text:
I've never seen anything with both yeast and baking powder. What's the reason for that? Shouldn't e.g. muffins get even more fluffy by adding some yeast? Or bread by adding baking powder? I know there are differences in flavor, but there are cakes with yeast as also non-sweet things with baking powder. So that shouldn't be the problem...
The existing answers already explain why yeast and baking powder won't work together. But even if they did, you wouldn't have a reason to use them.
You seem to think that fluffiness depends on the amount of gas produced by the leaveners. In fact, it depends on both the gas and the ability of the dough to trap that gas. If you produce too much gas (no matter whether through yeast or through baking powder), then the fluffiness will be less than when using the optimal amount of leavener. This happens because your dough cannot hold the gas and the bubbles break, resulting in the dough deflating like a punctured tire. So even if combining two leaveners would have resulted in more "blowing big" action (which it doesn't, see the other answers), you would not end up with a fluffier end product. If you want fluffy muffins, you have to use a recipe and a technique which is best capable of retaining the gas produced by the baking powder. The amount of gas production is not a bottleneck.
Everything @Jefromi says in his answer is correct--I wanted to elaborate on why it is true.
In order for a yeast raised bread to work, since the yeast generates the raising gas (carbon dioxide) slowly over time, it has to stay trapped for a long time. This requires a good gluten network. The gluten network is like little rubber balloons throughout the dough, and the yeast blow them up with their.... erm... exhalations :-)
It takes a lot of work to blow up all the metaphorical gluten balloons, but the yeast is a slow and patient worker--it is like the turtle, not the hare. With patience you will get there.
Chemical leavenings like baking powder (or baking soda plus acid, which is what baking powder is) generate their gas quite quickly. They are normally used in batters that are going to go into the oven as soon as they are assembled (the famous muffin method), so that gluten does not develop, giving them their charactaristic tender crumb, unlike yeast raised bread.
If you establish the gluten network for slow yeast raising to work:
There are some cases where you will see a small amount of baking soda (not powder) added to a yeast raised bread. One of my favorite toasting breads is in this category. The purpose of this baking soda is not to leaven, but rather to change the pH of the dough, making it less acidic, and facilitating browning of the crust.
As @Rumtscho has kindly pointed out is: If you did mix yeast and baking powder and then...
Bottom line:
Yeast raised breads are:
Chemically leavened quick breads are:
You might want to have a read through Why use yeast instead of baking powder? to fully understand the differences between yeast and baking powder. The short summary is that baking powder tastes bad if there's enough to taste, but it's a lot easier and faster to use. But either one provides enough leavening to do pretty much whatever you want. Given that, the answer to your question is pretty much, why would you bother using both?
If you're okay with spending enough time to use yeast, you might as well use only yeast. Sure, maybe you could replace some of it with baking powder, but it won't save you any time, and it might taste worse. On the other hand, if you're okay with using just baking powder, why bother making your recipe take substantially longer? In either case, you'll be making things more complex without any real gain. If you want to make something fluffier, you can just increase the amount of the existing leavening; there's no need to combine two. And of course, in many cases, it's simply not feasible to use yeast. For example, a lot of quick breads (like muffins) are bad if overmixed, and letting them sit long enough for yeast to do its work would be bad too.
I think the case where you're thinking combined leavening would be useful is with something leavened with baking powder, where adding more would make it taste bad. But if it's possible to use yeast, then you might as well use only yeast. And if it's not feasible to use yeast, then maybe you use beaten egg whites to add fluff. Either way, you don't end up using a combination of yeast and baking powder.
There are of course breads leavened just with baking powder or baking soda (notably soda bread), and there are sweet baked goods leavened with yeast (for example cinnamon rolls). But in either case, there's really no reason to switch to using a combination of the two. Recipes pretty much pick the best tool for the job and go with it.
My Tibetan friends make a yeast dough, then adds a little baking powder while rolling it out.This gives the steamed dumpling dough more resiliency.
Actually I discovered many professional bakers do use small amounts of baking powder in their yeast breads. Some call it their secret. It is also used in packaged breads and acts as a dough improver for texture, not for more fluff. I add around 1/2 tsp baking powder to my pizza dough (around 2 1/2 - 3 cups flour) and it seems that it stretches easier. I also add to many bread recipes I have, 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. I do not know the science behind it but it works.
As far as adding yeast to muffins and cakes, I am not sure, but I have a couple recipes for sweets that includes semolina, and yeast along with baking powder is used. The cake has to rest an hour before baking even though it does not rise, but after baking, the texture is the desired one.
I have been using baking powder in yeast bread dough for a little while now. I dont use much, for about 3-4 cups of flour, I add maybe half a table spoon. The thing I have noticed what it does to the dough, is changes the density quite a bit. I had baked quite a bit of bread with just yeast, and no matter how long you let it rise, and rest, I was never able to get it as light of a consistency a with a little bit of baking powder.
Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate using it in all situations, as some breads are much better off with being baked without any baking powder at all, and will have a nicer flavor without it. But if you desire a nice light baguette for instance, or just a soft white bread, a small amount of baking powder will help with the texture quite a bit.
It will actually be very close in texture and taste to the type of baguette/white bread you get in the grocery store bakeries etc. It is quite tasty, and I would reccomend you try it if you want to experiment. Just remember, its not a great idea in all applications, some breads are really good when they are just a bit denser.
I use a small pinch of baking powder in my yeast breads. I don't know I always felt like it helped form little pockets that the yeast then farted in pretty abundantly. Like how a balloon animal clown stretches the balloon real hard before he blows it up.
i agree, adding 1/2 tsp in 3 cups flour along with 1 sachet of yeast does makes a different. bread comes out very soft and fluffy. It is easy to handle as well. i love baking breads now
protected by Aaronut Mar 28 '15 at 4:44
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
25 Pack of 17"x24" Small Mednet Puppy Pads for $3.99
(71% OFF) - Limit 10
Toilet training your puppies can be an uphill task as they are too young to understand your instructions. Mednet Direct Puppy Pads prevent your pet from soiling places within your home. These 17" x 24" Small Size Puppy Pads from Mednet Direct are ideal for small breeds of dogs and puppies such as poodles, terriers, beagles, chihuahuas, dachshunds, and even cats.
-Leak-proof plastic lining
-Comfortable fit
-Suitable for indoor and outdoor use
Each small puppy pad can absorb up to one full cup of liquid. Each pad features a unique cellulose filling to offer the maximum absorbency. The leak proof plastic backing provides protection against leaks, and makes clean up easy!
Disposable Puppy Pads help train your pet to eliminate on the pad, not on your floor, helping you to train your pet and save money. Puppy Pads keep furniture, clothing, floors and pet beds clean and dry, saving money on expensive cleaning services. Puppy pads are also great for older, ill or incontinent pets!
8 Comments add a comment
Price compared to Amazon, and found a huge listing of these in bulk, but this price still seems to beat those listings. Check them out here.
Yesterday it was the Portable Urinal Thingys...today the Puppy Pee Pads...do I see a theme emerging @belyndag?
@hot72chev: LOL! I wondered if anyone would catch that.
$4.95 flat rate or free for orders over $49. Bummer I only wanted one pack. Good deal for multiples.
ETA: work well to slip under cat gacking up furball.
"Petflow"........gross. :P
Our chihuahua uses these things as an adult, though. Great find!
@beaglebrains: So you have a Chihuahua and your name is BeagleBrains?
Not only do we use similar pads for our frequently incontinent, elderly Killer Poodles, but they're also great for drying off wet dogs who just came in from the rain, soaking up spills in the kitchen, and emergency towels to store in the car. I got caught in one of our frog-strangler storms last week as I hobbled out to the parking lot (old age is not for sissies!), and I was able to get most of the rain off my hair, arms, and clothing just by mopping myself off with the pad.
Versatile little things, they are!
LOL...yeah, we have a beagle, too.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I am looking for some result useful in deriving following (conjecture?):
Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ matrix with $0-1$ entries. Suppose, that exactly $k\leqslant n$ entries are equal to $0$. Then $\mathrm{Per} A \leqslant n!\left(1-\frac{k}{2n}\right)$
Unfortunately, trying to derive this inequality from other estimates fails in general. For example, the inequality given in "A note on some upper bounds for permanents of (0,1)-matrices" failed with $k=4$.


text:
I am using a Samsung n150 netbook with a 10.1 inch screen and it has a maximum screen resolution of
1024x600. I am running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and want to enable screen panning for a larger virtual display; so that the screen seen is a subset of the larger display that can be navigated via the mouse. I believe that the virtual screen size of
1024x800 would suite my purposes, but anything with at least larger y-axis would be suitable.
There is the
Panning-viewport instructions link, which recommends this command:
xrandr --output VGA1 --rate 60 --mode 800x600 --fb 1280x1024 --panning 1280x1024
I have modified the command to suite my situation:
xrandr --output LVDS1 --rate 60 --mode 1024x600 --fb 1280x1024 --panning 1280x1024
The terminal then prints
xrandr: cannot find mode 1024X600, and this was the same even with mode 800X600. I tried using
--output VGA1 as well.
xrandr -q gives (briefly):
LVDS1 connected 1024x600+0+0
1024x600 60.0*+
800x600 60.3
I tried
xrandr --newmode 1024x600 as well but no changes happened trying again. I have read the man pages and wiki randr page,link2,link3,link4 on using randr which discuss randr. I cannot understand the command and how to work with it. Even though there is only an
output a
rate a
mode the
fb and the
panning option, I cannot figure out what they are doing and how to set them up for panning on my system.
Is there a simple modification of the terminal line I am using to fix the problems of setting up
panning or some mode addition include via
--newmode that should be made?


