archenemy

koo koo koo koo

I had an alarm system set up in my house. It was a pain in the ass. And, you get charged for false alarms by the fire dept or cop shop (I don't remember which one there was a false alarm for and I got charged $50). I disconnected it. I don't plan on ever getting another one unless it is a total top of the line with a butler included.

And, I didn't see it on the Climbers Board.

too true, too true

It's too hard to make fun of the guy without the ability to look at where he's recruiting for. If he's going to have the balls to post something like that here, we ought to leave it as is and have at it. Come on, it's Friday.

The other side of this is that maybe there are some benefits to having people who are experienced in office.

Go Porter!

Don't you just love the internet? I *love* PB&J. Yummmy

Oh, and men make better "animal models" for other men. The medical field is now discovering--surprise--women's and men's bodies respond differently to some drugs. The most important class of these drugs IMO is pain management drugs. Women happen to respond differently to many pain meds than men, and those meds have found to be less effective for women than men. And think, all those years of telling pts that its "just in your head". Don't want to produce birth defects? Don't test your drug on women who are pregnant. I have been on a medication (short term--under one year) that I had to not only be on birth control but I also had to agree that if I did get pregnant, I would be assured that I would have a child with birth defects and could not hold my doc liable. If they can do that to administer a med, they can do that to test one. It's really not that difficult.

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change. You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research? Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.) I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc. I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc. Sins of omission versus sins of commission. Well, it really is a gender issue. And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion.

bearagliding

This makes me want to go and see it before its gone.

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change. You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research? Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.)

I also think he raises good points--some with which I agree. I don't want to make excuses, only share some of what really happens with women and young girls.

can I have a poster of that for my wall?

Oh, and I do think that your compassion, my compassion, and society's compassion for women facing these choices is an issue. Our compassion for others is one of the most important things we have and share as human beings.

Sorry, Arch. For a very, very small percentage of women/couples your point may hold true. But there are options available when others fail or are ignored. Some of those to the right of me are against even these types of contraception - after all, the pill doesn't prevent conception, only implantation - to whom I say: get a fucking life! Sex is fun. Not just for procreation. People are horny. Accidents happen. Options are available for up to 72 hours that don't involve killing. And even then, there's always...adoption. Hey, I'm with you on this. I keep this on hand even though I have a very reliable birthcontrol method I depend on. But, did you know that this Plan B is $50? And I am sure you have been reading about the lawsuits women have had to bring in order to force pharm. workers to fill it for them. These are fights we shouldn't have, and these are expenses some women don't have $50 laying around for. And, if you do not keep up on current affairs, you may not even know about this. Believe it or not, getting birth control info is not as easy as you'd think for a whole class of folks. I think anyone who volunteers or works at womens shelters can tell you how suprising it is. Furthermore, this also doesn't address young girls who have even less access to money, education, etc. And they are less comfortable going up to a counter and asking for this--just think how tough it is for young boys to buy their first condoms. At least they don't have to ask a pharma. worker for it! And I don't know if they will even give Plan B to kids under 18. And just to keep clear--I am not trying to justify not taking responsibility for one's actions. But the problem of unwanted pregnancy is complicated, and I'd like to see all the issues faced so that some day, there are no more unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. Poor little things....getting embarrassed and out $50 bucks.....probably cheaper and less traumatic to have an abortion Gosh, I wonder why conservatives get a bad rap for not being compassionate. And what about the taking responsibility bullshit for men? I'd like to meet one woman over the age of 30 who expects 100% condom use from partners and has never had to go through 1) requesting that he please use one 2) saying yes, no one likes to use them but quit your fucking whining and put it on. And that conversation is also not comfortable for a young girl (or someone more shy, feminine, or sensitive)--especially the first few times. I realize you don't care, but this is reality. And if your next kid is a daughter, these are the things you are going to have to face with her. AE....I don't think my compassion, or lack thereof is the issue. You seem to imply with your post that a good argument for legalized abortion is that Plan B, is both expensive and embarrassing to request. I was simply pointing out that getting an abortion would be both more expensive, and likely far more emotionally difficult than requesting, and paying for Plan B...pretty much a bullshit argument if you ask me. I am not making an argument for legalized abortion. I don't have to--it is already legal. All I am doing is trying to bring some of the underlying issues that contribute to unwanted pregnancies into this discussion. I'd like to see many more aspects of this problem talked about--and more understanding and middle ground found between the opposing sides. That's it.

