I certainly don't enjoy or endorse everything on The Onion, but this video clip completely cracked me up--perhaps because it reminds me so much of how I usually feel during class discussions (particularly discussions in the course I'm taking in the law school)!
(Oh, and I don't know anything about the show advertised at the beginning and the end of the clip. I apologize if it's something objectionable.)
In The Know: Situation In Nigeria Seems Pretty Complex
9.28.2007
Modest Clothing Website
I ran across a link for Christa Taylor on another blog several weeks ago. The site sells clothing that it labels both "modest" and "trendy." I've looked at the site a few times, and while there are definitely some items that I wouldn't be caught dead wearing (I may be a little older than their intended demographic), they do have some things that I think are kind of cute. I think it's worth keeping an eye on.
And for the socially conscious among us, the site says that they give "at least 30% of [their] profits towards the needs of the poor and towards social justice throughout the world." Right now they're helping to support an orphanage in Cambodia.
And for the socially conscious among us, the site says that they give "at least 30% of [their] profits towards the needs of the poor and towards social justice throughout the world." Right now they're helping to support an orphanage in Cambodia.
9.24.2007
Bubble? What bubble?
I passed this on the sidewalk this morning and had to whip out my phone to get a picture....
9.18.2007
FoxNews.com--again...
There's a story on FoxNews.com about a horrible situation in which a mother allegedly set her three young daughters on fire.
And apparently the proofreader wasn't terribly thorough:
And apparently the proofreader wasn't terribly thorough:
As another neighbor sprayed the kids with a hose, Lopez grabbed some wet towels and ran to the house, which he wrapped around the 7-year-old.
University of Florida taser incident
Did anybody else look up the video on YouTube and very quickly arrive at the conclusion that the idiot deserved to be Tasered?
And it still didn't get him to quit whining.
And it still didn't get him to quit whining.
9.14.2007
Is universal health care a good idea? Or, I'm glad I live in the U.S.
(Let me say right off the bat that I haven't spent much time or effort studying universal health care, and I'm basing my comments here on one article, which isn't very much evidence. The one article, however, does cite some rather interesting--and, perhaps, surprising--statistics.)
Today's Wall Street Journal contained an interesting column by Betsy McCaughey titled "Cancer Killers." (I'm not sure whether you can access the article without being a subscriber.)
Ms. McCaughey takes issue with the American Cancer Society's plans to scrap its ads educating the public about cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screening in favor of ads promoting universal health coverage. She presents evidence that "shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the U.S. are most likely to be screened regularly, have the fastest access to treatment once they are diagnosed with the disease, and can get new, effective drugs long before they're available in most other countries." McCaughey cites several studies showing that cancer survival rates in the U.S. are the highest in the world and that U.S. patients are more likely than those in other countries to undergo screening procedures on a regular basis.
But, McCaughey points out, early diagnosis isn't the only factor to consider: the speed with which a patient can access treatment is also critical. From the article:
18 weeks?! Wow. I wonder how much cancer could spread in the more than 4 months that it would take for a patient to being treatment.
As many problems as the current U.S. health care system may have, I think I'd still choose capitalism over socialism.
Today's Wall Street Journal contained an interesting column by Betsy McCaughey titled "Cancer Killers." (I'm not sure whether you can access the article without being a subscriber.)
Ms. McCaughey takes issue with the American Cancer Society's plans to scrap its ads educating the public about cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screening in favor of ads promoting universal health coverage. She presents evidence that "shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the U.S. are most likely to be screened regularly, have the fastest access to treatment once they are diagnosed with the disease, and can get new, effective drugs long before they're available in most other countries." McCaughey cites several studies showing that cancer survival rates in the U.S. are the highest in the world and that U.S. patients are more likely than those in other countries to undergo screening procedures on a regular basis.
But, McCaughey points out, early diagnosis isn't the only factor to consider: the speed with which a patient can access treatment is also critical. From the article:
Long waits for treatment are "common devices used to restrict access to care in countries with universal health insurance," according to a report in Health Affairs (July/August 2007). The British National Health Service has set a target for reducing waits. The goal is that patients will not have to wait more than 18 weeks between the time their general practitioner refers them to a specialist and they actually begin treatment.
18 weeks?! Wow. I wonder how much cancer could spread in the more than 4 months that it would take for a patient to being treatment.
As many problems as the current U.S. health care system may have, I think I'd still choose capitalism over socialism.
9.08.2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