text:
Last month, the Kentucky Agricultural Development Board approved more than $3.5 million for agricultural diversification projects. Much of that money is going to help the state's beef cattle industry. Kentucky ranks eighth among all states in numbers of beef cattle, and looks to improve its stance as a beef producing state.
Some of the diversification funds have been allocated to individual counties in Kentucky. One area farmer has received some funds from the program. He says he's been able to purchase new fencing, new corrals and a new gravel lane for his farm. Besides raising cattle, he still grows tobacco, but says tobacco is no longer his primary source of income.


text:
Huskies look for help from bigs
STORRS — Shabazz Napier will do his thing. Ryan Boatright will do his thing. So will Omar Calhoun. They are the three leading scorers for the UConn men's basketball team. Two of them — Napier and Boatright — stand in the 6-foot range. Calhoun checks in at 6-5.


text:
We need a financial transaction tax. From 1914 to 1966, our country taxed all sales and transfers of stock. Today 40 countries have the financial transaction tax. The major financial transaction tax proposal, gaining support in the Untied States, calls for a 0.5 percent assessment on stock transactions. This would be about $300 billion to $350 billion a year for our treasury.
Bill Gates, Occupy Wall Street, the Vatican and dozens of major economists, including Nobel laureates, are supporters.
A move is on with a banner "Robin Hood Tax:" led by National Nurses United, National People's Action, Health GAP and Progressive Democrats of America.
We could use this tax to help grow our economy and help lower our national debt.
Arthur Kenyon
Location, ST | website.com


text:
zimmer twins
The Zimmer Twins is a Canadian project that combines crowdsourcing with children and animation. And makes money doing it. The site has been around for five years and accomplished quite a bit, but if like me, you're not Canadian and don't have pre-teen kid, you may never have heard of it.


text:
'Greece is not an exception'
Slavo iek on the Greek crisis in the London Review of Books:
There are two main stories about the Greek crisis in the media: the German-European story (the Greeks are irresponsible, lazy, free-spending, tax-dodging etc, and have to be brought under control and taught financial discipline) and the Greek story (our national sovereignty is threatened by the neoliberal technocracy imposed by Brussels). When it became impossible to ignore the plight of the Greek people, a third story emerged: the Greeks are now presented as humanitarian victims in need of help, as if a war or natural catastrophe had hit the country. While all three stories are false, the third is arguably the most disgusting. The Greeks are not passive victims: they are at war with the European economic establishment, and what they need is solidarity in their struggle, because it is our struggle too.Greece is not an exception. It is one of the main testing grounds for a new socio-economic model of potentially unlimited application: a depoliticised technocracy in which bankers and other experts are allowed to demolish democracy. By saving Greece from its so-called saviours, we also save Europe itself.
About the Author
Matthew Boudway is an associate editor of Commonweal.
25 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Matthew Boudway: After reading and then rereading the passage you've posted here, I have to say that this author's thought does not interest me enough that I would want to read his full essay.You quoted one sentence from the essay in your caption: "Greece is not an exception."When I read that sentence in the passage that you have posted here, I asked, Greece is not an exception to what?After I reread the preceding material, I gathered that the author is saying that their struggle is our struggle -- that is, the struggle in Greece is the struggle in Europe. Fine.The author also says that the Greeks "are at war with the European economic establishment." So if their struggle is our struggle, then Europeans are also at war with the European economic establishment. Fine.But why?The author says that the Greeks and the Europeans in this war are fighting against "a new socioeconomic model of potentially unlimited application: a depoliticized technocracy in which bankers and other experts are allowed to demolish democracy."I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read any more of this author's essay.I think that bankers and other experts in Europe have made certain mistakes. They have exercised poor judgment in making their economic decisions. Their misguided economic decisions now need to be corrected.But I don't think we need the author's rhetoric about depoliticized technocracy and demolishing democracy.
I'm sure that Zizek would be hurt by your rejection, if he weren't so busy popping Xanax and sleeping with lingerie models.
Thomas - here is what I think is this essayist's main point: "But Greeces anti-immigrant defenders arent the principal danger: they are just a by-product of the true threat, the politics of austerity that have caused Greeces predicament. "... which seems a bit silly. The politics of austerity didn't cause Greece's predicament; the politics of austerity have been imposed on Greece in an attempt to head off Greece's predicament. Greece's predicament is banal and boring and extremely perilous: it is so far over its collective head in debt that has advanced beyond mere dysfunction; it is showing signs of civil meltdown. It's a person dying of morbid obesity who, in desperation, has tried to diet, but then realized that dieting means actually consuming fewer calories. On June 17th, it seems likely to flush the diet and order a triple bacon cheeseburger. Europe's predicament is that Greece shares its currency, so Europe can't, for reasons of self-interest, do what Europe would dearly love to do: just let Greece boil away in its own rendered blubber.It seems that the Euro was a really bad idea, and nobody can figure out how to undo it.Imagine that the nations of Europe are all together in a precarious boat. The obese, weak kid who doesn't know how to swim has fallen into the water. All the boat's other occupants are leaning over the gunwale, trying to grab the kid. If they let go of him, he will drown, and the boat will probably capsize and the rest of them may drown, too. If they pull him in, the boat may sink and they'd all drown anyway. They've reached the point in the proceedings where they're thinking that all of them getting into the same boat was probably not very bright.
Zizek is a Marxist, and Marxists are Hegelians, that is, they try to handle the apparent contradictions of life ultimately by accepting the contradictions: A is non-A, is the way Hegel puts it.So you can logically derive anything you want from your premises if you're a Hegelian. Zizek does try manfully to handle the metaphysics, even turning sort of mystical in spots. But as philosophers go, he's a really wild one. Very popular with many young folks at the moment.
Jim,We agree about one thing: the euro was probably a bad idea all along. The economic advantages of a single currency blinded the technocrats to the political complications. About everything else I think we disagree profoundly. I can see why your obesity analogy would be a tempting one for a conservative, but with ordinary Greeks picking through dumpsters in search of food, I think it ought to be resisted. The Greek government obviously acted recklessly in borrowing and wasting so much money, and its toleration of tax evasion was a scandal. But your impulse to anthropomorphize the Greek government is obscuring the distress of real human beings who can't afford the basics because their country's whole economy is being squeezed to save the lenders on the other side of the reckless borrowing. Where it was reckless to borrow, it was reckless to lend. The better analogy would be with the subprime-mortgage racket here in the United States. Big European (and some American) banks were to Greece as Countrywide was to the person buying a mansion with little income and no credit. The EU may have a responsibility to save the banks, but not the bankers or the banks' shareholders, most of whom can afford the lesson they obviously need to learn.
Matthew,Real human beings are really suffering as a result of the European debt problem. The Greek government is the Greek people, and they both lived beyond their means for a long time. Now they have to suffer. But so are the bank shareholders, many of whom are pension funds set up to pay benefits to real people who will now receive smaller benefits. The rot from this crisis is pervasive and it materially affects even those whom you believe 'can afford the the lesson they obviously need to learn'
I am so glad that this Zizek fellow is a Marxist (don't see many of those these days except on Fox nightmares). So we don't have to pay any attention to him. However, clear-eyed non-Marxists can also discern a "new socio-economic model of potentially unlimited application: a depoliticised technocracy in which bankers and other experts are allowed to demolish democracy." Yea, verily, in Italy a frequently elected thug was deposed to make way for a banking expert, and no one peeped. Likewise, around the edges of Europe, democratically elected governments are getting their marching orders from bankers who handled the belatedly described bad investments of their clients. Vox populi cuts no ice. And the non-investing class takes the layoffs and the entitlement cuts (as recommended here as well). But, since a Marxist noticed, we can ignore it. I get it.
"The Greek government obviously acted recklessly in borrowing and wasting so much money, and its toleration of tax evasion was a scandal. But your impulse to anthropomorphize the Greek government is obscuring the distress of real human beings who cant afford the basics because their countrys whole economy is being squeezed to save the lenders on the other side of the reckless borrowing."Matthew, to what degree are citizens in a democracy on the hook for the bad decisions and irresponsible acts of the governments they've elected, over and over again? We here in Illinois are trying to figure that one out, and I suppose the Greeks should be working through the same thing. If they have the luxury of being objective and introspective about the whole thing, shouldn't they be looking at one another and saying, "Well, after all, we did elect 'em. At a bare minimum, let's not do that anymore"?"Where it was reckless to borrow, it was reckless to lend. The better analogy would be with the subprime-mortgage racket here in the United States. Big European (and some American) banks were to Greece as Countrywide was to the person buying a mansion with little income and no credit. The EU may have a responsibility to save the banks, but not the bankers or the banks shareholders, most of whom can afford the lesson they obviously need to learn."But to carry that argument through to its conclusion: wouldn't the same argument, applied to the US in 2008-2009, have been, "Let Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and AIG tank, because their shareholders can afford the lesson"? And in fact, there was a conservative stream of thought that argued that this is what should have happened. But we didn't, thank goodness, because the collateral damage would have been incalculable. For the sake of the rest of Europe and us and the rest of the world, someone needs to figure out which is less bad: to keep Greece on the Euro, or to let them revert to the drachma. Istm that Greece is toast either way. I agree that it stinks that Greeks are picking through dumpsters. I just don't think much can be done about it in the short term.
"The EU may have a responsibility to save the banks, but not the bankers or the banks shareholders, most of whom can afford the lesson they obviously need to learn."There is not a meaningful distinction between these three. And I would suggest you look at who "the banks' shareholders" are.
I don't find the analogy between the subprime mortgage crisis here and the Greek financial situation very useful at all. Private borrowing/lending activities are not the biggest driver of the Greek (and Eurozone) crisis.
It's wonderful how some investors -- like the ones who buy and pay for both parties' candidates in American elections -- disappear when the inexorable workings of the free market cause pain, and how all who are left to be saved or ruined are widows and orphans and pension funds. It is wonderful because when our choice between Tweedledum and Tweedleridiculous yields a crisis of pain, we, and not their creators, are blamed for it.It is also wonderful how the working of the aforesaid free market, the noblest invention of man, can turn people into what other people call "toast," although those other people aren't willing to be toast themselves for a few years so they can lecture the rest of us first-hand on what it's like to be toast.
". . . your impulse to anthropomorphize the Greek government . . ."Matthew --I keep looking for a word that describes trying to turn a human institution into a person (e.g., the U. S. corporations). To "anthropomorphize" catches the meaning exactly, but it's almost as off-putting as "hypostacize". Can you think of a nice everyday word that might do? It seems to me that such hypostacizing/anthropomorphizing is at the root of some very important fallacies. Even a short phrase would be useful.
Tom - I don't want to be toast. I need my job, and my own creditors (not to mention my family) need me to keep my job. I'd think that millions of Americans feel the same way, and we're all equally at fault (which it so say, not at all at fault) for what is happening in Greece. I'd rather not sacrifice my own rather wobbly financial security for the sake of making an ideological point halfway around the world.
Tangent:About our recurring argument concerning who is responsible for the recession, I read yesterday that there are now 4 U. S. senators and 11 representative (all Republican, including one Tea Partier) who have rejected their Nordquist promises not to raise taxes. And also Jeb Bush. Can sanity be returning to the GOP?
JIm P. ==It is simply not true that "we" elected the politicians who are in large part responsible for the recession. I and most other Democrats voted against Dubya, and many of us voted against the other federal candidates who are responsible for eliminating the policing the financial markets and for lowering the taxes on the rich.This is another example of anthropmorphizing -- you have turned us/the electorate into one person -- the person responsible for the recent Republican administrations. But there isn't really any "the electorate/we".
A classicist views some of the deeper historical and geographic factors that make Greece unique:"Greeks understandably both look for foreign succor and then almost instantly fear the repercussions of such dependency, a national characteristic that explains much of their present nonsensical behavior of resenting the Germans who have lent them so much and who now alone can keep Greek bankruptcy at bay."http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031812.html
Bruce and Jim Pauwels,Whatever the responsibility of the ordinary Greek citizen for the fiscal decisions made by the Greek government, it is certainly no greater than the responsibility of the ordinary investor for the decisions made by his investment-fund manager -- even if the fund in question is a pension fund. (A Greek citizen suffers from the bad decisions his government made whether he voted for that government or against it. An investor can "vote" against an investment fund by pulling his money out of it, after which his money is safe from the fund manager's mistakes.)How about this, Bruce? If, by taking a loss on bad Greek bonds, an investor would end up in a worse condition than the Greeks now eating out of dumpsters, the government will bail the investor out by catching him in its safety net. Anyway, the technocrats in charge of these things ought to be at least as sophisticated as a good barber: some people should take shorter haircuts than others, and that will depend partly on how much hair they have.The Greek government's first responsibility is to the Greek people, not to Brussels or the bond sharks. Of course Brussels and the bond sharks will both say what's best for the banks is also best for the Greek people in the long run. The Greek people would be fools to take their word for it. And, because Greece is a democracy, they don't need to. Jeff Landry, There is indeed a meaningful distinction between banks on the one hand and bankers and bank shareholders on the other. The EU has already forced bank shareholders to accept write-downs on Greek bonds even as they have moved to recapitalize the banks. If push comes to shove, they can temporarily nationalize banks that hold too much Greek debt, wiping out the shareholders without causing a full-blown credit crisis. If the banks were not, among other things, a public utility, it would be unnecessary for the EU to involve itself in their fate. And since it is necessary for the EU to involve itself in their fate, it should do so in such a way as to protect the most vulnerable citizens in its member states, not its most powerful financiers.Tom Blackburn,Right on.
Matthew and Tom -Your rhetoric is all nice and succint - slice and dice good versus evil, institutions from shareholders, "ordinary" Greek citizens from their politicians, and, of course, everyone versus the big bad bankers. Unfortunately the world (or at least the world economy) isn't. E.g. your "widows, orphans and pension funds." Pension funds! Who do you think are the banks' shareholders?
"Whatever the responsibility of the ordinary Greek citizen for the fiscal decisions made by the Greek government, it is certainly no greater than the responsibility of the ordinary investor for the decisions made by his investment-fund manager even if the fund in question is a pension fund. "Matthew, are you arguing that if I delegate responsibility for my financial affairs to a professional manager, and he is corrupt or incompetent or both and loses my savings, I should be shielded from the consequences? Surely that is the risk - the flip side of the hoped-for reward (the "positive risk") - that I accepted when, eyes wide open, I hired him?In a democracy, we're stuck with the consequences of the bad decisions of the elected officials chosen by the majority of our fellow citizens, even when we personally voted for someone else. I don't see a way around that. One brainy fellow has noted that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried. No doubt, this stuck-with-the-boobs-we-elected situation is one of those factors that makes it so worst. The prescribed remedy is to minimize the damage by throwing the bums out in the next election. If a majority of our fellow citizens keep returning the same boobs to office election after election after election, a bit of soul-searching may be in order: have I really done everything I could do to change things?
No, Jim: I am suggesting the opposite. Bruce thinks ordinary Greeks should be made to suffer because they elected the government that borrowed so much from "real people" here in the states who have their retirement money locked up in pension funds. I am pointing out that those real people have at least as much responsibility for the bad decisions of fund managers as Greek voters have for the bad decisions of Greek politicians. It is easier for someone here to pull his money out of a pension fund than it is for a citizen of Greece to shield himself from the bad decisions of a government he didn't vote for. But even if a Greek citizen did vote for the political parties responsible for Greece's debt, that does not oblige him to vote for those same parties now, just so that he will suffer as much -- and the bankers as little -- as possible. Whatever their complicity in the policies that brought their country to grief, Greek voters should now vote for the parties whose first priority is to take care of vulnerable Greeks, not to preserve the euro.
This BBC News report on what is happening in Greece uses another anthropomorphic metaphor - a poker game. Fascinating, scary stuff.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18436777
"Whatever their complicity in the policies that brought their country to grief, Greek voters should now vote for the parties whose first priority is to take care of vulnerable Greeks, not to preserve the euro."Ok, Matthew. Btw, this is a neat illustration of the fundamental problem with the Euro. The Euro is pan-European, but Greeks vote for what is best for Greeks, not what is best for pan-Europe. I don't mean to imply that Greece is somehow unique in this respect; I expect that Germans, French, Slovenians et al do the same.
Bruce thinks ordinary Greeks should be made to suffer Matthew, Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Not all Greeks are suffering and neither are all bank shareholders and lenders. But some of both are and most likely similarly. Even if Greece reinstates the Drachma, many will continue to suffer, both Greeks and non-Greeks. Wealth has been destroyed by human actions. Many are affected across all categories of people; no category escaped unscathed.Btw, as an economic matter the private sector lenders to Greece have lost economic wealth because the price of the debt they hold has plunged. The only lenders being protected are the other governments which are lending new funds to Greece.
Why are we(and I'm not sure I can define 'we') all so enamoured of capitalism? A system whose foundation is greed produces human suffering and we are suprisied?
Here is more on the poker game between Germany and Greece.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9332021/Its-a-poker-g...


