jlove spam relief project

Federal Aid For What?!

2008-07-01T16:34:00.005-04:00

Courting evangelicals and other religious voters, Barack Obama today called for an expansion of President Bush's initiative distributing federal aid to church-based groups that provide community services. (Story)

They are already tax exempt!

The reason this is even under consideration is that our popular opinion is at odds with our constitution and programs like this only exacerbate the conflict. When you have a population in which the majority of its members are religious and a representative form of government, what do you get? Religious people in office. When we encourage community services from religious organizations you can bet somewhere between most and all of them are delivering a religious message with whatever services they're rendering. This encourages religious viewpoints in those receiving said services and they in turn elect people that share their beliefs.

Religious organizations can continue to service their communities but without our tax dollars. Giving them money and hoping they help solve our problems is unconstitutional and quite irresponsible. What kind of money will the oversight of such programs cost? Is there any at all for that matter? What a scary thought. I'd hate to think we're funding religious extremists be they christian, muslim, whatever.

English Paper

2008-03-18T01:59:00.003-04:00

This assignment was for my Heroism and Villainy in the Middle Ages course. We were asked to find a topic related to our major and compare an aspect of it in the middle ages to today.

The Role of Religion in Medical Research

Religion and medicine share a long history together wherein they have often served the same fundamental purpose: to understand, and through that understanding, control our situation. Until we began, through observation and cogitation, to develop physical techniques intended to bring about change in our health, the only hope we had was in answered prayers. While the development of medical knowledge and skills has not replaced the role of religion in health, it has come into conflict with it at times, in particular on issues pertaining to life and death—areas religion has historically monopolized. While there are numerous examples, we shall examine only two which serve to demonstrate how popular religious opinion has influenced the advancement of medical science, both in the Middle Ages and today. To begin with we will consider the role religion played in the history of human anatomical science. We will then turn to the current debate surrounding human embryonic stem cell research and briefly discuss the similarity between the two cases.

To understand the progress of anatomical science during the Middle Ages, we first must look back a little further in history to the events immediately preceding those years. Western medicine as science was already established, most famously by Hippocrates of Cos (ca. 460-360 B.C.E.) His is the earliest surviving work on the subject of anatomy but it was very rudimentary “because Hippocratic physicians did not perform postmortems or carry out systematic programs of animal dissection” (Magner 101). In Alexandria, Herophilus (ca. 330/320-260/250 B.C.E.) and Erasistratus (ca. 310-250 B.C.E.) made much progress on the subject in what was reported to be a very systematic approach performed on humans; unfortunately, their original works were lost in the slow decline of the museum (Magner 108). The next major contributor to anatomical research was Galen of Pergamum (129 – ca. 200) whose work became the foundation of the field of medicine throughout the European Middle Ages.

With the exception of the Alexandrians, none of the other major contributors to the field were actually able to work on human bodies; instead, they were limited to possible clandestine investigations, the examination of open wounds, exposed corpses, and the dissection of animals. This led to a less than accurate portrait of our own interior. As to why this was a problem, and why even Galen was reported to be jealous of the liberties allowed Herophilus and Erastratus in Alexandria, we have basically two reasons. On one hand, pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is very often a trait belonging to persons such as these; but on a more practical level, anatomical knowledge was essential to surgeons interested in doing minimal damage to patients and served to aid them in the prediction of possible complications from incisions or injury (Magner 124). Why then, was the practice of dissecting human bodies frowned upon if not outright disallowed?

In order to avoid too great a digression, let us assume that most cultures harbor a fundamental aversion, or taboo if you will, toward the mutilation of their dead; and often, utilized mutilation of an enemies’ as a sure method of adding insult to injury. Some of this likely stems from a sentiment as simple as not desiring ones own corpse to be treated in such a fashion. As to why people feel this is important is where things get varied and generally complicated. In the case of Greco-Roman attitudes toward the deceased, we see that, in the Iliad (The Iliad) for example, being able to perform traditional rituals around the body was very important in literature as well practice. Beyond the concerns for dignity, we can speculate that the rites and traditions had some basis in mythology; for, lest their souls be “doomed to wander aimlessly for a hundred years”, individuals needed to be buried properly in order for Charon to ferry them across the Styx (Hamilton 227). Regardless of their origination, sentiments such as these were sufficient deterrent to prevent much progress in the area of anatomy even during the general progressivism of the Golden Age of Rome.

After the rise of Christianity and the entrance into the Middle Ages, the same general attitude persisted, only now, in place of worrying about having bus fare for Charon, people had the problem of bodily resurrection to worry about, as referred to in The Apostles’ Creed and in the Christian Bible both in Acts and Revelation—and who wants to be resurrected as a messy pile of bits? Fortunately, Saint Augustine (354-430) addressed these concerns and his opinions held sway for much of the remainder of the Middle Ages. In his view, no manner of physical impediment would prevent the omnipotence of God from bringing together ones earthly remains for reunion with the soul. However, he added that bodies “should when possible be treated with devotion, not because cadavers possess sensation or because the dead will otherwise feel deprived, but rather as an office of humanity, because God’s providence approves such pious acts and because the bodies of the dead pertain to the promotion of faith in the resurrection; the care given to dead bodies, destined for resurrection, serves as a testimony of Christian faith” (Brown 804). An additional deterrent came much later in 1299 in the form of a papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII (ca. 1235-1303) which “forbade the practice of eviscerating, dismembering, and boiling the cadaver to disengage the bones” (Brown 805). His motivation for such was not targeted at restricting medical inquiry, yet it certainly served to do so. Not until the Italian Renaissance does the pursuit of anatomy make any substantial headway; when, at the University of Bologna, Modino of Luzzi (ca. 1275-1326) produced Anatomia—an actual manual of human dissection. From this point forward, the way was not entirely clear, but progress was made more steadily than before.