Sorry, Arch. For a very, very small percentage of women/couples your point may hold true. But there are options available when others fail or are ignored. Some of those to the right of me are against even these types of contraception - after all, the pill doesn't prevent conception, only implantation - to whom I say: get a fucking life! Sex is fun. Not just for procreation. People are horny. Accidents happen. Options are available for up to 72 hours that don't involve killing. And even then, there's always...adoption. Hey, I'm with you on this. I keep this on hand even though I have a very reliable birthcontrol method I depend on. But, did you know that this Plan B is $50? And I am sure you have been reading about the lawsuits women have had to bring in order to force pharm. workers to fill it for them. These are fights we shouldn't have, and these are expenses some women don't have $50 laying around for. And, if you do not keep up on current affairs, you may not even know about this. Believe it or not, getting birth control info is not as easy as you'd think for a whole class of folks. I think anyone who volunteers or works at womens shelters can tell you how suprising it is. Furthermore, this also doesn't address young girls who have even less access to money, education, etc. And they are less comfortable going up to a counter and asking for this--just think how tough it is for young boys to buy their first condoms. At least they don't have to ask a pharma. worker for it! And I don't know if they will even give Plan B to kids under 18. And just to keep clear--I am not trying to justify not taking responsibility for one's actions. But the problem of unwanted pregnancy is complicated, and I'd like to see all the issues faced so that some day, there are no more unplanned, unwanted pregnancies. Poor little things....getting embarrassed and out $50 bucks.....probably cheaper and less traumatic to have an abortion Gosh, I wonder why conservatives get a bad rap for not being compassionate. And what about the taking responsibility bullshit for men? I'd like to meet one woman over the age of 30 who expects 100% condom use from partners and has never had to go through 1) requesting that he please use one 2) saying yes, no one likes to use them but quit your fucking whining and put it on. And that conversation is also not comfortable for a young girl (or someone more shy, feminine, or sensitive)--especially the first few times. I realize you don't care, but this is reality. And if your next kid is a daughter, these are the things you are going to have to face with her.

I think proper sexual functioning is very important to the overall mental health of everyone and supporting that is a good thing. But birth control is key not only to keeping unwanted pregnancies down, but also important for one's mental health. Not having to worry about getting pregnant while having sex (every damn time) is a biggie--one that I don't think most men can really relate to.

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change.

You are perfect--that's what you are.

Unbelievable. Hey wait a minute here... Do we really want the government in our lives this way? Now they are the nanny who has to tell us over and over again that we need to eat right and move around? I don't think that is their responsibility, is it? I want my health plan to cover my docs and my meds. I'd like it if it (or my company) would help with my gym membership--or at least let me use my FSA/HSA to pay for it. But I don't need them telling me that I shouldn't get fat--especially after they deduct part of my pay check. Given that the "we bear the costs of your behavior, so we have the right to regulate it" argument has brought us compulsory seat-belt and helmet laws, it's not a stretch to imagine that there are those who would seek to use the same argument to grant the government the right to do the very things that you mention. Whether the government would actually do so is an open question, and it would be interesting to learn more about how other countries have managed to reconcile the imperative to cut costs with the necessity of maintaining personal freedoms that might be curtailed or regulated by the state - from what you eat to what you weigh. I'd have no problem with a private company rewarding healthy behaviors with lower premiums, and punishing unhealthy ones with higher rates, but placing a coercive power of this magnitude in the hands of the state seems fraught with quite a few more risks. The one thing I'd like to see included in health care coverage is the LAP band (I may be writing this wrong) thingy. It's easy and it helps people. But endlessly covering all the meds req'd to keep a fat person alive (certain diabetes, blood pressure meds, etc etc) is unfair to the system. As you know, some other countries manage their costs by not just giving everybody every procedure and med they ask for. Rationing healthcare is reasonable. And I agree 100% with your second paragraph. Smokers had to pay more. Fatties should have to pay more. Oh, and tax the shit out of unhealthy, worthless junkfood just like they tax cigs.

Proof that it isn't necessary for the gov't to get involved in getting people to lead a healthier lifestyle. And congrats on your loss--that is a hell of an achievement! Especially as we get older....

Cool. Whadya learn?

I agree, and I'd like to see programs in place to get people to take better care of themselves. I don't think our gov't can do that. I think the Microsoft example is a better direction.