text:
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Smear/Pap Tests: Don't Die Of Embarrassment - 02-09-2009, 03:57 PM
If you are sexually active, then a smear or pap test (different names for the same thing) is absolutely vital. It may seem embarrassing or scary, but don't hesitate to have one if you need it; it could save your life.
BBC - The Surgery - Body & Mind - Girls' Bodies - Smear tests
Smear tests
Cervical screening, pap test, smear.
What is a smear test?
It's a test to make sure we are not at risk of getting cancer of the cervix (neck of the womb).
Do I need to have a smear test?
Cervical cancer (cancer of the cervix) is one of the most common cancers in women and many women who've got it don't realise it for years. The earlier you find it, the easier cervical cancer is to treat, so it's important to get tested.
How do I get one?
Once youre over 25 youll automatically get free smear tests from the NHS, wholl write to you urging you to make an appointment. You'll be eligible for a free cervical screening test every three to five years until you're 64.
It's best if you don't have a smear test while you're on your period. The best time is two weeks after your period, but it doesn't have to be exact.
What will happen?
A doctor or nurse will take a sample of cells from your cervix and send them off to a laboratory to be tested. This isn't as scary as it might sound. It only takes a couple of minutes and, while it isn't exactly a barrel of laughs, it doesn't hurt.
Oh ugh....THIS thing...I'm so scared to do one. And for me it's absolutely crucial because the women in my family on both sides have a history of problems down under. It's not so much the thing going in, it's the little spatchula thing you described. I don't like it when dry tampons scrape my sides none the less something actually meant to get something out!
I'll get one when I get insurance which should be within this year or so, but because of my family history I'll need it just in case. If I did one now and they found something then the rip off insurance will say it was a pre-existing illenss or whatever and might not cover the costs to treat it!
I won't lie; it's NOT pleasant at all and feels icky, but it's crucial that you get one for the sake of your health. You can ask a female doctor to do it if you'll feel nervous about a man doing it (like me; female doctor EVERY TIME O_O) and you only have to have a smear once every three years so when it's done, that's it for a while.
Man I remeber going for my first one and yes I do agree with Miranda it does feel icky, but it is crucial for your health. At the clinics they are very good and providing you a female doctor if you feel very uncomfortable.
My mom tends to go overboard about me needing to get one, which is starting to get on my last nerve because I've never had sex or anything. She's freaking out over family history problems (endomytriosis) and I can say now that I am not experiencing any horrible pains like her and my aunt did, even when they were on BC. Yes, I did have a sc.rewy cyst a year or three back, but every girl gets a cyst once in awhile that's a real pain in in the butt.
Mom says that if my gyno (who thank god is a girl and not a guy) says I need a test, then apparently I need one. I am honestly downright terrified of having to get one because I can honestly say that I've never had horrible problems, I've never sc.rewed around, etc. I mean, yeah, I still need to get that Guardasil shot thing just because my aunt keeps on preaching it to my mom, but what also doesn't help is that my neighbor's daughter had cervical cancer. Now my mom's downright paranoid about my own health. -__-;
So in short, I think it should be up to the patient and not the patient's mother.
I stare at the girl in the mirror: T-shirt, torn up jeans, no beauty queen.
But the way that you see me, you get underneath me, and all my defenses just fall away, fall away.
I am beautiful with you, even in the darkest part of me. I am beautiful with you;
Make it feel the way it's supposed to be!
|Thread Tools
|Display Modes
Hybrid Mode


text:
!http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/fatkidwrestler.jpg|title=fatkidwrestler|height=282|style=margin: 5px;|alt=|width=427|class=size-medium wp-image-161 alignleft|src=http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/fatkidwrestler.jpg!