There is a similar conflict occurring today between those interested in pursuing human embryonic stem cell research and those who are opposed to it on a religious basis. It is believed that study of these cells will lead to greater understanding of both normal and abnormal human growth and development including insights into birth defects and cancer. Potential therapeutic uses include replacement tissues and organs for the treatment of “a myriad of diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis” (FAQs [Stem Cell Information]). While not illegal, researching these stem cells is discouraged by the United States government acting from a position of moral authority derived from the religious beliefs of the majority of its constituents, as is evident in the President’s belief that “human life is a sacred gift from our Creator” (President Discusses Stem Cell Research). This hindrance is applied through the restriction of federal funding to research on a small number of existing stem cell cultures. This is problematic because with such a small number of lines to work with, research for possible therapeutic uses will not be based upon an adequate sample of the great diversity that is the whole of human population. And even though there is no restriction on the use of private (or state,) funds for the production of new lines and research thereon, there runs the risk of such discoveries being property of the private sector and thereby used for the generation of profit rather than general public welfare. (Stem Cell Science: Frequently Asked Questions).

The position taken by the President, and typical to religious opposition on this point, that destruction of a human embryo is wrong, presupposes two things: that human lives are somehow different from other living creatures (because federal funding is still granted for work on stem cells from mouse embryos,) and that destroying them is an affront to god. The first supposition, that human embryos are somehow set apart from others, is most likely derived from the combination of the concept of a soul, and that, according to the Bible, “God created humankind in his image” and “let them have dominion” over every other living thing (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Genesis 1.26:27). The second supposition, that it is a sin to destroy a human embryo, likens the destruction of the embryo to murder as sin (Genesis 9.6, Exodus 20.13). Assuming these perspectives are accurate interpretations, what in effect we have is the belief that destroying a life in possession of a soul is murder and therefore sinful. What has been debated within and even prior to the Christian tradition, is just when an unborn child comes into possession of a soul. Christian opinion on the matter has alternated between that borrowed from Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) where the shapeless embryo is considered initially devoid of a soul, as indicated by Augustine (Harries 68) and later St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) (Haldane and Lee 258-9); and that of the position that the fetus is “ensouled” at the moment of conception as is the current stance of Catholicism (Code of Canon Law) and much of evangelical Christianity.

As mentioned previously, both religion and science serve to describe our understanding of existence and our place in it. As the scope of our scientific translation of things has expanded it has and will continue to challenge concepts which were previously explained in a religious context alone. How these conflicts are handled appears to be a matter of majority rule as seen in both the case of human anatomical investigation and embryonic stem cell research. If however, we can make predictions on the outcome of the latter based upon the observed course of the former, we will likely witness a gradual shift in opinion as the benefits of the practical application of knowledge gleaned from such research become evident. For, “as the cynic says, everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.” (Magner 137.)

Works Cited

Brown, Elizabeth A. R. “Authority, the Family, and the Dead in Late Medieval France.” French Historical Studies 16.4 (1990): 803-32.

“Code of Canon Law” Vatican.va 20 February 2008 .

“FAQs [Stem Cell Information]” The National Institutes of Health. 23 August 2007. 16 February 2008 .

Haldane, John and Lee, Patrick. “Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life.” Philosophy. 78.2 (2003): 255-278.

Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1981.

Harries, Richard. “Delivering Public Policy: the Status of the Embryo and Tissue Typing.” Studies in Christian Ethics 18.1 (2005): 57-74.

Magner, Lois N. A History of Medicine. 2nd ed. New York: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc., 2007.

“President Discusses Stem Cell Research” The White House. 9 August 2001. 17 February 2008 .

“Stem Cell Science: Frequently Asked Questions” International Society for Stem Cell Research. 17 September 2004. 17 February 2008 .

“The Iliad” The Internet Classics Archive. 16 February 2008

The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Bruce M. Metzger, Roland E. Murphy, gen. Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

And Now: Gardasil for Boys

2008-03-11T08:34:00.001-04:00

Article here.

iHate iPods

2008-02-06T18:17:00.000-05:00

There are few things I find as irritating as someone playing their music so loudly that I can hear it. In fact I think that the poor quality of the headphones that ship with these things is intentional, because the manufacturers know that people like me will go buy their product just so I can drown the other person out. Brilliant.
Seriously though folks, if you insist on going deaf, please go ahead, but buy some proper headphones so the rest of us don't have to listen to your copy of whatever has been playing on MTV lately. I love my loud music every bit as much as you do, but I don't expect you to have to listen to it! It's called being considerate.

And while you're at it, don't put your feet up on public use chairs! People sit on them! You wear those shoes to the toilet, remember? We don't sit or lie down on the toilet floor, do we? I sure as hell don't, so keep your fucking feet off of the chairs please.

Thank you.

While I'm at it...

2008-02-04T20:17:00.000-05:00

This was my commercial television rant/speech. I don't have a problem with the tool, I have a problem with the way we're using it. This is a sad, recurring problem we see when we are left to our own devices.

