.  Had I had my bp checked, I wouldn't have had a TIA before 50.


    I see nothing wrong with lower age (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    exams. Builds good preventive health practices.

    I found a lump in my early 30's. Learned I was cystic (well I kinda knew that via the dermatologist, just never connected the 2).


    I watched a neighbor and friend slowlydie, aged 35 (none / 0) (#83)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:54:57 PM EST
    from breast cancer which was undetected until 27 lymph nodes were involved and she went to a doctor having noticed a bit of an ache.  That she succeeded in living 2 1/2 years post-diagnosis was nothing short of amazing, but I can't help but believe she might have had a chance had there been early screening.

    She was a great photographer and a brilliant light.  She actually made light of her cancer, saying it allowed her to guiltlessly eat with abandon all of my dessert cooking as I was fooling around in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

    But I'd still rather she was around....


    And the post-40, pre-50 (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    cancers are mostly in-situ cancers...many of which would probably never progress....which is what over-diagnosis is all about.  So many of these women are having unnecessary, sometimes disfiguring procedures, when they don't need them.

    No, I don't (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:46:49 PM EST
    I have no idea how anyone decides the appropriate age for men to start getting prostate exams, or for women to start getting mammograms.  I know there are people whose entire field of expertise is medical ethics and I have no idea what criteria they feel are appropriate when it comes to setting a cutoff age.  But I know there must be some such criteria and I am pretty sure they are not any of the things I am reading in this thread.

    Here is what I know, as a matter of basic reasoning.  If you lower the recommended cutoff age for any test, you are going to catch a greater number of problems.  If we start giving mammograms at 40 instead of 50, lives will be saved.  If we change the age from 40 to 39, even more lives will be saved.  If we change the age from 40 to 41, fewer lives will be saved.  You can get breast cancer in your 20s (or even before that?) so if we lowered the age to 20, even more lives would be saved.

    Yet obviously, there is a downside, some sort of tradeoff that counsels us against lowering the age to 39 or 30 or 20.  I don't know what it is, but I know one exists.  Maybe one of the downsides is the risks relating to false positives - a concept I have seen mocked and ridiculed on this site over the last few days, but a point that nevertheless seems to get raised quite a bit by the medical professionals.  Maybe it is something else altogether.

    But there is definitely a downside.  There is some kind of scientific risk/reward analysis that leads the experts to recommend that the cutoff age should be X and not X-1 or X-10.  That analysis is definitely something more complex than just "if we lower the age to X-1, more lives will be saved," because that statement is always true.  Yet the only arguments I am seeing here take the form that "if you want to set the age at X, then you must want women under the age of X to needlessly die" or "the only reason they're setting an age at all is because it's only women at risk" (as if other medical procedures never have some kind of recommended cutoff age) and I know, as a matter of logic, that these arguments are simply not valid.  There is another side to this debate and people who are otherwise very intelligent are simply refusing to engage with it at this site.


    Really? The statistics cited above (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:55:10 PM EST
    including that 17% of cases are detected in women in their 30s seems sufficiently significant to make a logical decision to continue to try to do due diligence before the age of 40.  If not, just what sort of logical evidence would you consider more than just babble?

    You mean (none / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    that 17% of cases are detected in women in their 40s, right?  The current recommended age is 40?

    The first reaction I have to this particular statistic is that if our only question is "when are cancers being detected right now?" our answer is necessarily going to be colored by the fact that right now, we generally start testing at 40.  So we're finding a significant number of cases after 40, and not very many cases before 40, because we don't start testing until 40.  But that tells us nothing about what would happen if we started testing even earlier.

    If we started testing at 30, and then we took a look at the numbers, we'd find that some significant number of cancers were detected in women in their 30s.  Maybe the number would be 7 percent, maybe it would be 13 percent, I have no idea of course.  But just like the 17% number you're citing, that number would represent real women with breast cancer whose lives could potentially be saved by starting mammograms at 30.  Yet there is some risk/reward analysis that keeps us from lowering the recommended age to 30, right?  Why is it that we conclude the magical age is 40, and not 35 or 45?  There must be some answer grounded in science and medical ethics, and I do not as yet understand what that answer is.


    No. When women in their 30s (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:41:53 PM EST
    are finally treated for breast cancer, perhaps dying of it, the docs can detect it, y'know.

    There should be NO guidelines (none / 0) (#102)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    at all. Especially if they mean a procedure that a doctor and patient have determined is necessary won't be paid for if it falls outside the guidelines.