Why should you care that kids are getting fatter? Because it is costing you millions of dollars in health care costs,�� because it is a direct reflection of the choices and examples that you make, and because we owe the children in this nation a better future. In this Podcast Episode #24 , I interview Monica Reinagel, host of *The Nutrition Diva's Quick and Dirty Tips Podcast . During *this interview, we talk about the seriousness of the childhood obesity problem, and the fact that kids are dying of "adult" diseases that are intimately tied to junk food, fast food, portion control, and other important nutritional issues. Included in this podcast:

-The underlying nutrition considerations behind this problem.

-How to approach the difficult position of wanting your child to be able to "enjoy" perks like McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

-How children can eat healthy and still enjoy food, with examples of meal decisions, substitutions or changes that parents can make.

-Nutritional choices that parents can make that will positively affect the behavior of their children.

-How young is too young to start making smart diet choices for your kid?

During this podcast, Monica mentions a fantastic resource, the "Real Food for Healthy Kids" book , as well as her website NutritionData.com and her latest book (non-childhood obesity related): "The Inflammation-Free Diet".

Also featured in this podcast:

-A listener Q&A on alternative calcium sources to milk, in which Ben Greenfield reveals the secret vegetable that has more calcium than a glass of milk.

-A special discount code for +the Gymstick portable exercise tool (click here to order with your $10 discount code found at minute 10:25 of the podcast!) ,

-An introduction to the following two highly affordable triathlon training plans written by Ben Greenfield+:
bq. Ironman Canada Training Plan, for January 1-August 30, 2009 - just $179 with $20 discount code at minute 13:50 of the podcast!

Ironman Coeur D' Alene Training Plan, for January 1-June 21, 2009 - just $179 with $20 discount code at minute 13:50 of the podcast!


text:
I do not understand the use of "run off" in the following sentence. Neither was I able to find any explanation so I guess it is not a phrase?
If your generator (software) was running off a different machine you would type the server name or IP address of that machine.


text:
Thornwillow is committed to mastering and perpetuating the arts and crafts of the written word:
Design. Typesetting. Letterpress Printing. Engraving. Custom Leather Bookbinding and Box making.
In addition to our limited edition fine press publications, Thornwillow specializes in making the finest
business cards, wedding invitations, birth announcements, custom notebooks & journals,
monograms, correspondence cards and business papers.
In this age of disposable and intangible communications where we delete our correspondence, turn books on and off
with a switch and store our memories in a cloud, Thornwillow is dedicated to celebrating the written word, to making
objects that last, that memorialize personal moments and public events, that define private,
individual as well as universal, cultural identity.


text:
Transylvania Regional announces new president
Published: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 3:44 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 3:44 p.m.
Starting next week, Transylvania Regional Hospital will have a new president who will also serve as its chief nursing officer.
Catherine Landis, a registered nurse, will take on the dual leadership role as part of a systemwide restructuring recently announced by Mission Health. Landis' combined role will include accountability for nursing practice and patient care standards, as well as active participation in the development and operations of the regional network of care.
"We are delighted to welcome Cathy Landis to western North Carolina and to the Mission Health family," Craig James, vice president for Mission Health's Western Region, said in a statement. "She brings with her a wealth of experience in clinical settings, as well as a solid grounding in the nuances of providing care in a small hospital setting. I know that her foundation, combined with her vision for success for Transylvania Regional Hospital will serve us well into the future."
The future of Mission Health hospitals will include similar restructuring, with transitions to clinical leaders, like Landis, who will serve as a combined hospital president and chief nursing officer.
Landis comes to Transylvania Regional, a 92-bed facility in Brevard with 600 employees and 150 volunteers, with previous experience leading patient services and cardiac programs across the southeastern United States.
Before joining Mission, Landis served as chief nursing officer at East Cooper Medical Center in Mt. Pleasant, S.C. She also held leadership positions at Roper St. Francis Health Care and Bon Secours Health System. At New Hanover Regional Medical Center and McAllen Heart Hospital, she led cardiac services.
Landis will report to James.
"We are pleased that such talented leaders are joining our leadership team," said Jill Hoggard Green, chief operating officer of Mission Health.
Landis' first day on the job will be Aug. 11.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Top 10 Home Maintenance Projects for Spring
9 of 11
Check Heating and Cooling Systems
Schedule an annual tune-up for your heating and cooling system. Clean or change air filters and remove dust from around grills and ducts. Outdoor air conditioner condensers need attention now, too. Disconnect the power from the condenser and clear away any leaves and debris with a vent brush or power blower. You can minimize problems with debris by wrapping fiberglass mesh around the condenser coil; just be sure to regularly check and replace the mesh as needed.
If you have window air conditioning units, remove the covers and clean the filters. Make sure they're running properly before the hot weather arrives.


text:
Design Day - del 1 Metro the Foundation
- Posted: Jan 31, 2012 at 6:58AM
- 1,795 views
Right click "Save as…"
Design Day Stockholm 18 november 2011
Del 1 med Arturo Toledo
metro - the foundation
influence. inspiration.
metro principles.
metro design language.
Oops, something didn't work.
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.


text:
Black smoke billows from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, meaning Roman Catholic cardinals have not elected a pope in their second or third rounds of balloting, at the Vatican, Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Cardinals voted twice Wednesday in Michelangelo's famed frescoed chapel after a first vote Tuesday in a conclave to elect a successor to Benedict XVI, who stunned the Catholic world last month by becoming the first pope in 600 years to resign. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)
VATICAN CITY (CBS News)-- The princes of the Roman Catholic Church entered the Sistine Chapel for a second day Wednesday to try and decide on a new pope to replace Benedict XVI, but failed again in their morning round of voting to pick a man for the job.
Black smoke billowed Wednesday just before lunchtime from a small chimney on top of the iconic chapel, signaling that the 115 cardinal electors locked inside had not agreed on any one candidate in their two morning votes. They will break for lunch before reconvening in the afternoon.
How many ballots any one man did garner in the vote held Tuesday night or the two held Wednesday morning will not be known -- all voting is conducted in complete secrecy -- but for someone to be elected to lead the world's 1.5 billion Catholics, they must garner 77 of the 115 votes available.
The cardinals will vote up to four times each day until that 77-vote threshold is reached.
Some of the cardinals, including New York's Timothy Dolan, expressed optimism prior to entering the conclave that it should be over within just a couple days, but others, even from the U.S., have suggested more time will be required due to there being no strong frontrunner heading into the process.
CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports that there were serious fault lines in the College of Cardinals heading into the conclave, broadly pitting more traditionalist prelates, many of them entrenched in the Vatican establishment and bureaucracy, against those more interested in reform. Many of the reform-minded cardinals come from outside Italy, and think the church's creaking bureaucracy, known as the Curia, and secretive ways are at the root of its problems.
But some secrets are sacred. CBS News consultant and Inside the Vatican magazine editor Delia Gallagher explains that the voting cardinals have sworn an oath of secrecy and risk excommunication if they speak to anyone -- even their own staff -- from outside the internal conclave sanctum during the process.
Gallagher says the cardinals likely narrowed the field of potential candidates down in their Tuesday vote to just a couple of men, but if they fail to reach an absolute majority consensus in the four possible votes on Wednesday, the prospects for a short conclave will diminish.
If it continues until Thursday evening, that could be a sign that the field has not narrowed and the process may drag on into the weekend. If that happens, Church rules say the cardinals must take a day off from voting for prayer and reflection. That day of rest would fall on Saturday, with the voting to resume on Sunday.
© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Dallas County Auditor's Office
Records Building - 509 Main Street, 4th Floor, Suite 407, Dallas, Texas 75202-3548
Phone: (214) 653-6472 • Hours of Operation: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Forms submitted for payments must be received by the Accounts Payable Division no later than 4:30 p.m. on Friday for the next week's county commissioner's court session.
Click on the format icon of the form you wish to use. When the form is displayed on the screen, you may print the document.