John R. Love

2007-11-28

Formal Outline

Topic	Canceling Commercial Television
General Purpose	To Persuade
Specific Purpose	To persuade my audience to cancel their subscriptions to commercial television service.
Central Idea	Commercial television promotes the problems of excess weight, lack of savings and declining academic achievement and our time and money are better spent elsewhere.

Introduction

Attention Material	Sadly, the land of the free and the home of the brave is rapidly becoming the land of the fat and home of the broke.
Motivational Material	It is probably not news to you that we have a weight problem; that most of us can’t hang onto our money; and that our academics are no longer the example to the world they once were. What may come as a surprise to you though is how easy it is for us to do something about it.
Credibility Material	As a person who has researched this issue, and as a person who practices what I’m about to preach, what I suggest we do to get started is to find the bravery to free ourselves from the shackles of commercial television.
Review Main points	Commercial television promotes the problems of excess weight, lack of savings and declining academic achievement and our time and money are better spent elsewhere. I will now provide evidence of each of the three problems. Then explain commercial television’s role in promoting each of them. And I will conclude with a practical and simple plan you can easily adopt to help solve and prevent these problems in your life.

Body

I. Let us begin with a closer look at the problems.

A. Starting with weight.

1. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics indicates that a staggering 66 percent of American adults are overweight.

2. Some of those people are classified as obese and as this diagram indicates [Visual Aid 1] those number have been climbing rapidly.

a. Here you see that in 1990 all of our states had less than 14% obese population, whereas here in 2006 all of the states have worsened and around half of them have populations where over a quarter of their number are obese

3. This is a problem because overweight individuals put themselves at increased risk of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stoke, coronary heart disease and more.

a. However their problem doesn’t affect them alone.

b. Current estimates put the medical cost of obesity alone at around 75 billion dollars a year. This increases what we all pay for health insurance.

B. This leads me to the second problem: our lack of savings.

1. A report from the Federal Reserve last year points out that less than half of Americans save regularly.

2. This chart from the Bureau of Economic Analysis [Visual Aid 2] shows that when we do save, it is not much. This year it is estimated at less than one percent.

3. This is a problem because if you are counting on Social Security alone for your retirement, you should go to their website and use the online calculator to estimate your future benefits.

4. There are many ways to earn an earlier and wealthier retirement, but they involve saving your money now.

C. The third problem is our lack of academic achievement.

1. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment’s 2003 study, our country’s high school students placed 28^th out of 40 participating countries in math, 18^th in reading and 22^nd in science.

2. Census data from 2003 claims that only 85% of people 25 and older reported they had completed high school.

3. This is a problem because education is ultimately what prevents all of these problems we’re dealing with here, not to mention many others.

[Transition: So those are our three problems: overweight, overspent and undereducated.]

II. Now let us examine how commercial TV encourages all three.

A. First, its role promoting weight problems.

1. Commercial TV is time you’re not spending getting exercise.

2. While there are many factors involved in weight gain and loss, according to the CDC it all boils down to one simple equation.

a. Calories in minus calories out equals change in calories. If you have a positive number for a prolonged period of time, you gain, and the opposite is true when you burn more than you consume.

3. Watching television is sedentary.

a. You burn around 72 calories per hour.

b. Eating that Big Mac, large fries and coke you see on TV takes about 15 minutes and brings home 1450 calories.

4. Which brings me to another way TV promotes weight problems: advertising.

a. It varies, but in an hour of commercial TV you’ll see an average of 19 minutes of commercials around half of which are for food.

b. They appear to be working too because back in 2002 the FDA found that Americans were spending almost half of their food budget outside the home.

B. Speaking of spending.

1. Commercial TV is money you’re not saving.

2. Those of you surveyed spend an average of $59 a month on subscriptions to a service of which almost 30% is an attempt to sell you more stuff!

3. Now I’m sure we are all too smart to buy just anything we see on TV, but someone must.

a. Companies don’t spend billions of dollars advertising just to waste money, they do it because it works.

4. Now, if I were paying $59 a month for cable and started instead, to invest that money into something earning 5% interest; not even accounting for inflation, when I retired at the social security retirement age of 67, that 27 thousand I would have spent on cable would have grown to 80 thousand dollars which would certainly help with expenses.

5. And to those of you who counter my arguments about commercials with your Tivos or DVRs, I ask that you consider that you had to buy an additional gadget and/or incur an additional monthly fee in order to use a service you’re already paying for.

a. And, the shows themselves are becoming the ads now. Mark Burnett, the producer of a popular “reality” TV show, “Survivor” said that he “looked on Survivor as much as a marketing vehicle as a television show.”

C. And finally, commercial TV is time you’re not spending studying.

1. 77% of you surveyed aren’t making the grades you’d like, but 92% of you spend at least some time each week on commercial TV.

2. Also, our international standing in high school that I mentioned isn’t much of a surprise.

a. A study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that “television viewing in childhood and adolescence is associated with poor educational achievement by 26 years of age.”

b. I could cite numerous other studies indicating decreased reading comprehension, even IQ all related to high levels of TV viewing.

3. But what about educational programming you might ask? What about Discovery and Health and History channels?

a. They too are in business to sell your attention to commercial advertising interests.

b. And if you chose to edit out the commercials I ask you why bother when you’re already paying for equally good, non-commercial programming you can pick up with your TV antenna—that’s right your local public broadcasting station. Tune in sometime, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

III. Now that we’ve covered the many ways commercial television contributes to these problems, what’s left is to discuss what to do about it.

