To begin my qualitative research career, I have taken time to reflect on myself and how my historical past has shaped my perception of the world and my ability to research young women who have type-1 diabetes and disordered eating. I start at the beginning, understanding that my place of birth and who I was born to, open my biography and assist in shaping the current result. I was born in the same city in which I now reside in the midwesst. The city is fairly large, by my state's standards, with a population of now over 200,000 not counting the surrounding towns which now resemble suburbs. This area is insufferably white, with only a smattering of Asian and Latino population. I graduated with honors from the largest high school in the city, with a class of over 400 students.

I am a Caucasian middle-class female. My parents were also Caucasian and middle class, although they did not start out that way in their own beginnings. I have led a privileged and sheltered life by the rest of the world’s standards and have always had a place to live, clothes to wear, and food to eat. Being raised in a strict fundamentalist Christian home framed my legalistic view of the world as a child and adolescent and then impelled me to the other side of the spectrum as a young adult. My father’s abandonment of my mother, younger brother, and myself at an early age left me without a good understanding of the ‘proper’ father role, but also opened my eyes to the harsh realities of hypercritical fundamentalist church congregations and their need to hold on to their paradigm no matter the cost. During my formative years I was required to help out at home with housework and sibling responsibility and then to generate my own revenue when legally able, while balancing school and required extracurricular activities.

I was driven early in to academic rigor through imprinting my mother. She was a woman of accomplishment and took her first ‘real’ job collecting money behind the counter of the local utility company as a single mother. Fifteen years later she could be found running the company as the chief CFO. The chosen path of my education was nursing; as I had observed a nurse in the neonatal ICU unit as an adolescent. Originally, this observation was to be of a physician in the unit, but upon observing the nurse I decided that her job was much more valuable than his and left his side half-way through the day.

Nursing is as much a part of me as being a mother or a female. I have been a nurse since the tender age of 21 and it is my only great talent that I offer the world. Three nursing degrees later I am still seeking knowledge in this area. This career has become personal paradigm and has affected my view of others; sometimes this view is deficient and narrow. Although my nursing career has taken me to several geographic locations and to numerous areas of practice, still my value for life and health has skewed my ability to care for, or interact with, others who do not share my view of life and health. For example, the patient who continually refuses to take their medication for a chronic illness, or continues to smoke after a diagnosis of COPD often raises my defensiveness and frustration. In realizing this, I hope to better understand life from their perspective and accept them where they are.

I have traveled little in my life, but find myself always being a seeker of justice. Currently this journey of justice has brought me to be personally involved with persons on the other side of the globe, in a very restricted country. I presently live in a suburban middle class neighborhood with my one and only husband and my three children who are under the age of 10 years. Therefore, my knowledge of adolescence is shaped primarily by my own experience, care for them in my practice, and time spent as a middle-school nurse. Even now, reflecting on my biography of adolescence in relation to body image brings up thoughts of being weighed weekly in front of and along with other cheerleaders on my college squad and the strong memory of body image issues that are connected with such activities. In fact, simply being female in the American 21st century, with a mass of media targeting the vulnerabilities of women and their bodies, provides insight into my area of research from which to build knowledge. Realizations such as these give hope that I have had experience to understand my research population and provide perspective to my phenomena of interest. All of this gives me purpose and personal experience from which to engage in good qualitative research.

Welfare: A liberal and a conservative are walking down the street and they see a homeless man. The liberal, being a "man of the people," runs up to the homeless man and gives him $100. He returns to the conservative with a self-righteous smile and proclaims, "I am so generous and kind." As they continue walking, they see yet another man. The liberal again pulls out his wallet, but there is no money left to give. The conservative pulls out his wallet and hands the man $20 and a business card and tells him, "clean yourself up and I may have a job for you."

No matter if you're rich or poor, you should see that welfare is shameful and does not work effectively. Of course, there is a need for it because some people do need help at points in their life so they can feed their kids. However, welfare should be limited and designed to get people back in the workforce. Right now, we have millions of people being spoon fed by the government because they are lazy. Those people who are suckling at the welfare bottle are liberals. They are also they ones who believe the government should take care of them. The conservatives are the men and women who work everyday so they can gain wealth and comfort for their family. I am a conservative because I know the government should not be there to pick me up. I will pick myself up and make money because I work. Not because I want to, but because I do not believe my government should support my laziness.

Economics: Liberals don't seem to understand the economy. They believe that if they tax and spend more that the economy will blossom and cash will rain from the clouds. Every American will be equally rich and peace on Earth will be obtained. Once again, stupid. The first thing to be learned in economics is how to calculate the Gross Domestic Product. There are two major factors that subtract from the GDP and one of those is taxes. The higher the taxes, the lower the GDP. So what sense does it make to tax Americans more? I thought that GDP was a good thing..?

