In a new angle on a diabetes book (or is it?) longtime type 1 PWD and registered nurse Rita Girouard Mertig has published a new guide-to-living-with-D book called, “What Nurses Know… diabetes: the Answers You Need from the People You Trust.” Somehow the publisher found me and sent me a review copy – surprising in [...]
Welcome to the premiere edition of the DiabetesMine Sunday Funnies, featuring the work of fantastic D-artist Haidee Merritt (and occasionally some other stuff). Read about our full new Weekend Edition here. Your Funnies for today…
Although I was diagnosed at age 8, I spent most of my childhood pretty much oblivious to diabetes advocacy. My family raised money for the annual Walk to Cure diabetes, but that was it. Only in high school did I become more aware of the devastating impact that diabetes has on people. I applied to [...]
Insulin pen, or simply pen, is an insulin delivery system that allows the injection of insulin into the bloodstream of a diabetic. It comprises of an insulin cartridge, a pen needle, and a dial to measure the insulin dose. Its appearance is similar to that of a pen, only it is larger. Some of these [...]
HCG diet drops have become one of the most popular talked about form of weight loss and dieting. The dieting world has become fascinated by the simple use of these drops that are easy to take. Millions of people all over the world have begun to see drastic changes in their weight, and have found [...]
It was likely not a surprise to "Inside Washington" viewers that most of the usual suspects on the panel Friday saw the crisis in Japan as not being good for the future of nuclear powered electrical plants in this country.
What certainly must have raised a couple of eyebrows though was the strongest opposition to any further construction of such facilities coming from lone conservative Charles Krauthammer (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I think nuclear is dead as a result of this. Look, if Three Mile Island which was a picnic compared with this – one reactor, human error, no health hazard outside of it – as opposed to four reactors, no human error, human heroism in fact, and it’s a disaster of ultimate proportions and in Japan which, you know. It’s not like Chernobyl’s shoddy Soviet construction and expertise. That’s the gold standard and it’s, it’s, it’s gonna, there’s going to be a problem that will take weeks and will leave a residue for years. The resurgence of nuclear energy is dead. We will keep the plants we have, we’re going to inspect them. Look, the Germans have taken seven of their seventeen offline. The Chinese who are kind of reckless environmentally have suspended all construction. It’s over for nuclear. It’s not going to recover.
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: A resurgence, but the resurgence of interest in the idea. The prospect of bringing some nuclear plants online not very good anyway it’s beginning. Why? Because Wall Street has to come in and finance those, those power plants, and there was no interest at all on Wall Street in taking that kind of investment.
KRAUTHAMMER: That’s why Obama, the federal government under Obama and Bush were offering huge loan guarantees as a way to step in override the market and encourage this, but that’s not going to go on. I think its day is done.
As the Left and their media minions love citing conservatives when one of them says something they agree with, it seems a metaphysical certitude Krauthammer's comments will make the rounds in the coming days.
As that happens, we should hope that it is part of a greater discussion concerning what our energy policy should be without nuclear.
The Left and their press are already opposed to coal due to the dreaded carbon dioxide. Oil is hated for similar reasons and is already over $100 a barrel.
In deference to Al Gore and his moronic followers, wind and solar are not close to being able to meet this country's electric needs, and the possibility of getting a new hydroelectric plant built is slim because it might kill some fish.
We as a nation appear to be approaching a tipping point where environmental concerns are about to make it impossible for us to power as well as heat and cool our homes, offices, and factories.
With all due respect to Krauthammer who is indeed one of my favorite writers and commentators, are we really going to allow what might have been a once in lifetime confluence of historic natural disasters dictate our energy policy for the coming decades?
Isn't there instead a far more rational approach to this matter whereby existing plants along the coasts are upgraded to account for tsunamis, and new facilities are built within reasonable distances from fault lines as well as the oceans bordering our eastern and western flanks?
My learned conservative friend should be advised that these reactors survived a 9.0 magnitude quake and all the aftershocks including ones in excess of 7.0. The problem was caused by a tsunami, which is not something we'd have to concern ourselves with at plants 50 to 100 miles inland.