text:
You Can Shop At Amazon and Help Support Emergency-Preps.com Without It Costing You One Thin Dime - Click Here to Learn How!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Started by Ken
Utensils and Equipment
Started by Flight-ER-Doc
« 1 2 All »
Signs of Doom
Started by Bill Quick
Started by Ken
News Items
Started by Drang


text:
BELLMEAD (November 9, 2012)—Bellmead and Lacy Lakeview police are investigating a local man's claim that he was kidnapped Friday at knifepoint by a former coworker over an unpaid $20 debt.
Ricky Davis, 47, said he was in a park in Lacy Lakeview when the former coworker confronted him, held a knife to his stomach and ordered him to get into a nearby car, demanding payment of a $20 debt plus another $30 in interest.
Davis said he couldn't escape from the car because the inside door handle and panel were missing so he told the man to drive to a barbershop at Bellmead Drive and Hogan Lane where he could get the money.
Davis called 911 from inside the barbershop.
Bellmead police and Department of Public Safety troopers arrived at the scene where they found a car similar to the one the victim described parked in front of the barbershop with a man sitting inside.
They called for a K-9 unit and when the dog inspected the car he indicated there could be drugs inside.
Officers recovered some drug paraphernalia from inside the vehicle, arrested Jerry Whitlock, 35, and turned him over to Lacy Lakeview officers.


text:
Quoizel QR1173BN Brushed Nickel 32" Small Canton Wall Mirror from the Quoizel Mirror Collection
Offer Ends
We still have product details, accessories, replacement parts and reviews below, scroll down to see them!
Technical Specs
|Bulb Included
|Quoizel Mirror
|Energy Star
|Suggested Room Fit
|Bathroom, Bedroom, Foyer
Quoizel QR1173 Quoizel Mirror 32" Small Canton Wall Mirror
This transitional 32" mirror is the perfect thing for your bathroom, bedroom, foyer, or hallway. Never leave the house with fly away hair or lipstick on your teeth again!
Quoizel QR1173 Features:
- Design: Transitional
- Material: Steel
- Collection: Quoizel Mirror
Quoizel QR1173 Specifications:
- Height: 32"
- Width: 24"
- Item Weight: 23 lbs.
Quoizel creates more than lighting and home accessories, they create timeless pieces designed with you in mind. This kind of dedication, integrity and quality not only goes into the design of their products, but it's in the way they do business as well. It's why Quoizel has grown from a small company to become one of the nation's leading manufacturers of fine decorative lighting and home accessories.
Additional Quoizel Links
Our SKU: QR1173
This product is listed under the following manufacturer number(s):
- Brushed Nickel*
*Denotes a finish or option that has been discontinued
Quoizel Quoizel Mirror Collection
Warranty Info
QUOIZEL, Inc. Warrants that this product will be free of electrical defects for the lifetime of the original owner. Should any electrical part (wiring, switches, sockets, pugs, or the like) fail through any defect in materials or workmanship during the life of the original owner, QUOIZEL will repair or replace (at our option) the item free of charge. Shipping is the responsibility of the owner.


text:
Health & Pregnancy
Breastfeeding May Cut Breast Cancer Risk
Aug. 10, 2009 -- Women with a family history of breast cancer who have ever breastfed reduce their risk of getting premenopausal breast cancer by nearly 60%, according to a new study.
''For women with a family history of breast cancer, this suggests an extra benefit [of breastfeeding] is, it may reduce the risk of breast cancer," says Alison Stuebe, MD, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the lead author of the study. It is published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
While previous studies have also suggested a link between breastfeeding and reduced breast cancer risk, results have been mixed, Stuebe writes. Studies in which women who already have breast cancer are asked about their breastfeeding history can be flawed by "recall bias," she says.
''Our goal was to collect information before the diagnosis and follow women," Stuebe tells WebMD.
Stuebe and her colleagues drew information from 60,075 women who were participants in the Nurses' Health Study II from 1997 to 2005 and had given birth.
The women answered questions about demographics, body measurements, and lifestyle factors every two years, and described their breastfeeding practices. They were asked about family history of breast cancer and if they had been diagnosed with invasive breast cancer.
By the end of the follow-up in June 2005, Stuebe's team found 608 cases of premenopausal invasive breast cancer, with 99% of the cases verified by medical records. The woman's average age at diagnosis was 46.
''Overall, in the whole group of women we studied, women who had breastfed were 25% less likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women who had never breastfed," says Stuebe, who conducted the research while at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Family History of Breast Cancer
When the researchers looked separately at the women without a family history and those with a family history of breast cancer (mother, sister, or grandmother), they found ''almost the entire effect could be accounted for by women with a family history," she tells WebMD.


text:
18 ft
Boat Details
Hull Material
Hull Shape
6 ft 8 in
Dry Weight
820 lb
Max Seating Capacity
Fuel Capacity
12 gal
The G3 Tunnel series offers two unique tunnel hull designs to get you into, and more important, out of the places you need to go. For shallow water running in the most demanding lake and intercoastal environments, nothing matches the 1860 CCT prop tunnel hull. For river running and negotiating rocky shallows, the 1860 jet tunnel hulls provide the ultimate in skinny water navigation. Both hull designs deliver the durability and value that have made Gator Tough jons famous with fishermen everywhere.G3 Welded Package Jons are rugged and dependable season after season. Each offers the reliability of .100 gauge all-welded aluminum, high-strength, one-piece extruded ribs, textured skid-resistant deck, durable marine-grade vinyl covered floor, reinforced corner and transom braces, stamped-in keels and reinforced bow eyes.Durability, dependability and value - the key elements needed in a craft to take the avid outdoorsman into adventure after adventure. Whether it's deer hunting in the farthest reaches of the backcountry, turkey hunting in Missouri or landing a King drift-fishing on the Kenai River in Alaska, all demand straight forward serious equipment designed for the serious sportsman; Gator Tough equipment by G3. G3 Jons provide an array of all welded models so tough that they are a natural fit for extended use, from professional work boats to all season hunting and fishing.
© Copyright 2016 Dominion Enterprises. All rights reserved.