    I've had one mammogram in my lifetime. Didn't enjoy it. So, skipped the next recommended 19. Actually, my GYN and GP both recommended every 3rd year for me, so I only skipped 6. Won't be getting another unless I suspect I need one. My grandmother died at 47 of breast cancer. I know my own body. I trust my own instincts. I have a serious aversion to radiating myself....I also don't let the dentist routinely x-ray my head.

    I hate it when people act like I'm crazy for my choices. Obviously, IMO I didn't need any of the mammo's I missed. But, I believe people who want the comfort of knowing they are okay have a right to get that assurance. Stress is a huge contributor to cancer.

    We all have our own personal genetic makeup. It is unreasonable to lump us all into one group and claim one size fits all.


    I see (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    that I found the wrong audience to try and discuss this topic with.  Right, anyone who disagrees with you doesn't care about women dying, whatever.

    Of course not. But do you think (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 09:30:14 PM EST
    the numbers are made up?  Pulled out of thin air?  The data are all out there on causes of death of all Americans, broken down by gender and age and race and more -- and based on death certificates, hospital reports, physician reports, etc.  The data were cited above to allow some logical inferences to be drawn, it would seem.  So again, what do you want?

    Yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    and we should all get mammograms monthly, because a spot check once every 365 days isn't enough to catch aggressive cancers....and we should all get MRI's monthly too...

    Reading Orac (love him), he said a study was done where CT scans that measure tiny slices were run on elderly deceased, and a huge proportion had thyroid cancers.  It was estimated that if even tinier slices were run, even more cancer would be found.

    Thus, we should all have tiny slice CT scans done monthly to find every possible grain of cancer that exists in our body.  And we will likely all have some cancer.

    I'm exagerating, but you get the drift.  


    How much research is being done (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    to manage these less aggressive cancers?

    Why is the screening/exam being made out to be the big bad one here? If we continue down that road, it seems we will take a big step backwards in women's health care. Too many false positives? Develop better tech so those with real cancer don't have to compromise their lives, etc. Why send us back to the dark ages with no diagnose because everybody doesn't need it?


    According to Susan Love, M.D., (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:23:13 PM EST
    there is a danger from radiation.  She supports the new guidelines, per her post on Huff Post.

    That makes sense (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    Strangely, I am unable to access HuffPost from my home computer - it acts as if the site does not exist.  I have had this issue for like 6 months now, but fortunately, I was never a big HuffPo reader anyway.

    Here is Susan Love, M.D. post (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    from Huff Post.  link  I understand she was also interviewed on NPR.

    P.S.  Huff Post informs me Levi Johnston was ignored at last night's GQ event.  Poor guy.


    Yup, pretty much no one will accept this advice (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:27:12 PM EST
    We all know too many people diagnosed in their 40s.

    If I were you (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    I would spend time reading a blogger named Orac.  He/she is a breast cancer surgeon and has spent extensive time writing intelligently about the ins and outs of mammography and early detection.  His recommendation is that you discuss with your doctor what your PERSONAL regimen should be.

    Early detection, like many topics, is not a a cut and dried thing.  There are shades of grey. Here's a great Orac article that dissects the topic into small pieces.

    Link to one of his posts that I really like

    And remember, the Prevention task force did not change the recommendations for ALL women, only for low risk women, those with no family history.  

    As a University of Washington student, I have online access to every journal that UW subscribes to. I've been reading mammography research extensively over the years, and have come to the conclusion that -- for me -- I don't need them every year.  But Orac will tell you the ins and outs better than I can.

    If yearly mammograms are necessary, Why aren't yearly MRI's necessary?  MRI's have an even higher detection rate, and correspondingly, have a much higher false positive and overdiagnosis rate.

    And ask anyone who has lymphedema (a life-changing event) after breast surgery if they think overdiagnosis is potentially a very BAD thing.  

    Don't forget that the Radiology/Mammogram association has its own lobby and it was the lobby that sold the yearly recommendation to Congress...sound familiar?...and while there were no oncologists on the Prevention task force, there are many, many radiologists/mammography specialists who have served on the American Cancer Society board.  Just as with the healthcare debate, the early detection debate consists of many parties with competing agendas.  The mammogram industry is HUMONGOUS and wealthy.


    But -- the guidelines have impact (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    on the insurance industry's approval of payment, so say experts I am reading.  So all well and good to say that we ought to be able to make these decisions with our docs.  But as usual, the decisions will be made de facto for us by the insurance industry, for women who cannot pay what adds up to $1000 or more annually in some states.