A. It’s quite simple. You stop paying for it and spend you time and money elsewhere.

1. If we spent 30 minutes of the 4 hours a day the average person watches TV, we’d go a long way to improve our health and lower the cost of our health insurance.

2. If we saved the money we spend on subscriptions, not to mention the money the adverts separate us from, we’d be a great deal better prepared for retirement and emergencies.

3. If we spent another fraction of that time studying we’d get more out of the education we’re paying for and likely get further ahead in our careers because of it.

4. That still leaves a lot of time unaccounted for.

a. How about using it to go out and buy groceries for the week and then cook them together as a family or with friends.

b. Maybe check out a book at the library.

c. Or pick up a new hobby that could be social as well as good exercise.

Conclusion

Signal End	In conclusion, I’d like to state that while television is not the sole cause of our weight, savings and education problems, it is absolutely a factor in two ways.
Review Main Points	First it does so directly, by taking our time and money which we could be spending more wisely. And secondly, the influence it afflicts upon us through advertising results in often unhealthy choices and unnecessary expenditures. The good news is that it is a cause which is completely within our control to do something about.
Catchy, Creative Close	Cancel your television subscription and save the money. Tally up all the time you’ve just liberated during your week and reallocate it among the things you know will be more beneficial to you and your family. Have the bravery to free yourself from this influence and to live your life—not those of fictional characters or reality TV contestants; have the bravery to come to your own conclusions—not those presented by parties with their own best interests at heart; and finally have the bravery to make the most of what little time we have.

Bibliography

Books

McChesney, Robert W. The Problem of the Media. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004.

Television Industries. Ed. Douglas Gomery and Luke Hockley. London: British Film Institute, 2006.

Articles

Borzekowski, D. L. G. and Robinson, T. N. “The Remote, the Mouse, and the No. 2 Pencil – The Household Media Environments and Academic Achievement among Third Grade Students.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 159 (2005): 607-613.

Ennemoser, M. and Schneider, W. “Relations of Television Viewing and Reading: Findings From a 4-year Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Educational Psychology 99 (2007): 349-368.

Hancox, R. J., Milne, B. J., and Poulton, R. “Association of Television Viewing During Childhood with Poor Educational Achievement.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 159 (2005): 614-618.

Jans, Marielle P., van den Heuvel, Swenne G., Hildebrandt, Vincent H. and Bongers, Paulien M. “Overweight and Obesity as Predictors of Absenteeism in the Working Population of the Netherlands.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 49 (2007): 975-980.

Zimmerman, F. J. and Christakis, D. A. “Children’s Television Viewing and Cognitive Outcomes – A Longitudinal Analysis of National Data.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 159 (2005): 619-625.

Internet Sources

Choose a Benefit Calculator. November 2007. 17 Nov. 2007 <http://www.ssa.gov/planners/calculators.htm>.

FDA/CFSAN – Calories Count: Report of the Working Group on Obesity. March 2004. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/owg-rpt.html>.

Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006. August 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf>.

Learning for Tomorrow’s World. 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/55/0,3343,en_32252351_32236173_33917303_1_1_1_1,00.html>.

McDonald’s USA – Nutrition Info. 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info.html>.

NHCS – FASTATS – Overweight Prevalence. February 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm>.

Obesity and Overweight: Contributing Factors | DNPAO | CDC. May 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/contributing_factors.htm>.

Recent Changes in U.S. Family Finances: Evidence from the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finaces. 2006. 14 Nov. 2007 <http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/financesurvey.pdf>.

Antibiotic Resistance - Speech

2008-02-04T20:10:00.000-05:00

This is the formal outline of a speech I gave in my public speaking class last semester. The formatting is wretched, but if you're interested enough to read it I'm sure you can overlook that fact.

John R. Love

2007-10-17

Formal Outline

Antibiotic Resistance

Topic	Antibiotic Resistance
General Purpose	To Inform
Specific Purpose	To inform my audience of the danger of antibiotic resistance, why it is happening and what is being done about it.
Central Idea	Antibiotic resistance is being caused by inappropriate use in agriculture, industry and medicine and the efforts that are being made to prevent it are insufficient.

Introduction

Attention Material	Since antibiotics were brought into the spotlight with Sir Alexander Fleming’s Penicillin, our lives have been changed. It’s possible that some of us wouldn’t be here today were it not for these marvelous drugs. If you or someone you know has been helped by antibiotics, imagine what would have happened if they hadn’t worked. If you’re having trouble picturing it, don’t worry, we may find ourselves in that very situation soon.
Motivational Material	This is a serious problem for those of us going into health care professions because we are effectively being disarmed; but more importantly, all of us, as patients, are being placed in grave danger.
Credibility Material	As both a patient and an aspiring physician my concern has led me to investigate the issue.
Review Main points	Antibiotic resistance is being caused by inappropriate use in agriculture, industry and medicine and the efforts that are being made to prevent it are insufficient.

[Transition: Let’s begin by explaining antibiotic resistance and how it impacts you.]

Body

I. The problem is essentially that bacteria are developing ways to survive our attempts at killing them with antibiotics.

a. Bacteria are one of the oldest and most prevalent forms of life on the planet.

i. In fact, there are at least 10 times as many bacteria living on and in you as there are cells that make up your whole body (Freeman 583).

ii. Don’t go bathing in rubbing alcohol though. Most of those bacteria are helping you.