text:
Historian's verdict: Catholic justices can't be trusted
That headline is perhaps too blunt a summation of an argument by theUCLAprofessor emeritaof history, Joyce Appleby--but not by much. In a column in the Tallahassee Democrat, Appleby argues that Sonia Sotomayor's nomination raises concerns becausesix of nine Supreme Court justices would be Catholic--and that has a big downside, because, well, you know Catholics:
This dramatic change in the composition of the Supreme Court can be traced to the country's protracted struggle to achieve equality. It reflects our better selves, the ones who want to make up for decades of prejudice and discrimination. But because of the Catholic Church's active opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage and capital punishment, it raises serious questions about the freedom of Catholic justices to judge these issues. Perhaps the time has come to ask them to recuse themselves when cases come before their court on which their church has taken positions binding on its communicants.
In truth, religion is not a factor in the majority of decisions that the court will make each year. It might not be relevant at all had not the Catholic Church, with some other denominations, taken public stands on issues of great political significance today.Abortion comes immediately to mind, but it's not the only constitutional matter where religion and politics clash. This past week two eminent lawyers, David Boies and Theodore Olson, filed a lawsuit in federal District Court in San Francisco as co-counsel for two gay couples challenging California's Proposition 8. The California Supreme Court's upholding of the proposition's ban on same-sex marriages triggered the action, which seeks relief for gay couples under the Constitution's protection of equal rights.The case could go all the way to the Supreme Court, raising questions about the vigorous opposition to same-sex marriages by the church to which five, and possibly six, justices will belong.Recusal sounds like a radical measure, but we require judges to withdraw from deliberations whenever a personal interest is involved. Surely ingrained convictions exert more power on judgment than mere financial gain. Many will counter that views on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the death penalty are profound moral commitments, not political opinions. Yet who will argue that religious beliefs and the authority of the Catholic Church will have no bearing on the justices when presented with cases touching these powerful concerns?
Umm, I would make that argument--and so would the Catholics on the court would argue the same, left, right, and center. I don't want to go all "Catholic League" here, but this piece leaves me gobsmacked: Appleby seems like a historian condemned to repeat history--the Nativist part.H/T: Catholic World News
About the Author
David Gibson is a national reporter for Religion News Service and author of The Coming Catholic Church (HarperOne) and The Rule of Benedict (HarperOne). He blogs at dotCommonweal.
38 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Historian, maybe; Current affairs, no...Too bad he doesn't read the Commonweal blog.. he'd know Catholics are all over the place on every issue. (-:
Scalia argued that there is no more a Catholic approach to arriving at judgments with respect to constitutional issues before the court than there is a Catholic way to make a hamburger.The difference lies in the manner in which one approaches interpretation of constitutional texts and their applicability to current issues as well as views regarding the distinct nature of the judiciary and the legislative branch.Of course the devil (and God) is in the details!!!!The point is that questions regarding the justices should focus on judicial temperment. Scalia' point is that personal experience of faith does not drive his analytical process. Ironically, Sotomayor's view, as I (mis)understand it is that her experience (specifically as a Latino and a woman) does drive her analytical process and this is not a negative.At any rate, people like this journalist should get out more and meet real live practicing Catholics and she will soon discover a variety of views and perspectives at work.
I get the point you are making, but how would most people feel if that number of judges were Muslim or Jewish or atheist, etc.? I think there would be some concern.
My concern is that the Protestants aren't well represented numerically, not that there are too many Catholics. And I would have the same objection if there were six Muslims or six atheists. Diversity brings the wisdom of diverse cultures. That the Professor doesn't see that judicial decisions are judgments about whether or not a law is consistent with the Constitution and not whether the law is consistent with with the justices religious beliefs or even with the justices' personal view about the justice of the law at issue. The Constitution does not promise justice, and the justices are not appointed to provide it. (Lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong.)If this isn't a religious test for office, what would be? Such ignorance.
I'm a little confused - it is because they are Catholic that they should recuse themselves? Or because there are so many of them?
I think it's sad that it should be the case -- or that anyone should argue it's the case -- that being a Catholic has no effect on how a Supreme Court justice decides cases. If deciding cases doesn't require human beings, perhaps we should program a supercomputer to interpret the Constitution. If it does require human beings, how can their deeply held convictions about the nature of existence exert no influence on their decisions as justices.Think of a saint you admire, and try to imagine him or her as a Supreme Court justice. I just can't see St. Teresa of Avila saying, "My religion will have no influence on how I decide cases." I thought the idea of "checking religion at the door" was offensive to Catholics.
David:We have to respond to the modern world the way it is constituted. Religion remains part of the private realm which doesn't make it unimportant or valuable. It simply means that religious belief will not play a formative part of a public discourse.
Chrysta;:Jews dominate the entertainment industry and financial markets. Relative to their population they exercise a lot of influence in these areas. I am not concerned about it.
David,I found this to be of interest, thanks for pointing it out. I wondered, over on my blog ([email protected]) whether Appleby's target audience might actually be the bishops who narrowly define "Catholic" in public? Are they, in fact, making it impossible for Catholics to serve in a variety of offices?
"I wondered...whether Appleby's target audience might actually be the bishops who narrowly define"Catholic" in public."I have no doubt that Appleby's audience is also the Bishops. She would rather they not remind their flock that Catholicism is not merely some religion but rather it is a living witness to " The Way, The Truth, and The Life of Love, God. This is the same God upon which this Nation was founded, the Universal God, a.k.a.," the Creator ".
Nancy Dallavalle (who'd a thought we'd have two Nancy D's?)...Appleby's analysis doesn't seem to display such a knowledge of ecclesiastical politics, to me. Otherwise she'd be happy to have a Catholic like Sotomayor, no? Then again, pace Nancy Danielson, none of the "conservative" Catholic fellows on the bench listen to the bishops either, it seems.
I'm disappointed with this column. Joyce Appleby was co-author of a good book on historical method, "Telling the Truth about History," which resists sloppy appeals to relativism in the historical craft. Apparently historians can do what Catholic judges can't: tell the truth.
I thought the appeal to limit Catholic judges absurd - David is right, judges making decsions who happen to be Catholic -as the new thread points out, no religion test.I guess the only problem I can see is if Judges were "threatened" by their Church to decide a case.
This is an historic issue with the Church in our country. Fear of Papal influence was a factor in Al Smith's defeat in 1928, and JFK allaying those fears was a factor in 1960. Essentially there are two sides: public officials who believe that they can be themselves, and bishops who think that laity are obligated to do what they say. I don't see this being resolved anytime soon, if ever. If only we had a third party who could judge which is right, but bishops are the supreme judicial authority in the Church, and judges in the government, so there is no one left to judge.
Right, Bob, which is why I suggest that it might be the Catholic bishops, not the judges, who should consider when to "recuse" themselves! I don't mean at all to have the bishops silent on the faith, my fellow Nancy, but IMHO, some have exercised their authority in a way that allows for the tropes of Nativism to be re-ignited.And yes, David, when I observe that Appleby says "x", but maybe is just showing "y" -- this may be reading WAY more complexity into the argument that the essay supports!
Nancy DLV: I am all for reading complexity into simple things--indeed, I'd have nothing to do if I didn't...I do think it is important to make distinctions re Catholics in public life between legislative arenas and judicial arenas. The impact of faith teachings and culture can have a greater impact in one than the other.
Scalia, years ago, said, "Catholic judges who believe capital punishment is wrong should resign." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/05/deathpenalty/main328253.shtml ) Seems it is a common theme, from people on all sides. The problem is, it is always "they should resign" or "recluse themselves" on issues where the judge is not for the opinion of a given commentator. This could be a way to make sure no judges ever can be on the bench again. There will always be someone who think their views are wrong.
I do think it is important to make distinctions re Catholics in public life between legislative arenas and judicial arenas. The impact of faith teachings and culture can have a greater impact in one than the other.David Gibson,I think this may be true in practice, but I don't really get the rationale behind it. As I keep pointing out, the bishops have declared the American system of justice "fundamentally flawed." What obligation should a judge feel to a fundamentally flawed legal system when he or she has the Catholic Church as a source of absolute truth? Why shouldn't Catholic judges try to get around Roe v Wade or any other court decision or law in our legal system if they think they can prevent "murders"? This may come across as sounding anti-Catholic, but in a way the accusations of anti-Catholicism would be something like, "How dare you imply a Catholic judge would be less than impartial in a case where he believes a mother wants to murder her unborn child?" George D: We have to respond to the modern world the way it is constituted. Religion remains part of the private realm which doesnt make it unimportant or valuable. It simply means that religious belief will not play a formative part of a public discourse.Was this meant seriously? I personally believe that all American law should be based on secular thought and have secular purposes. So, for example, I believe that the only way to claim that a fertilized human egg is a person is by an appeal to religious belief. Consequently, I don't see how stem-cell research can be prohibited by the government (at least on the grounds that it is taking human lives). But that is not the way the American bishops see it!
David:The issue that the journalist was making is that a judge simply by virtue of their religious faith must recuse themselves because they cannot be objective.I can grant her the point that obviously our experiences colour how we will see the world and for judges their reading and reflection. However, the only way to evaluate that hypothesis is to test it.I don't think the evidence will support her concern. Take the case of Sotomayor, who acknowledged the effect of her gender and ethnicity on her approach. It is not at all clear that this view made her more sympathetic to the claims of minorities in discrimination cases. She balanced these claims against the spirit and test of the legislation and previous case law and arrived at decisions which did not favour the minorities (or so I have read).I think a better example of judicial approach is the death penalty and people who have wanted to elimenate it by doing an end run around the legislative process and have the court declare the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. This seems like a reasonable and rational basis for a judge who may be personally opposed to the practice to stealthily ban the practice by appeal to cruel and unusual punishment. But arguing that view might prove to be tendentious and besides if people feel that way, they can change it by way of the democratic process. IN the case of stem cell research, I think that science clearly points to (at a minimum) the unique status in terms of DNA composition of a fertilized human egg. It is a legitimate public debate and discussion and needs to be carefully thought through. Besides, President Obama has moved the debate around abortion from a rights issue to a moral issue. I think from a strictly rational, ""secular" perspective he is correct. This is where the discussion needs to be joined and where clearly the pro-life position is the more reasonable one although there is allowance for boundary cases.
David, you wrote, "I personally believe that all American law should be based on secular thought and have secular purposes."What constitutes "secular thought" and "secular purposes?" Who decides same?You also stated, "...I believe that the only way to claim that a fertilized human egg is a person is by an appeal to religious belief." Only by "religious belief?" How about philosophical argumentation? How about human sympathy, i.e., the understanding that each of us went through all the stages of prenatal development, that "there (i.e., an aborted human offspring) but for the grace of God go I?"On the other hand, if --- as you assert --- recourse to "religious belief" is the only way one can support personhood, what kind or category of belief/argumentation can be used to deny personhood to unborn human offspring? To put it another way, if you challenge pro-lifers, can we not challenge you? It seems to me that argumentation (beliefs aside for a moment) cuts both ways.
...that what's good for the goose, so to speak, is likewise good for the gander.
Sorry, you can find an interesting video which is consistent with the need to change Hearts through The Universal Truth at NUNBLOG. http://romans8v29.blogspot.com/
A perons can no more be free from the effects of religious belief or unbelief than she/he can completely neutralize the other effects of cultural affiliations, upbringing, experience of others,--you name it.
Hi George D,What I meant to say was that it isn't surprising (to me, anyway) that a majority of one specific group on the Court would cause some concern among those who aren't of that group. That doesn't necessarily mean there is actually reason for concern. But I have the feeling that if most of the judges were atheists, there would be a few concerned Catholics.
We should fear 6 of 9 Catholic SCOTUS Justices but people were all perfectly content with 9 of 9 protesters? I know you were trying to be tempered David but sometimes plain words are needed. You say history is doomed to be repeated, "the Nativist part". In academia credibility is crucial, I'm just wondering what's the credibility of a Know-Nothing? The thing of it is I don't even support Sotomayor's nomination, not because she rules at times against Church teaching but because she legislates from the bench. Therefore she is unfit as a Justice where there are no appeals. The out and out Anti-Catholic sentiment in this country along with internal divisions being promoted, (Yes, I'm looking at you Dave) perhaps a few more people of the faith need to get all "catholic league" on matters. Then blatent discriminatory speech such as the piece you just cited wouldn't be tolerated as it isn't tolerated by any other groups. Imagine if she said well we can't have another woman on the court, you know how they get... Or we can't have a Hispanic, or a Black, or a homosexual. Which MSM outlet wouldn't have it as the lead every hour on the hour??? How many gb's of space would be crammed packed about the offensive hate filled nature of these comments? John Hughes didn't put up with the Know-Nothings then and I'll be damned if we should put up with those that know even less now..