Furthermore, when did it become the government's job to redistribute wealth? The government is taxing the rich, and when I say taxing the rich... I mean REALLY taxing the rich. The top 10% of the nation's richest people are paying 95% of the taxes in America. Of course they should be paying more, but they are also paying much higher proportions. Which is seemingly unfair to me because the way I see it, they worked hard to make that money. Why is it that they should be punished for being successful? Redistribution of wealth, stunts economic growth and hurts the fundamentals of capitalism. It is socialistic, and furthermore, it is communistic. If you can tell me of one successful communist country, I will call you a liar, because there is not one. [But, please do leave a comment...:)] So if we know from history (Cuba, Soviet Union...) that redistribution of wealth doesn't work, so why are liberals so keen on it? ...Stupid.

I am a conservative because I don't want the government in my wallet. The government is bogged down with bureaucracy and red tape. It is inefficient, slow, and always over-budget. Does that sound like good business? Of course not. Anything the government can do, the private sector can do better. (Except for the military.) Liberals, for some reason, want to give more money to an inefficient industry. All I say is "LEAVE ME ALONE! I can live by myself. I don't need you taxing me so I can't afford to open up that new business in which I'll be giving people jobs... Which in turn will make our economy more productive." But that wouldn't make sense would it?

Health Care: Liberals are always moaning how American health care is so horrible. It is unfair how we have to have the system we do when everyone else has free health care. I do agree. There do need to be changes in the insurance system so everyone may get health insurance... on their own. But I do not agree, however, that our health care is horrible. In fact, it is the best in the world.

Liberals are always moaning how evil the pharmaceutical companies are and how they raise the prices of drugs just in America and they are cheaper everywhere else. One word...stupid. American pharmaceutical companies are the best in the world. No other companies are even close the quality of drugs that these companies are developing. America is the front runner of drug development race, and our companies are saving lives. Those drugs are expensive because they are worth it. They are cheaper in other countries because their governments subsidize the pharmaceutical companies. Is that what liberals want to happen in America?

In addition, liberals complain that the government should take over health care because Canada and England are doing it, and supposedly it's working. Again, stupid. Do you really want the people who brought you the DPS to also bring you health care? The systems in Canada and England aren't actually working. Canadians come to America all the time to have surgery done because there is a waiting list in Canada. There is no waiting list in America.

Finally, if we socialize medicine, we will have a shortage of doctors. No person wants to go to school for ten years so they won't make any money. Socializing medicine will continue to cripple the health care system. If the liberals really wanted cheaper health care they would tell their friends, the trial lawyers, to stop suing doctors for every tiny mistake. Doctors are doing the best they can to save everyone's life and while they're hoping you live, they will have to deal with your lawyer later.

I am a conservative because I am responsible for my own well-being. I am a conservative because I will pay for health insurance myself. I am a conservative because I will not rely on the government to pamper me. I realize that there should not be someone to hold my hand when it comes to keeping myself and my family healthy, safe, and happy. A conservative doesn't want to get rid of the doctors we have today, but we do want to get rid of the ridiculous malpractice lawsuits that are driving up doctor's costs. The government is here to put everyone on an equal playing field, not to make us equal.

My friends, we are born equal and it is what we do from there is what matters. The government should not try to keep us there. I do not want to be mediocre. I don't want strive for mediocrity. I want to shoot for the stars and strive to be the best. That is why this country is still great, because we can still shoot for the stars and we can still get there. These are a few of the differences between liberals and conservatives. While liberals are stuck on the ground and dreaming of the stars, conservatives are building rockets to get them there. We are not dreamers, but we are doers.

Special Note from Al Rogers Diary:

► Biden will appear for the full hour this Sunday on Meet The Press.

► Barack will appear on ABC's This Week.

► Palin will be in secure, undisclosed location, cramming for the debate.

Watch Biden in action or read the transcript. Biden doesn't just speak truth to power, HE IS POWER!

Cardamone arrested the top 100 sites alternate on the Yahoo! seek engine in the categories of breast cancer, diabetes and depression. She begin that alone a boyhood accommodated to an all-embracing accepted on how advice should be given.

She said humans tended to be acceptable to accept online advice because "the superior of (websites') actualization may advance to the agreeable itself actualization credible", arch to a accident of humans demography activity that could abuse their health, such as abandoning medication.

There were aswell apropos about the way abrogating aspects of some altitude were accent in means that didn't accomplish it bright that those furnishings were almost attenuate and could affright users. One diabetic who suffered branch abortion had visited a website that declared abnormal and astringent ancillary effects, generally controllable by treatment, but the website bootless to point out that the case was not a accepted one.

Cardamone arrested all the sample sites adjoin the all-embracing Bloom On the Net Foundation's cipher of conduct, which has eight capital credibility apropos to the ascendancy of advice given, user confidentiality, artlessness about advocacy and, importantly, authoritative abiding that users amusement the advice as commutual to able medical treatment, rather than replacing it.