1. For example, the E. coli that lives amongst the 2 lbs of bacteria in your gut are helping you get the most out of your food and producing Vitamin K.

iii. There can however be too much of a good thing in this case, like when these same bacteria give you a urinary tract infection. What happens then? What if you’ve contracted gonorrhea or if you get a staph infection from the bacteria that live around your nose?

b. Well you’ll likely see your doctor and be given antibiotics which will clear things up.

i. While there are over 100 different kinds of antibiotics, the majority of them are derived from roughly 10 types of drugs and it’s your doctor’s responsibility to know which one is the right tool for the job.

ii. Unfortunately, most of the antibiotics which were the first choice to combat illnesses no longer work.

c. It’s not the drugs getting worse; it’s the bacteria getting better.

i. Remember in PE class that everybody had a chance to play? Now what happens when you try out for the varsity team? You better have some skills or you’re not going to make it. The same holds true for bacteria when faced with antibiotics.

ii. Their skills are recorded in plasmids which you can think of as their playbook. If a particular play works and they live, copies are handed down from generation to generation when the cells divide and can also be shared between totally different species. Each time they learn something new, they can add to this book and wind up resistant to multiple drugs.

iii. So let’s reconsider those hypothetical illnesses that you’ve come down with in light of resistance.

1. According to a 2005 paper by the Antimicrobial Agents Research Group at the University of Birmingham, England, as much as 25% of the e. coli cultured from urinary tract infections in the US are resistant to first-line antibiotics (Webber and Piddock 380).

2. The CDC has seen an increase in resistance over the past 7 years which has led to them to replace yet another first line drug. We’re down to one class of antibiotics to use for gonorrhea.

3. I’ve seen drug resistant staph first hand in the health clinic I used to volunteer at. This patient started with a simple infected bug bite and wound up with two ER visits, hospitalization, a large chuck of his backside cut out and a prescription for Zyvox which cost $1500 for every 20 pills. This was the drug of last resort and thankfully it worked.

[Transition: One might wonder why bacteria are given a chance to adapt at all. Why not kill all of the bad ones so none are left to evolve?]

II. It all comes down to the constant, low level pressure we’re placing on the bacteria that live with us. There are three main sources of this pressure.

a. The first is large scale agriculture.

i. According to a letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists back in 2001, the estimate was that US farms feed over 25 million pounds of antibiotics to livestock.

ii. Some of these drugs wind up in their manure. Not only does this get in nearby streams and ground water, I’ve read two recent studies by researchers at the University of Minnesota which demonstrate that plants fertilized by this manure absorb drugs into their tissues (Dolliver et al. and Kumar et al.). We in turn eat these plants and along with them, more antibiotics.

b. Secondly, I’m sure you’ve noticed that things labeled “antibiotic” sell.

i. In fact, while researching this topic, I found that my toothpaste contained a broad spectrum antibiotic called Triclosan.

ii. It’s also hard to find a hand soap that’s not antibacterial.

1. You’d think that based on their popularity that they must work, but a recent article in the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal concluded that triclosan soaps are no more effective than plain soap and water (Aiello et al.).

2. And once flushed down the drain, they wind up in the environment. Last year scientists at Johns Hopkins found that 75% of the triclocarban that enters typical waste water treatment plants remains after processing (Thrall).

c. Our inappropriate use of antibiotics as medications is the third source of pressure.

i. One documentary, Antibiotics: The Double Edged Sword stated that in 2002, 18 million doses of antibiotics were prescribed for colds for which they are useless because colds are caused by viruses, not bacteria.

ii. And, often times when people have a legitimate need for antibiotics, they stop taking them as soon as they feel better. This results in the remaining, more resistant bacteria being left alive to spread to others.

[Transition: Now that we know what the problem is and why it is happening..]

III. We should ask if anything can be done; and if so, what is?

a. According to Dr. Stuart Levy, the Director of the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University School of Medicine, when populations of resistant and susceptible bacteria are left alone, that the susceptible ones will become dominant again.

i. Resistance takes energy to copy and maintain so in the absence of antibiotics, susceptible ones have the advantage and will outnumber the resistant strains.

b. There are groups dedicated to the education of industry, health care providers and consumers.

i. The Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics has been working toward this end since 1981 and the CDC has had a task force on the job since 1999.

c. Health care providers are being advised to only provide antibiotics when it’s appropriate, and to also make sure they prescribe the right one from the beginning.

d. Many European countries have already banned the use of antibiotics in livestock.

i. Advocates of doing so in the US have had a difficult time making any progress.

1. There have been bills submitted to the past three sessions of congress proposing changes to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics, but none have gone beyond introduction.

e. While the legal system may be slow, response to consumer demand is not.

i. Tyson Foods announced in June this year that their fresh poultry products will be raised without antibiotics and labeled as such. Their research showed 91% of consumers felt it important that they do so.

Conclusion

Signal End	As I mentioned before, Penicillin brought us into the age of antibiotics.
Catchy, Creative Close	Its discoverer, Sir Alexander Fleming, had this to say during his 1945 Nobel Prize lecture: “The time may come when penicillin can be bought by anyone in the shops. Then there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to non-lethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.” We were warned from the beginning.
Review Main Points	Resistance is potentially reversible, but the efforts being made to save these drugs do not currently outweigh the damage we are doing. If our greed in agriculture, irrational obsession with fictional sanitation, and lack of foresight in health care continue, we may find ourselves helpless when next our lives depend on these treatments.