"But I have the feeling that if most of the judges were atheists, there would be a few concerned Catholics."This is true, Crystal. As an atheist judge, how does one form an opinion in conformity to the Law of a Country whose Government is based on the universal, unalienable, Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness that is endowed to all Mankind by their Creator? These Rights are universal and unalienable by virtue of the fact that they are endowed to us by our Creator.
Then blatent discriminatory speech such as the piece you just cited wouldnt be tolerated as it isnt tolerated by any other groups.I have to laugh when the occasion of the nomination of the sixth Catholic to the Supreme Court is use to complain about how terrible anti-Catholicism is in the United States! You know just how anti-Catholic a country is when only the Vice-President, the Speaker of the House, the head of the CIA, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and six of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic. Only when all nine justice are Catholic can we begin to feel the weight of oppression being lifted.
David N,I'm glad you found amusement in your misunderstanding of my post. What would the outpouring of indignation be like if the historian said these things in the context of homosexuals, women, blacks, hispanics, etc, etc, etc...? The heads would be rolling I assure you. The fact that 6 out of 9 SCOTUS Justices will be Catholic is as irrelevant as if they were any other group. If you don't think there is anti-Catholic sentiment in the US I must wonder what broadcasts, blogs, or websites, dinner parties, comedy clubs, office water coolers and the like you've been secluded to in order for you to make such an outlandish and ill informed claim?The individuals in public office you've cited can hardly be considered stellar examples of people who live their faith. There actions have proven quite the contrary and if I'm not mistaken there's been some rumblings in the press as certain members of the Church hierachy have called for these or some of these individuals you mention to be denied the Eucharist. That being said, I can only venture to guess your ideas of Catholics in public office are narrowly interpreted to those whom are a communion wafer away from excommunication. Talk about a laugh...Being born Catholic no more makes you a Catholic than being born on a hillside makes you a billy goat. Your actions and deeds are what defines you, not the title you bring for political pandering and advancement.
Im glad you found amusement in your misunderstanding of my post. What would the outpouring of indignation be like if the historian said these things in the context of homosexuals, women, blacks, hispanics, etc, etc, etc? The heads would be rolling I assure you.C3,When the sixth gay man and/or lesbian (or the sixth black, or hispanic, or woman) is named to the Supreme Court, I will let you know what remarks about him or her I feel constitute bigotry. I had suspected you were going to imply that prominent Catholics like Biden, Pelosi, or Sebelius were "bad Catholics," but it seem to me you are not being realistic about the way bigotry works. Anti-Semites do not quiz Jews on how observant they are. Racists don't discriminate against blacks based on how deeply they are into black culture. If you self-identify as a person, anti-gay bigots won't wait to decide how they feel about you until they know the details of your sex life. And if you self-identify as a Catholic, anti-Catholic bigots will not check to see how often you go to mass and receive communion. Your actions and deeds are what defines you, not the title you bring for political pandering and advancement.Go back in time and tell that to a Jew in Nazi Germany or a black man being lynched in the South.
David N,So you feel that once a person regardless of social, racial, gender, or economic grouping reaches a certain level of success or prominence then it is completely justifiable to attack the group or groups of people of that particular inclination? Come on now, I hardly know you and I'm not even going to entertain the notion that you'd be this illogical in your opinions.First and foremost before we continue we must prioritize on how these individuals are defined. I would say for the greater majority it can be said that they are politicians first, and though I suspect truly something to the contrary for argument sake I will say Catholics second. Was it these individuals principled stances on Catholic teaching that made these people the prominent politicians of power that they are today? I would hardly believe this to be the case. So they abtained their status then by comprimising those principles of faith that they were taught by the Church. If this seems a bit harsh I can allow that they perhaps didn't comprimise but rather paid no heed to them as they climbed the ladder of success. They might of flashed their Catholic credentials here and there like a cop flashes his badge to get into a club without paying cover but as the cop isn't there on police business neither are any of these people "on duty". They use their identity as a Catholic to suit them when needed. I'm well aware of the inner workings of bigotry I've experienced quite enough in my day. Everything that you have stated simply confirms my protest against such baseless and prejudice claims this historian is trying to make a case for against Catholics. It is senseless, the argument has no rational position from where it has taken root. Like anti semitism it is expecting people to believe things that are considered baseless and irrational!You've seemed to change tracks here on the last part, I'm against bigotry of all forms, sure I enjoy a little playful rabble-rousing at the protesters' expense but surely you won't deny me a little fun, no? Just like not all Germans are responsible for the Shoah and not all Southerners are responsible for lynchings; not all Catholics are Papal automatons who have no opinion or free will of their own and subscribing only to what is programed by the Bishop of Rome. Which is a Nativist's position, a Know-Nothing's, and a bigot's.This isn't to say a few of them in office couldn't be improved upon if this was the case...
C3,What is interesting about your position is that you seem to be saying all of the prominent Catholics I mentioned are "bad Catholics," and public acceptance of them is not evidence against anti-Catholic bigotry. (By the way, of course there is some anti-Catholicism in the United States, but obviously, in my opinion, not enough to hold Catholics as a group back.) But Joyce Appleby says, in her conclusion, "Yet who will argue that religious beliefs and the authority of the Catholic Church will have no bearing on the justices when presented with cases touching these powerful concerns?" What she is concerned about is not that Catholics on the Supreme Court would be bad Catholics. She's concerned that they would be to influenced by the teachings of the Church. And you and practically everybody here are arguing, "How dare you suggest Catholic judges would let their faith influence their judicial decisions!"As of late, the Catholic Church has been very active in making pronouncements about the duties of politicians and voters, and it has taken positions on what the law ought to be in the United States regarding abortion, gay marriage, and other issues. And people are suggesting that it's bigotry to be concerned that Catholic judges will actually be influenced by Church teachings!Justice Scalia seems to be very proud of the fact that he checks his Catholicism at the door before entering the Supreme Court. How do you feel about that. Does that make him a bad Catholic in your eyes, like Pelosi or Biden?
"What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?" Stahl asks. "It has nothing to do with how I decide cases," Scalia replies. "My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons."
It seems to me that it is perfectly reasonable to ask what effect a person's Catholicism will (and should have on his or her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice. Scalia did not seem to be offended by the question, and yet many people here are acting as if it's anti-Catholic even to ask the question. And so far, in the two ongoing strings on judges and Catholicism, nobody has been willing to make the case one way or another as to whether being Catholic should ever influence a judge's decision. Is it a good thing that Catholic judges are interchangeable with Protestant judges and Jewish judges? Has there ever been an avowed atheist on the Supreme Court? An Amish person? A Jehovah's Witness? A Seventh-Day Adventist? Someone from the Church of Scientology? A Mormon? A Muslim? A Hindu? A Buddhist? Would we call it bigotry if someone raised the question of whether any of those would be influenced by their religion (or lack of it)?
"Who will argue that religious beliefs and the authority of the Catholic Church will have no bearing on the justices when presented with cases touching these powerful concerns? What she is concerned about is not that Catholics on the Supreme Court would be bad Catholics. Shes concerned that they would be to influenced by the teachings of the Church. And you and practically everybody here are arguing, How dare you suggest Catholic judges would let their faith influence their judicial decisions!I agree with Nancy DL,The judges' Catholic beliefs aren't the only concern here. Note the phrase "authority of the Catholic Church". Striclty speaking, that is not merely a faith issue, like the nature of the trinity. It's also a matter of the prelates' increasing attempts to exert influence over the conduct of tha laity in the public sphere.In that regard, what's to prevent them from deciding to apply communion rail politics of some other form of religious coercion to a Catholic judiciary as they have to elected politicians? (Talk about judicial overreach and legislation from the bench, where's does one go to appeal that decision? ) Given the absolutist nature of the hierarchy and its charism claims, it's no wonder there's suspicion. How do you know how susceptible a justice would be to that kind of pressure -- especially in view of the claim from Cardinal George (I believe) that President Kennedy, who disavowed such authority, effectively renounced his faith?
Please correct me, but isn't the primacy of individual conscience and the reach of the hierarchy over conscience claims what's really at the bottom of this issue? Isn't that what protestantism is all about? You never hear about anyone being excommunicated from a protestant sect and if you did, there probably wouldn't be much fuss made over it. Whereas the threat of excommunication is wielded coercively all the time by Catholic prelates, who are well aware of its potential for intimidation.
David N, I believe I must clarify my view of what you consider "good" or "bad" Catholics. I reject this notion as you put it because to think in these terms if one is to have any credibility one needs moral authority. I don't have such authority. I believe that it is a person living the tenets of Catholicism that make you either a Catholic or a protester. If we are keeping this in the Christian family of course. There isn't anything to be considered as good or bad, it is a matter of whether or not you follow the identifiable behavioral patterns which make or break you in this regard. In other words it is more than just a name.The politicians while all might be baptized and confirmed in the Church might carry the title of Catholic but their actions in public office prove to be the contrary. They may claim Catholicism as their religion but their actions and justifications toe the line more with the protesting sects of Christianity. They like many others who claim to be Catholic wish to view things in their own way, independently and often in opposition to what the Church teaches. A variation to the degree in which their expressed behavior shows no signs whatsoever that they do believe as the Church believes. Do this make them good or bad? No. It does however show depending on their opinions, behavior, and their positions whether or not they are indeed Catholic. Good or bad play no part. It is whether they present the recognizable traits in their actions, in their beliefs that make them such. Your presentation of this is whether they are good or bad Catholics from a judgemental viewpoint. I'm presenting my case free of judgement, from an identificational standpoint. Now, as this pertains to our discussion. The people whom wish to defend the seperation of Church and State are not very even handed in their opinions. Let's back track for a minute. We as a species have personalities that are made up of a culmination of life experiences. We indentify, classify, and catagorize all phenomenon we come across. This builds us into the people we are. A person who is Catholic or hindu or Buddhist, or whatever holds a unique perspective that is based on this accumulative experience we call life. If that person is brought up, raised, and surrounded by Catholics then this person conscience of it or not is going to have an opinion that either coincides with Catholic culture and teachings or it will not. This depends on whether the person has found Catholicism as an attraction or aversion. This is who the person is. The seperation of Church and State isn't the doctrine for the State to determine what role the Church plays in our country and certainly what role it plays on our conscience. The seperation of Church and State was based on the notion that no single faith should hold a monopoly over the State. It was written so that the State should not sanction or endorse any particular religion so that it would intrude on people of other beliefs. That the State's authority shouldn't control the Church and demand it to succumb to the will of the State. That a national church regonized as supreme like the Church of England shouldn't come to pass. These are the reasons for the call of seperation. Not to prevent someone who has religious beliefs to leave them at the door. In doing so that person is leaving a part of himself at the door. A very important part at that, and one that could cause someone to judge erroniously due to the over compensation one may feel about not interjecting that part of themselves into the judgement. The mindframe of our founding fathers was saturated with the knowlege of the discontent, rivalry, and wars that have transposed by opposing forces throughout Europe since the Reformation! A historian should know this. This is why my inclination is to believe that it is Anti-Catholic sentiment that fuels this debate and not merely an argument about the suitibility of 6 Catholics to be on the SCOTUS. If truly the seperation of Church and State was at issue, than the religious denomination of the individuals wouldn't be.
It is true that the separation of Church and State exists so that the State or Government can not control the various Churches nor establish a National Church. Many Europeans came here because they were escaping Religious persecution.David, don't you think that Justice Scalia needs to revisit his comment about "walking around Persons", since Personhood does not require that one be able to walk around?
"Not all Catholics are Papal automators who have no opinion or free will of their own and suscribe to what is programed by the Bishops."The Catholic Faith is not man-made.
Nancy D, This is what these "liberal Catholics" don't seem to understand. It's not our Church, it is His.
David, dont you think that Justice Scalia needs to revisit his comment about walking around Persons, since Personhood does not require that one be able to walk around?Nancy,Scalia believes it is his job to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment based on what its authors meant to say. In his judgment, when they said "person," they were not referring to human beings that had not been born. He is almost certainly correct in his conclusion about what they meant. So it's his judicial philosophy that prevents him from applying the Fourteenth Amendment the way you want him to. He would be on your side if he were to say, "They didn't mean the unborn, but today we know the unborn really are persons, so the Fourteenth Amendment should apply to all persons, born and unborn." But that is not what he believes the role of a Supreme Court justice to be. He would argue that the Constitution means what its authors understood it to mean, and his job is to figure out what they meant.