    They will have the final word if (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:00:40 AM EST
    Congress approves having a panel such as this making the all decisions for Medicare. This is what is being proposed by some members of Congress.

    The thing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    that I worry about, C.C., is the insurance companies making the decision for us (based on what they will cover), as opposed to us making the decision, in consultation with our doctors.  I went over this years ago with my gynecologist  (whom I consider to be very, very smart), and she felt that, since my mother and maternal great-aunt had had breast cancer, it was a good idea for me to have mammograms every year once I turned 40.  It has been covered by my insurance every year.  Like you, I am concerned about women who may be at increased risk but cannot afford the frequency of mammograms that are recommended by their health care professionals, if their insurance companies do not agree.

    $1000 for a mammogram? (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    I pay $180.

    I honestly don't think this will affect insurance -- because the mammography lobby affects congress too!

    However, if it does affect insurance, I don't think it's as evil as you do. In fact, like I've said, based on my own research of the effectiveness of mammography and the high incidence of false positive rates, at 46, I don't get a mammogram every year.

    You need to read Orac....mammography as a technology is fiercely over-hyped.  Many of the cancers it detects would never kill, thus women have unnecessary and life-changing procedures to "cure them" and disrupt their quality of life irreversibly and severely in the process.


    And replying to myself (none / 0) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:04:29 PM EST
    One of the more interesting things I've observed is that even though loads of time, energy and donated money goes into getting poor women mammograms, there isn't nearly as much effort placed on treating them if cancer is found.

    Funny how it works that way.


    Yes, and thank you -- as I recall (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:58:37 PM EST
    that even in a state that was in the forefront in the good old days (not now), I was astonished at what I ran up against when divorcing in 1986.  I still was supposed to get my spouse's agreement for me to take out financial aid loans for school, for example.  I was supposed to pay extra to start up utility service in my own flat as a "new customer," even though I was the one who had been writing the checks to the same utilities for decades.  Etc.

    And I also recall when mammograms were not covered by insurance, which was no fun when I was broke.  Of course, the mammograms then were even less fun -- those old machines were absolute horrors.


    I'm pretty sure she's (none / 0) (#119)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    referring to the deductible as $1000. If one hasn't satisfied the deductible, the mammogram is the patient's responsibility.

    65-75% of women (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by hollyfromca on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    who contract breast cancer have no risk factors at all.  

    What (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:05:20 PM EST
    is the age breakdown for those women?

    Part II of WSWS retrospecitve re (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    Polanski's ouevre:  link

    So, (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    who's watching "Personal Effects" on Lifetime? :D

    We await your review. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    Did you by any chance (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    Watch the Daily Show last night?

    The John Oliver segment on the Palin book had a funny bit about Levi.  Goes back to what you were saying yesterday about target demographics.


    I did not (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    But now I suppose I'll have to check it out.

    Please continue talking among yourselves. (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Off to local continuation high school R.O.P. program Thanksgiving lunch, an annual fundraiser, held at a wonderful restaurant in the park.  The restaurant mentors the students, who prepare a full-on, delicious Thanksgiving menu.  

    You're Asking the Wrong Guy (none / 0) (#22)
    by bselznick on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    You should ask Bill Belichick about the trade.  Apparently he'd trade you his whole team for Payton.

    Cheaters never prosper. (none / 0) (#85)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    Fantasy football (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    is a bridge too far for me.  I spend enough of my Sunday watching football games, and since I don't have the NFL Package at my house, I end up going down to the bar...anyway, trust me, Sundays are not my most productive day of the week.  Tracking how players spread across every team are doing seems like a huge pain in the @ss to me.

    Also Tony Romo has mediocre written all over him to me.  You won't be happy he loses the NFC East title to the EAGLES by throwing 2 INTs to Asante Samuel....

    Kinda sick? (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    Kinda sick is when you think about how many years you've been playing . . . . {grin}

    BTD - You have a typo in the thread title (none / 0) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    Thurday should read Thursday.

    Your keyboard has a mild lisp.  :-0

    Trading Manning (none / 0) (#35)
    by canuck eh on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 02:29:37 PM EST
    With all due respect (I know you're a very smart, well-educated man) but still- what were you thinking?