That fellow panelists King, PBS's Mark Shields, and NPR's Nina Totenberg expressed skepticism for nuclear's future was one thing. For Dr. Krauthammer to not only share in the hysteria but also advance it was unfortunate.
Let's hope Charles has a change of heart before he writes his next column or it could be him causing a journalistic tsunami by taking such an extreme view on this important issue.
Despite our air attacks in Libya this weekend, most Middle East experts view the growing rebellion in Bahrain as being far more important to America.
Yet according to the BBC's Katty Kay, who was a guest on the syndicated "Chris Matthews Show," the Obama administration doesn't want the press reporting what's going on there (video follows with transcript and commentary):
KATTY KAY, BBC: Chris, we spend a lot of time on the program talking about Libya, but what’s happening in Bahrain is more violent and of much more strategic interest to the United States.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Because of oil.
KAY: Because of oil, and because of the 5th Fleet is stationed there. What happens in Bahrain is really critical to America, but it’s in Washington’s interest and the White House’s interest that we don’t report this story very much. They would like that one to go away because there’s no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shiites.
MATTHEWS: And not reporting it helps how? How does not reporting it help?
KAY: Because they just don’t want too much attention focused on what’s happening there because they don’t want to be having to be pushed into a position of helping the Shiite rebels there.
So what's so important about protecting the rebels in Libya, especially as we're really not sure who they are or what they stand for?
The Jerusalem Post reported last Sunday that an al Qaeda commander is backing the Libyan rebels. The perilously liberal Huffington Post reported Saturday that some of these rebels are radical Islamists with strong anti-American sympathies.
But the Obama administration wants the news media to ignore what's going on in Bahrain because they don't want to help Shiite rebels there?
Now, in fairness, there has been no media blackout of the Bahrain rebellion up to this point.
However, it's fascinating that a British Washington correspondent is aware that the White House wishes there was one, and it will be very interesting to see if they get their wish now that we've begun fighting in Libya.
Stay tuned.
"She reminds me of my wife."
That was the most frequent comment I received via e-mail on the September night Sarah Palin spoke to a riveted Republican National Convention in 2008, as the vice-presidential nominee spoke of hockey moms, pit bulls, lipstick, the dignity of human life, and the future of our nation.
I suspect every man who e-mailed wasn't revealing his secret fantasy — his wife wearing stilettos as she tries to save the world from a Barack Obama presidency. He finally saw, on prime-time television and impossible for the media to ignore, a woman in politics who closely resembled his family's values. After decades of ladies on the stump reading from a Ms. magazine script, here was a woman on a presidential ticket who didn't seem to feel the need to suppress her femininity or perversely use it to advance a most un-motherly agenda.
It was liberating.
In this way, she made that night historic, for both the right and left. And she's still driving emotion and headlines.
And, in case you missed it (and I don't blame you if you did): Apparently Democratic voters would vote for Charlie Sheen for president over Palin — 44 to 22 percent. Independents opted for the former wild child, too, 41 to 36 percent. That the Wall Street Journal even thought to poll such a thing tells you something about the bizarre political and cultural climate surrounding this lightning rod of a woman.
Some of the more inventive attacks on her — most recently she was compared to Al Sharpton — have been known to bring high-profile commentators to her defense, even while others express their concern.
The political sideshow makes for a chattering class TV producer's dream.
But putting her name alongside Charlie Sheen and Al Sharpton? It's all a little bizarre — even for a media in constant need fresh chum. There are justified criticisms, but the widespread reactions to the mere name and image of Sarah Palin continues to know no bounds.
"The people who say such things don't know her, have never spent time with her, and are responding to a caricature of what they think she is," Rebecca Mansour, who works at Palin's political action committee, says. "Do you remember Archbishop Fulton Sheen's famous quote about anti-Catholicism?" she asks me and answers: "He said there are only a few of people who hate what Catholicism really is, but there are millions who hate what they think it is. If these critics would spend a few hours reading her words, listening to her speeches, and studying her actual record of accomplishments, there is no way they could say such things about her and still claim to be intellectually honest."