text:
Remicade (infliximab)
July 23, 2010
I had my Remicade I.V. infusion today which went well, as usual. Today's session was especially nice because for most of the three hours I was there, the entire place was empty. QUIET! While nurses took my vitals, pumped my veins with a steroid, saline, and finally Remicade, I tried to relax and read my book. These bi-monthly infusions are kind of a pain, but I prefer them over having to give myself injections of Humira or Enbrel weekly or bi-weekly (which I have done before). The Humira injection is especially painful due to the preservative that's in it (the worst stinging pain you can imagine as soon as the needle pierces your skin). Yes, I'd much rather have a nurse gently hook me up to tubes than to have to stab myself with a sharp dangerous needle every two weeks in the fat of my lower abdomen or upper thigh. I've been on and off Remicade since 2003, and throughout all of the tests and trials of other similar medications, so far it's been the one that has worked best. I feel very fortunate that during my decade of having RA I haven't had a lot of trouble dealing with side effects from all of the strong medications I've been on. Other people I know and have heard about have suffered almost more from the meds than the actual RA. It's a very frustrating and "Catch-22" situation – what's worse, the disease or the drugs?
Here is some "fascinating" information about Remicade from their website — if anybody's interested in what is coursing through my veins at the moment:
REMICADE is a biologic therapy that recognizes, attaches to, and blocks the action of a protein in your body called tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha). TNF-alpha is made by certain blood cells in your body.
- The immune system protects the body by responding to "invaders" like bacteria, viruses, and other foreign matter that enter your body by producing antibodies and putting them into action to fight off the "invaders."
- In plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, adult Crohn's disease, pediatric Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and ankylosing spondylitis, TNF can cause your immune system to attack healthy tissues in your body and cause inflammation and damage.
- If these diseases are untreated, it can cause permanent damage to the body's bones, cartilage, and tissue.
- REMICADE will not cure inflammatory disorders, such as plaque psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, adult Crohn's disease, pediatric Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and ankylosing spondylitis, but blocking TNF-alpha may reduce the inflammation in your body.
A possibly lengthy, hopefully not boring post about the hula-hoops I have to jump through and numerous handstands I must do in order to afford to get this treatment. Without insurance , the total charges for Remicade and its administration = $6,275.00 – EVERY TWO MONTHS. I probably don't have to tell you that my crappy insurance doesn't pay for all of it. Thank God for The Patient Access Network Foundation, which has allowed me to continue with Remicade and therefore let me live a fairly normal life (instead of one of intense pain and probably bound to a wheelchair). But yes, more on this later.
(P.S. My knee is better and it does not miss the peas)
7 Responses to "Remicade (infliximab)"
July 24, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Remicade (infliximab)…
I found your entry interesting do I've added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
August 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Oh I have never heard of your meds. I guess for $6K maybe that's why? How long does it last and what is the long term side effects?
November 10, 2010 at 5:19 am
Hello Angela.
The needle (answering your question under the photo).
Was wondering what type of RA you have?
I have lived with AS for nearly 30 years. Fatigue is normal – NO FUN – but normal for AS.
Best of luck with the Remicade treatment. I hope your RA responds to the Remicade.
I have not really discussed this particular question with any other RA 'sufferer' before, but perhaps you will offer your opinion on this matter – I would appreciate it:
If someone comes up to you and says, "You can do anything you wish to do, the only limitations that ANYONE HAS, are those you create in your mind, those you create regarding your self-confidence, self-image, etc." However, (they say with reassurance), "You know, you can do whatever you put your mind to!"
What is your gut reaction to that statement, as someone who has been dealing with RA for a long time?
I see these athletes who have lost a leg, using some artificial limb, running in sporting events, and then I think to myself, "Damn, this guy lost his leg and can do that, run a race! These experts must be right!" So, I slowly put my sports shoes on, straining slightly to bend to tie each shoelace, feeling exhausted already before I get outside, and wonder if that was enough exercise. Nope, if the guy with one real leg can run that marathon or the 400 Meter Dash, then, damn'it all, I'll walk that mile…and, I'll walk it back, I won't jump on the bus and cheat.
In my mind, I can do anything! I can lead a Special Ops team into a Hot L.Z. and take out an enemy force. I can be a test pilot for Boeing. I can climb Mt. Everest and traverse the banks of the Amazon River.
BUT IN REAL LIFE…my AS body tells me that I'd never pass the gruelling physical requirements of any Special Ops team, the CIA, FBI, or any Police Force. Because I have AS, and get Iritis on occasion, I'd never be allowed to fly a plane (probably). I'd walk a few blocks through thick jungle on my way to the Amazon river and then the pain would hit badly, and then I'd probably be asking the guide, "Show me the way back to the jeep, please."
Personally, I WANT, I WISH, I DESIRE, to agree with these motivational experts who assure us that we can do anything we put our minds to, but of course, that would make me very happy. HOWEVER, in reality, I am pretty sure that I do have limits caused by the Ankylosing Spondylitis that has affected my joints, my body, for nearly 30 years.
I wish I could run in a marathon, but I am really pretty sure that I can not. On a pretty good day, maybe I can go on a good 1 or 2 mile stroll, and hopefully, at the end of the one-way trip, I have the strength to deal with the pain to make the trip home.
I wish I could do all the landscaping in the yard at my own will, spending hours if need be to spruce up the yard; but in reality, I can last a good 30-minutes and then my hip joints and lower back are KILLING ME (kicking my ass is more like it!!!) Then, it's "break out the Tramadol party-time."
I exercise, I eat right (most of the time), I try to keep a good mental attitude, although depression is part of the AS trap, and that sucks (A LOT).
Sometimes, I wonder if I am the only one feeling like this, that because of the disease, I am unable to do some of the things I would really like to do, or NEED to do. Or, am I just blaming the disease for things that other people with AS can do with little or no effort.
I DON'T LIKE the idea that I have limitations when ALL THE "EXPERTS" that clog the airwaves (WEB, Books, Oprah, etc) say that only you put limitations on what you can do. Should I have to feel guilty about not being able to spend a full day pulling weeds, or milking cows for 6 hours, or building a house for 10-hours straight, or even sitting in a chair for more than a couple hours at a time?
I would think that after having AS for nearly 30 years, I could have come to some truce with myself (to love myself more) and just accept what I can do, and what I can't do so well because maybe all the experts are WRONG, and maybe people with AS, or some of them (at least) do have some limitations put on their daily activities that "NORMAL People" find easy to do.
Anyway, was wondering what your thoughts are on this matter.
My Medical "Level" at this Point:
1) Ankylosing Spondylitis.
2) Sacroiliitis.
3) Fractured my lower spine in two places and had to have Spinal Fusion of L4-L5-S1.
4) Other RA stiffness in hands, knees, sometimes, ankles, neck and ribcage.
5) Lingering Depression (off and on) for years. Have been on meds but never liked the side-effects, always feeling like a zombie, and they were not effective. So, I'm working on this on my own and with family support system.
6) Possible Fibromyalgia.
7)Oh, and my Rheumatologist says that since I've had AS for so long, and that it is leveled off (her words, "not active" LMAOBT!!!!), that I'm not a candidate for any of the new drugs (i.e., Remicade, etc.) It costs about 9K per visit – damned expensive!
Thanks for your blog entry, best of luck to you, and any input on the questions I have raised about RA and physical limitations…would be informative.
December 15, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Hi Angela,
I have RA/Lupus diagnosed about 2 years ago. I'm glad I found your blog because you mirror what I am going though. I may start my own blog as a teacher in the health field and the ironies of having a chronic pain disease in a 'healing' environment.


text:
How do I register the Pocket eDGe when it is showing a Code 80 error?
2 Answers answer
Check around for similar questions:
The PocketEdge community on woot is very active. Have you checked back on the thread? There's been quite a bit of discussion about that and other problems.
Here's the latest one.


text:
NYUHome Login
Students |
Faculty |
Alumni |
Employees |
/ Resources and Services
/ Media and Communications
/ Digital Communications
/ University Events Calendar
If you're interested in planning an event, you may find these resources helpful! Click through to find more information about event planning, room reservations, policies and guidelines.
Unless otherwise noted, all content copyright New York University. All rights reserved.Designed by The Office of Web Communications