    Not sure how scoring in your league works but Peyton has scored for me, on average, about 50% of my opponent's total each week; he's the #1 overall scorer and an absolute beast! I wouldn't trade him for anything. Historically, Romo in December is not a pretty sight, the 'Boys of the last few years seem to think the season ends on Turkey day.

    Surely there was something in the waiver/FA pool that could have worked as a stop-gap? Fred Jackson and Tim Hightower are both available in my league.

    dear lord (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:26:13 PM EST
    we are deeply grateful for the white castles we are about to recieve:

    White Castle stuffing

    November 18, 2009


    4  tablespoons butter
    1  large white onion, peeled and diced
    1/2  head celery, diced
    1  pound brown mushrooms, sliced
    1/2  ounce fresh sage, chopped
    1  tablespoon paprika
    ¼  teaspoon fresh grated nutmeg
    18  White Castle hamburgers (no pickles), chopped into 1-inch pieces, or 1 small loaf white bread, cubed and toasted
    1  cup chicken stock
    Salt and pepper

    Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
    In a large saute pan, heat butter until foamy. Add onions and celery and cook until tender but still slightly crisp. Add mushrooms and some salt. Cook until mushrooms are brown and liquid is gone.
    Add sage, paprika and nutmeg to the pan and cook until spices are fragrant.
    Pour the mixture into a bowl and add diced White Castles; toss together. Put the stuffing in a baking dish and drizzle chicken stock over. Toss again and season to taste.
    Bake for 20 minutes, uncovered, until the top is brown and crispy.
    Jill and Chris Barron

    Nutrition facts per serving:  162 calories, 10 g fat, 5 g saturated fat, 22 mg cholesterol, 13 g carbohydrates, 6 g protein, 259 mg sodium, 1 g fiber

    That's what I'm talking about... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    a new way to enjoy belly-bombers...though, for the record, I don't know if something so gloriously perfect as a White Castle should be f*cked with.

    Aaaahhhhhh!!!! (none / 0) (#64)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    Not White Castle!  No-o-o-o-o!  The White Castle worship must be a male thing.  I grew up in the Midwest, where White Castles were ubiquitous, and my brothers loved them.  My mother and I, however- not so much.  They taste like steamed dried onions on a soggy bun.

    PS (none / 0) (#65)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    I did send the recipe to my brothers.  ;-)

    Maybe more of a (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 10:51:45 AM EST
    male "2AM after a long night of bar hopping, drinking beer and striking out" thing. A full belly makes everything all better...

    you know (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    they are available in the supermarket freezer most places.

    The frozen variety... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:28:32 AM EST
    don't count as a legitimate belly-bomber...merely a rank imititation of the heavenly burger.

    Cool ad on my front page of this site. (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    There's a movie on Lifetime starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Ashton Kutcher.  I like both these actors.  I wouldn't have known about this movie without the ad on this site.  Cool.  Looking forward to this movie.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:06:40 PM EST
    the poor Irish...what a heartbreaker.

    Here's the nauseating video...certainly appears to be a very intentional handball.

    FIFA had ordered the replay of a match before due to referee screw-up, and Ireland has made a formal request to replay the match...we shall see.

    Were you just as bothered (none / 0) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    by the nauseating video of JC Martin running inside the baseline in 1969? :)

    I have no idea what you're talking about... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:18:52 PM EST
    CG:)  JC got drilled in the back well within the baseline by my viewing of that joyous replay.

    That non call (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    was outrageous. Maybe the worst ever right up there with Jeffrey Maier.

    Amazing how we tend to see these events through different lenses. God bless JC Martin.


    We're such homers... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:31:43 AM EST
    though in our defense a blown baseline call is peanuts compared to a handball-enabled equalizer on the pitch...thats a whole 'nother level.  I bet even the French club's hardcore loyalists feel a wee bit ashamed of the way they won.

    Lawyers: WSJ called out for racism (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    in editorializing on an Obama appointment to the federal judiciary?  The appointee is AA.  And a good guy.  Here's the sitch on the WSJ editorial that was headlined "The White House Butler."

    Racism alleged in Wall Street Journal editorial on Butler

    Nov. 19, 2009 5:26 p.m. | Madison -- A state senator, a former state Supreme Court justice and a Wisconsin lawyer accused the Wall Street Journal of racism Thursday for referring to an African American judicial nominee as "the White House Butler."  A Thursday editorial ripped President Barack Obama for appointing former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis B. Butler Jr. to the federal bench. The editorial, headlined "The White House Butler," took issue with the appointment because of Butler's rulings and because he was twice rejected by voters in statewide elections.