Although 58 of the sites that Cardamone arrested independent counterfeit information, she said the added 42 sites had abeyant to advice advance a sufferer's health.

"Such sites independent quality, adapted advice with potentially lifesaving agreeable such as explanations of the affection of depression, and advantageous recipes for diabetics."

Cardamone completed the abstraction in 2001 as allotment of a Masters amount in communications at Swinburne University. She said she was absorbed in changes beneath way in bloom affliction area the "top down" access was getting replaced by greater accommodating compassionate and control. The abstraction for her apriorism came to her afterwards a accommodating asked her if she anticipation aqueous advancing from the patient's adenoids could be cerebrospinal aqueous (CSF). The accommodating had apprehend about CSF on the web and mistaken a aqueous adenoids for a potentially austere aggravation of her injuries.

Senate Bill SB 840 which wold bring a single-payer universal health care system to California will either be signed or vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. He vetoed it in 2006. I wrote a letter to the governor:

Dear Governor Schwarzeneggar:

Yours,
Jason _____

John McCain's plan to get rid of the employer tax benefit and throw people into the individual market.

Government provided/subsidized/mandated catastrophic insurance.

Otherwise, have people be responsible for their own day-to-day health care costs.

Poor people get government subsides for basic care.

OK, I know the answer. That type of health care plan would be proffered if the GOP weren't the one major party in the industrialized world that didn't believe in social insurance That type of health care thinking would be promoted by a party that wasn't downright nihilistic towards health care in the early 1990s. Mark Schmitt has more.

Here are the original ads:

They are seen as landmarks in the use of public relations as a grassroots lobbying tool. Its one of those things poli sci wonks like me get to read about countless times.

Now Harry & Louise are back:

What caught my eye about this commercial, despite the fact I'm well aware of who Harry & Louise are in historical terms, wasn't their identities, probably because I wasn't really looking at the screen and barely listening to the commercial until the last couple of sentences.

What drew my attention and the reason I paid enough attention the second time was the series of logos at the bottom of the page. I saw the logos for what I thought was an interestingly diverse group of lobbying organizations. The groups are the the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Catholic Health Association (CHA), Families USA, and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).

Three of those make sense to me. The American Hospital Association gives me a slight pause... but when one considers that hospitals will get paid for more preventative care instead of being forced to provide expensive indigent care for free, it makes more sense.

The last one is the one that drew my attention. I saw the NFIB logo and I, for the first time since the Clinton planned was scuttled, believed that it just might be possible that we will have major health care reform in the near future. The NFIB is one of those quietly powerful forces in Washington, DC. Most Americans will know who the AARP, the NRA, and NOW are. But few know of groups like AIPAC and the NFIB, who focus their communication strategies on internal disbursements of information to their member base instead of to the public en masse.

The NFIB was one of the major forces behind the repeal of the estate tax. One of the reasons that Congress was able to raise the minimum wage without a fight was that the NFIB simply took stopping an increase off of its agenda (their agenda is largely influence by the answers sent in by their members to annual questionnaires).

Whats happened the last 3 years is that the interests of small business owners have shifted... Instead of taxes or regulation, their top two concerns are the cost of energy and health care. Their shift is apparent when one sees that even the Republican-controlled congress started talking "green". I believe that this shift means that there is a real chance for legislation that allows everyone the chance at health care. I don't know that a single-payer system would really be the answer, so I'm encouraged by the fact that Barack Obama's health plan has gone the route of subsidizing the cost of insurance instead of forcing doctors and patients alike to use a system that takes all the choices out of their hands.

Those who would mock one of the best politicians known to man should be ridiculed and punished. Mrs. Palin is one of the few people that is a Constitutionalist, pro-Christian, pro-business, and anti-terrorism; such a combination is alarmingly rare today. What is saddening and surprising is that Ben Stein, an expert on the crimes and frauds of science, is now fearing a God-fearing, free market candidate. He can't even bother to give a good reason why; he relies on his emotion and degree to make his point. He doesn't even give much more than a nod to her pro-life credentials; are you sure you're being honest with yourself, Ben?

This is not the first time Ben Stein has slipped up; he's advocated taxing the rich to fund the War on Terror, when in reality, we should be seizing the properties of sinners and poor people to help pay for the War on Terror, as well as cut useless government programs like socialized medicine, public education, socialized mail, Social Security, national parks, and food stamps. Trickle-down economics, along with 'Star Wars', will be what will help us control the world. Attempting to rid ourselves of the wealthiest individuals per capita in the world will lead us to be mocked by such degenerate regions as Old Europe, Japan, and Canada. Although it's clear he knows who to attack in the War on Terror, he obviously doesn't know how to fund it.