Bibliography

Books

Freeman, Scott. Biological Science. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.

Levy, M.D., Stuart B. The Antibiotic Paradox. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2002.

Webber, Mark A. "Antibiotic Resistance in Escherichia coli." Frontiers in Antimicrobial Resistance. Ed. David G. White, Michael N. Alekshun and Patrick F. McDermott. Washington: ASM Press, 2005. 374-386.

Articles

Aiello, Allison E., Elaine L. Larson, and Stuart B. Levy. "Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?" Clinical Infectious Diseases 45 (2007): S137-S147.

Dolliver, Holly, Kuldip Kumar, and Satish Gupta. "Sulfamethazine Uptake by Plants from Manure-Amended Soil." Jounal of Environmental Quality 36 (2007): 1224-1230.

Kumar, K., S. C. Gupta, S. K. Baidoo, Y. Chander, and C. J. Rosen. "Antibiotic Uptake by Plants

from Soil Fertilized with Animal Manure." Journal of Environmental Quality 34 (2005): 2082-2085.

Thrall, Lizz. "Triclocarban seems to defy wastewater treatment." Editorial. Environmental Science & Technology June 2006: 3444-3445.

Internet Sources

Tyson Food Service: Press Room. June 2007. 19 Oct. 2007 .

Union of Concerned Scientists. Jan. 2001. Common Dreams. 8 Oct. 2007 .

Update to CDC's Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2006: Fluoroquinolones No Longer Recommended for Treatment of Gonococcal Infections.

Apr. 2007. CDC. 13 Oct. 2007

Films

Antibiotics: The Double Edged Sword. Dir. Mary and Dan Eley. Narr. Lynne. Woodison. Videocassette. Films for the Humanities and Sciences, 2003.

All Mine!

2008-02-03T00:43:00.000-05:00

Yes, I ate it ALL.
My parents took me out to this restaurant (Speedy's, I believe,) in Tulsa, OK while I was out visiting them over Thanksgiving break.
It sure was good, but could never take the place I have in my heart (or gut,) for Cancun Mexican Restaurant in Chattanooga, TN.
Thanks for still being willing to feed me after all these years Mom and Dad! I'm sure it wasn't easy considering how much I can put away. rawr!

Another "Global Warming is a SCAM" POS Article

2007-11-08T16:18:00.000-05:00

The original article.

This guy claims that "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM."

This is my reply to a friend who brought the article to my attention:

What little credibility he attempts to establish is completely undermined by the fact that he makes sweeping, unsupported generalizations and doesn't bring a shred of evidence to the table. As a persuasive piece, it's a complete failure. It would however serve to reinforce the opinion of people who have already made up their mind on the issue.

Even if I were on the fence regarding climate change, I couldn't use this in good conscience to make a decision one way or the other--there's nothing but opinion here and he said it best himself: "It is not something you “believe in.” It is science". OK Mr. "I know I am correct", where the hell is the data?

Junk imo :)

He really likes the word "scam". In fact, if this is the same guy, you can read him using it again on his biography page at San Diego's KUSI Channel 9, where he works as the 10 and 11 pm weather caster.
I know, I know, it's an ad hominem attack and I'm sinking to their level. argh.

Also, I looked up the ownership of that TV station: McKinnon Broadcasting Company (dba Texas Television, Inc.)
Could it be that the son of the owner is the Mark McKinnon who was the media adviser for Bush Co? Check out this and this.

Good thing it's all mere coincidence...

/sigh

Yum!

2007-11-08T16:09:00.001-05:00

No, I was not abducted due to that last post.

2007-08-20T08:43:00.001-04:00

I've been busy preparing for a move.

Here's an interesting site I just stumbled upon.

Impeachment Please

2007-07-12T20:00:00.000-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1-wl5nKst8

So This Is Okra

2007-06-24T18:20:00.000-04:00

So this is okra. I think this pod may be a bit on the large side of perfect, but it showed up while I was out of town for the week canoeing in Arkansas on the Buffalo National River. It still feels quite succulent though. I'll post pictures of the plant and the trip later.

There's Always A Catch

2007-06-13T13:01:00.000-04:00

Biodiesel is created from various biological sources of which, palm oil nets some of the best yields. As demand for this product increases, supply grows to meet it. Because we're allowed to purchase the product internationally without regard to the source, it appears that some countries are turning their forests into palm plantations.
The algae idea looks promising though. I think a huge reduction in demand for fuel needs to happen in conjunction with alternative sources.

Sheer Terror With Cat

2007-06-13T12:48:00.000-04:00

I hope my cousin has lots of kids. This looks like fun.

(Thanks Jeff!)

Gay Bomb

2007-06-12T20:29:00.000-04:00

lmao

Fat Pills

2007-06-12T19:31:00.000-04:00

I work out three times a week to help maintain my health. I like the benefits, and I even like the feeling I get after wearing myself out. I won't lie though, it's hard work and down right unpleasant at times. Do I whine about it? No, I say tough shit, so are a lot of things in life that are worth doing. I'll refrain from starting in on a rant against drug companies, advertising and mindless consumption, but this really frustrates me.

All four studies compared the effect of the drug on weight loss with that of a placebo for 12 to 24 months. One study looked in particular at the drug's impact on blood fat and another on type 2 diabetes. A third study looked at how the weight loss could be maintained in the second year.