    Madison attorney Jon Axelrod asked the paper for a retraction and apology.  "Not only do I strongly disagree with the contents of the editorial as deliberately misleading, but it is totally inappropriate to demean Judge Butler because of his race by comparing him to a butler, an occupation unfortunately stereotyped as predominantly African American," Axelrod wrote the paper. "You owe this distinguished Wisconsin jurist an immediate retraction tomorrow as well as an apology. . . ."

    Have to assume Mr. Axelrod never (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:06:53 PM EST
    watched "Upstairs, Downstairs" on Masterpiece Theatre though. Or read "Remains of the Day."

    Not me (none / 0) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:53:15 PM EST
    but I watched "Benson"!!

    Did you read P.G. Wodehouse? (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:42:20 PM EST
    RIP Jeanne-Claude, Christo's partner (none / 0) (#87)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:04:39 PM EST
    in love and work.  She was 74.

    An appreciation from Bloomberg.

    I especially enjoyed The Gates.  It was a magnificent piece of art which played astonishingly well with the sere canvas that is (and was) Central Park late in winter.  They gave out small patches of that saffron fabric;  I have one sewn into my fishing vest.  It seemed like a good place to put it.

    More (none / 0) (#90)
    by scribe on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    I loved The Gates and espec. enjoyed (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    the chance of weather:  sunny/rainy/snowing/snow on the ground/wind.  Saw those patches of orange fabric on ebay for $1 plus $5 shipping shortly after I got home!

    A good article (none / 0) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:11:26 PM EST
    to read regarding the breast cancer screening debate.  This is especially good for those who were worried that the Preventive Task Force included no oncologists.  This article was written by a woman who is also The Director of the SCSF Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, a Professor of Surgery and Radiology, and Chief, Section of Breast Care Surgery, BA from Harvard and MD from Stanford

    Her credentials here

    The abstract for her article is pasted below.  If you have access (as I do) to a university that subscribes to the JAMA, you can see her full article through PubMed.  I checked my non-academic library access to PubMed, and it appears they get articles that are at least 6 months old, so possibly in another 4 months, you can see this article through your library. (Unfortunately, if I shared the full article, I'd go to jail for copyright violation.  Anyway)

    Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer.
    Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I.

    Department of Surgery and Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA. laura.esserman@ucsfmedctr.org

    After 20 years of screening for breast and prostate cancer, several observations can be made. First, the incidence of these cancers increased after the introduction of screening but has never returned to prescreening levels. Second, the increase in the relative fraction of early stage cancers has increased. Third, the incidence of regional cancers has not decreased at a commensurate rate. One possible explanation is that screening may be increasing the burden of low-risk cancers without significantly reducing the burden of more aggressively growing cancers and therefore not resulting in the anticipated reduction in cancer mortality. To reduce morbidity and mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, new approaches for screening, early detection, and prevention for both diseases should be considered.

    Final thought: Mammography is not reducing the rate of the more deadly cancers.
    The bottom line is we need GOOD screening tools.  Mammography, although a well-funded industry, is a pretty shoddy tool.  However, as long as the mammography industry is shouting down the people who are telling the truth about its effectiveness, raising the debate, the longer we have to wait for truly high-rate tools that truly reduce mortality.

    Are they saying (none / 0) (#92)
    by Steve M on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:18:59 PM EST
    that screening is picking up a disproportionate number of low-risk cancers, because people with high-risk cancers are more likely to experience related health issues that lead them to seek out medical attention even without a screening?  This is complicated stuff and I'm not sure I'm following.

    Awfully fuzzy terminology (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:47:00 PM EST
    for a scientifically trained sort.

    After 20 years of screening by whom?  Her?  Some clinic?  Screening how many?  And define early -- Stage 1, I gather?  Define low-risk and low-risk, etc.  This may be lingo with meaning for medicos.


    Lynne Stewart, civil rights and criminal defense (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:52:10 PM EST
    ... attorney (until recently), surrendered to the U.S. Marshal in Manhattan at 5 pm today to begin service of her 28-month sentence for violating the "Special Administrative Measures" imposed on her client, the "Blind Sheikh," who was convicted in a NYC terror plot.  The Second Circuit moments before had denied reconsideration of the part of their decision requiring the sentencing judge to revoke her bail "forthwith."  

    none of my fantasies (none / 0) (#112)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 01:41:44 AM EST
    have anything to do with sports. :)