There is something to that Sheen quote. Not from Charlie but the late bishop, a revered preacher who hosted one of the first prime-time television shows; someone who understood human communications. It's why all those men e-mailed me on then-governor Palin's first big night out on the national stage. It's why she drives the left wild, and has provided a source of fundraising and programming for nothing less than the Democratic National Committee. She's at the convergence of politics and culture. Her mere presence — of her and her family — brings some of our most contentious issues to the fore. They are our most contentious because they're the most personal. They are at the heart of who we are as individuals and a culture.
I thought of the unceasing reactions to Palin as I sat with two generations of anti-feminists at a recent book-launch event for "The Flipside of Feminism," written by Phyllis Schlafly, that brave lone warrior against the so-called Equal Rights Amendment, and her niece, Suzanne Venker. Schlafly is an unapologetic fan of Palin — much more so than Venker — because she knows what a brave, outspoken political woman faces. She's been there.
You don't have to want Palin to be president to acknowledge that the frenzy around her may have more to do with us than her.
On multiple fronts, the former governor of Alaska is actually much more complicated than most of the debates about her even begin to capture. She's that pro-life mom, a poster gal for whom the Susan B. Anthony List, dedicated to electing pro-life women, was waiting. But she's also been known to get her inner Gloria Steinem on — which is ironic given Steinem stands among those who would excommunicate her from her gender if she could. Born and raised in a culture where girls were educated as if they were an oppressed class in need of empowerment, often at the expense of boys, she's representative of a value system that is increasingly coming to grips with the fact that the sexual revolution messed with some very fundamental things.
I do think that when all is said and done in 2012, the candidate who finds his or her name on the top of the Republican ticket is going to be someone who doesn't evoke the passions of a wounded culture in quite the same way. But I also think denying that Sarah Palin, flaws and all, already holds a positive place in our history is akin to believing that Charlie Sheen is actually "winning."
The far-left in America are having a collective conniption fit over President Obama's decision to attack Libya.
Included in the wolf pack is the Atlantic magazine's Andrew Sullivan who despite his preposterous claims of being a conservative appeared on "The Chris Matthews Show" this weekend and said, "I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries…[now] we have this politicized Clintonian mess" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Was the President wrong initially to say Gaddafi must go, getting in so far ahead of everybody?
ANDREW SULLIVAN, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I don’t think it’s wrong for a President of the United States to issue an opinion about some madman like Gaddafi. I do think that the American public might have been consulted before the United States goes to war. I mean, we now got, you know, the President tells people after the fact? I mean, you know, we go into a Middle Eastern country, we don’t know the consequences, it’s been hatched by Hillary and McCain. I mean, what could go wrong?
[Laughter]
SULLIVAN: I mean, when you think about it. And I think it, I’m just, I’m just, I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries. I mean this is a, this, this initiative, this, this, this no-fly zone, this war essentially, is, is a Hillary-McCain concept.
A few minutes later, when the discussion changed to whether or not Obama will push for Social Security reform, Sullivan said he didn’t think so, and continued with this same theme:
SULLIVAN: Look, we, people who voted for this guy wanted him to let the old politics go.
MATTHEWS: Transformational president.
SULLIVAN: Wanted him to actually tell us the truth about this stuff and to do the right thing. And that was the appeal of Obama. And two years later, we have this politicized Clintonian mess.
Actually, that wasn't the appeal of Obama. That was the lie that he and his media minions including Sullivan dishonestly sold to the American people.
If there had been any truth in reporting after the junior senator from Illinois tossed his name into the ring in February 2007, he wouldn't have had a prayer against Hillary.
But people like Sullivan bought into the hope and change dream the Obama campaign created and assisted him in pulling the wool over the eyes of enough registered Democrats to beat someone with far more qualifications.
Now that the curtain is being pulled back to expose who and what the wizard is, people like Sullivan are so disappointed they feel they need to point fingers at him.
However, if they had acted like journalists rather than sycophantic teenyboppers, maybe we'd have someone in the White House right now better suited to handle the many crises facing the nation.
It's all well and good that Sullivan is realizing he was duped and is willing to admit it, but the next more important step is to apologize to the American people for being a part of the scam.
Don't hold your breath on that one.