After one year, all patients on Zimulti lost more weight than the ones who took the placebo. They lost on average 4.9 kg (10.8 pounds) more than the placebo patients, except for the diabetic study where the weight loss compared with placebo was 3.9 kg (8.6 pounds). The drug also showed ability to reduce risk of putting weight back on.

That's less than one pound a month on average. How much will this drug cost, I wonder. I certainly hope no insurance company will cover it and continue to drive the costs up for the rest of us when people can go take a walk/jog for free with a lot of additional benefits.

On the risks side, the manufacturer has submitted results of clinical trials that showed an elevated risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts in patients who took Zimulti compared to those who took a placebo.

...
What are these studies based on? Some scantron fill in the bubble that best represents your inclination to kill yourself? I still don't understand why the FDA doesn't require that a proposed drug be tested by at least one uninterested third party over a long period of time. The drug company can certainly afford funding them and people can just eat less and walk more in the meantime.

Patients Are Customers Too

2007-06-12T19:07:00.000-04:00

The study referred to in this article indicates that 80% of the patients surveyed want their doctor to greet them with a handshake. 50% prefer to be on a first name basis. I personally am all for the handshake (assuming proper hand-washing has taken place between patients, of course;) however, I'm a bit particular about the name issue. If someone is appreciably older than I am, I default to the "sir," "ma'am," or "Mr./Ms. Lastname" unless they instruct otherwise. I also appreciate the same from someone notably younger than myself. Call it old fashioned, but I see no harm in it.
I'm glad people have taken some time to examine this small facet of the patient-doctor relationship. I think the medical field could use frequent reminders that patients are their customers and deserve good service in all respects.

Creation Museum Review

2007-06-11T09:47:00.001-04:00

Good stuff.

Locally Grown

2007-06-01T20:42:00.000-04:00

A farmer in Franklin County, Georgia has written his own online farmers' market ordering system and is hosting it as an ASP. What a great idea! Check it out and see if it's something you would recommend to your local farmers.

Thugs

2007-06-01T19:35:00.000-04:00

Article

"The third Iraq veteran -- 23-year-old Cloy Richards of Salem, Missouri, who was wounded in combat -- will avoid losing his disability benefits after agreeing not to wear his uniform at future protests, the Marine Corps said."

It sure looks like they're concerned about public opinion; but if that is the case, why are we still over there? I feel really bad for these guys. I wonder if they knew they were signing away their bill of rights when they joined, and that they'd be on the clock for the rest of their lives.

"The Marine Corps contends the men fall under regulations that govern the public conduct of armed service members because they belong to an emergency reserve of former active-duty troops."

How about they just not break the law? Isn't that enough?

"Trying to hush up and punish fellow Americans for exercising the same democratic right we're trying to instill in Iraq is not what we're all about,"

Great point! Too bad the only right we care about instilling in Iraq is the right to their oil.

And finally, I just had to take a look at the USMC website after seeing this, and on the front page they have a quote from the Commandant: " Our Nation is at war - our Corps is at war - fighting a determined enemy bent on terror and domination. Make no mistake, it is a war we must win!"

Sadly, these three troops are still fighting an enemy bent on terror and domination.

Creation Museum

2007-05-30T22:00:00.000-04:00

Thanks (I think,) VIA for sharing this with me. A part of me still hopes it's a joke. Maybe it will have a place in the "World Creation Myths" section of an anthropology museum some day.

Official Site
(Dig the swooshtika logo with the little divine stars which appear to be landing only on North America. Wait a minute, they're pentagrams!)
Review

I'm getting rather tired of this double standard. Specifically, that I can't get into heaven yet this museum is allowed to use electricity.
I believe in christianity (and any other religion out there, past or present, for the same reason,) because it exists. It has history and a current presence in human consciousness. I've read the book and seen most of the movies but I don't actually take it literally. So, here I am. I'm probably more educated on the subject than your average christian, but because I don't see evidence of god being anything beyond a human concept, completely dependent on our ability to conceive it, I'm doomed to be "left behind", burn in hell or worse. I opt out on one minor detail and I'm completely disqualified.
Fine. If that's the way it is then how about you believers be held to the same standard. You're quick to adopt modern conveniences which wouldn't be here were it not for rigorous application of the scientific method over time; yet the discoveries yielded by application of that system into territory over which god previously held domain you just throw out. Please pull the plug on your "computer-generated visual effects, over fifty exotic animals, life-sized people and dinosaur animatronics, and a special-effects theater complete with misty sea breezes and rumbling seats" because none of it would be possible without science which you obviously don't respect.

I'll agree with one thing though. There is (and has been as long as we've inhabited it,) a lot of negative shit going on in the world today that we could do without. It's not the devil doing it, or lack of belief in some story or other, it's human nature and it needs guidance. Should that guidance come in the form of a religion that's responsible for more suffering than we can tally? A faith in things that aren't true? An ability to be hypocritical and irrational beyond reconciliation? I don't think that's our best option, and it certainly isn't our only one! We have lots of equally bad choices in other religions; or, perhaps we can apply the tools that have worked so well for us in other areas: logic and reason, critical thinking, evidence based science; in and effort to work out a plan that can include everybody. We just have to overcome as much ignorance, selfishness and greed as we can in order for it to work for all of us.

INS/CIS Price Increase

2007-05-30T08:41:00.000-04:00

Wasn't this called INS recently? Why am I seeing CIS instead, or are they different?

The average price increase is reported to be 66%. This is certainly more than an attempt to keep pace with inflation. I'd like to see a history of their rate increases.

Gonzales said 99% of the agency's budget came from user fees, a system Congress devised based on the principle that the costs of citizenship should be borne by immigrants, not taxpayers.

Correct me if I'm wrong Gonzales, but don't the costs of citizenship get paid with their every paycheck in the form of taxes? Don't they pay the cost of citizenship when they swear to put their lives on the line in defense of our country should we demand it? Keep in mind too, that prior to becoming a citizen or permanent resident, individuals with authorization to work (the application for which currently runs $180.00, I'm not sure what it will be after this increase,) in this country are already paying taxes without the right to vote.
It seems to me that legitimate, taxpaying workers benefit our economy. They make money, they spend money. Why dissuade them with fees? Do you pay a sales person for a quote? Do you pay an application processing fee before you start getting a monthly bill for your utilities? Not only are the fees a hurdle even at their present rates, the entire process of working with the INS is a nightmare of poor customer service. There are other costs borne by the applicants in the form of long drives and overnight stays when they are required to make one of many trips to their assigned processing location. Often times they have to have legal help as well because the process is so utterly confusing for a native english speaker, even more so for one who's not.
What about those that don't or can't find work, that cost more than they earn for us? We need to see some statistics on tax revenue compared to an average social service expenditure (schools, roads, medicaid, etc.) on our populations of work permit holders, permanent residents, and naturalized citizens. We could then determine if we're making a profit or not. I suspect we are based on the simple observation that so many companies are spending a lot of money trying to attract their business (e.g. anything with multilingual advertising or menus.) Furthermore, if we converted all of our illegal workers into taxpayers, how much would it increase? If we're taking a loss on an average taxpayer, perhaps we need to reconsider the tax rate, or better yet, quit being so wasteful with our spending of it. Maybe fewer people would feel the need to immigrate if we demanded accountability for the money their often corrupt and ineffective governments receive in aid. How much would we save if we didn't spend so many "defense" dollars meddling in their affairs.
Without knowing the unemployment rate, nor how much of that is due to actual lack of available jobs versus people just not taking them, I can only guess at a couple ways to provide more work for our existing and future Americans. Stop outsourcing manufacturing, software development and other industries. Quit depending on imports. Our efforts to increase profits at home by sending work outside where we can get it done for less are detrimental to our economy and in the long run, theirs. Secondly, let's encourage small scale farming from a policy and consumer standpoint. These efforts will only be successful if we consumers are willing to spend the money on local goods and services. Remember, you typically get what you pay for.
In closing, I think this issue needs work in numerous areas. Let's begin by determining what we're netting on immigrants and losing on illegals. How long would it really take to pay off the cost of eliminating processing fees altogether? What kind of immigration surge, if any, would this lead to and how can we all benefit from it? There's a reason people want to be here just like there must be a reason some of us want to stay. I surmise that more often than not, those reasons center around making a decent living for oneself and one's family in a somewhat sane and stable environment. Who can fault that?

FDA Reform

2007-05-29T22:07:00.000-04:00

"China's former food and drug safety chief was given a death sentence Tuesday for taking bribes from drug companies and approving unsafe medicines." - USA Today

I can't help but wonder if having real penalties like this would prevent some of the Avandia, Gardasil, Vioxx, Lybrel, etc scandals. We consumers have to look out for ourselves--it's government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations I'm afraid.
In my opinion, the bulk of these designer drugs are not necessary. They are proposed improvements on existing, time tested medicines; or, more often, completely optional solutions to problems which we can solve in other (dare I say safer,) ways. There's a reason we see this class of pharmaceutical companies working on drugs that require prolonged/indefinite prescriptions--they make more money. This latest venture into vaccinations could make them even more if we let it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for immunizations, but they need thorough and objective testing by third parties before we start talking about wide spread adoption, much less mandatory use. If we must take a medicine, before we let our doc write us a script for a brand name something-or-other, let's consider asking them why they're selecting that particular drug and if there's a generic available. If there isn't, perhaps there's an alternative, older med we can take that does the same thing. We should at least ask! Docs are inundated with advertising by these drug companies and it wouldn't surprise me if they under utilize existing medicines because of it. But as a patient, why risk something new if we can get the job done with something proven over time by large numbers of people.

I'm not a health professional, this is just advice I give to myself. You should listen to the pros when it comes to your health, yet I can't think of any harm in asking questions of them and getting actively involved. Actually, on second thought, I can. If you find yourself asking your doctor about something you saw on television which told you to ask your doctor about it, you should probably turn the damn thing off. We could all use a prescription for critical thinking.

Charlie Rose Interviews Al Gore

2007-05-29T19:47:00.000-04:00

View it here.
This interview was very heartening for me. Al's in a special place as a non-candidate and I think it's allowing him a lot freedom to speak his mind. On one hand I'd love to see him run and win (I'd certainly vote for him,) but on the other, I worry that just being in the system as it stands could ruin his effectiveness.
Sometimes you have to take the machine off-line to do maintenance. Now I know no one's perfect, but we could do a lot worse, so how about Al Gore Benevolent Dictator 2008?

Wouldn't it be something if he won without "running" for office, without owing people for campaign contributions? Regardless; Mr. Gore, please keep it up. Speak your mind without consideration of winning or losing supporters. You're in a unique position to bring us truths we desperately need to hear. Rally the scientific community and continue to listen to it. Work toward the greater good.
(And go ahead and call Bush a liar next time, we've got your back.)