The Palin Administration shall not forget your treasons and your slander of this candidate, Ben! I am going to spend the rest of the night praying for you. Please, please don't start acting like a Democrat, especially not that Frenchified wackaloon Howard Dean.

• Multifamily
• Office Buildings
• Industrial Buildings
• Shopping Centers
• Hotels & Motels
• Senior Housing
• Retail
• Health Care
• Sports & Entertainment

$1.5M to no max.  A+ credit tenant (NNN), S&P preferred.  Assumable loans, amortized (not interest only) a big plus.  Very qualified group that can close quickly (cash buyer).

Properies need a 7+ minimum cap rate and a 7+ minimum cash-on-cash return.  No deals from loopnet or properties that have been shopped around.  Buyer is looking for pocket/off-market listings and motivated sellers.  Strong preference for properties in FL, GA, SC & NC.  They will consider other high traffic marketable areas such as CA, AZ, NY, NJ, CT & Eastern MA if the property is very strong.

If you have any properties that meet the above criteria, contact me at Lon @ cascadefallsinvestments.com.

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

DURYEA, Pa. - Democrat Barack Obama called Republican rival John McCain's acceptance speech the final piece of an out-of-touch convention that focused on its nominee's biography instead of the struggles of the middle class.

If you watched the Republican National Convention over the last three days, you wouldn't know that we have the highest unemployment in five years because they didn't say a thing about what is going on with the middle class," Obama told workers at a specialty glass factory.

"They spent a lot of time talking about John McCain's biography, which we all honor," the Illinois senator said. "They talked about me a lot, in less than respectful terms. What they didn't talk about is you and what you're seeing in your lives and what you're going through, or what your friends or your neighbors are going through."

Obama pointed out that the nation's unemployment rate zoomed to a five-year high of 6.1 percent in August, according to a government jobs report issued Friday.

"We've now lost 605,000 jobs since the beginning of this year," Obama said. "We've had eight consecutive months of job losses."

Obama seized on the new jobs report as part of his strategy to tie McCain to President Bush's stewardship of the economy and to connect with voters who fear their jobs will disappear. There is no shortage of such voters in Rust Belt Pennsylvania.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/ap_on_el_pr/
obama;_ylt=AsdnRK4YUIQGHln6k39NFkes0NUE

The dems made a a good comeback after the speech, and hopefully this point will continue to resonate, and people will honestly remember that McCain's positions don't seem to be too consistent, or when it is, seem to be pretty consistent with Bush, but in the end, I think the big policy things that are going to get attention and which the candidates disagree about are: pro or anti war, pro or anti drilling, and pro or anti universal health care. And I guess, as always, taxes.

So, last night Obama seemed to be a little weird about the war - he was made to sound as if he was less anti-war than usual, so that could come off as a point for mccain, IF people start to believe that the surge is working, which is how the RNC was selling it all week. If that narrative is bought, then America will suddenly be pro-war again, because we are fickle as all hell (remember, we were 79% in favor of invading in the beginning).

I don't know where people stand about energy. The "drill, baby, drill" chants creeped me out, but obviously to some people it seems industrious and self-sufficient to make use of whatever oil we have, even if it's gonna be a little destructive. But Obama also backed down on offshore drilling [ok, that article says 69% favor it, so I guess that's where people stand], so will he just look weak on that too? Both candidates claim to want to introduce alternative sources as well... Maybe people will believe that Obama will be more committed to it.

Health care could be a big one, just because people are really dealing with it. But for older voters who remember when Hillary had a chance at this 15 years ago, they may not believe universal health care is really possible in the US. I hope this gets a lot of attention in the debates.

For the past 8 years, Bush and McCain have been deaf, dumb and blind to the special interests of the middle class; they have ignored the special interests of the 48 million uninsured; squashed the special interests of citizens who want their privacy back and have completely ignored the special interests of environmentalists.

So Mr. McCain, when you say 'it's over' for special interests, PLEASE DEFINE which special interests you mean. Surely it can't be the same special interests who have put you on top of the ticket or the 159 lobbyists that are working on your campaign.

From: JustMoreoftheSame.com - GOP Players:

John McCain’s campaign isn’t just in the pocket of lobbyists — it is lobbyists. The upper levels of McCain’s operation are staffed with some of Washington’s most prolific influence peddlers.

Rick Davis, campaign manager, has lobbied for Airborne Express and DHL on their controversial merger deal, as well as telecom companies Bell South, SBC, and Verizon.

Charlie Black, senior advisor, lobbied for 109 clients, including Yukos Oil and Freddie Mac.

Randy Scheunemann, senior foreign policy advisor, has had lobbying clients that include BPAmoco, and the NRA.

Frank Donatelli, the McCain campaign’s director at the RNC, has lobbied for 70 clients, including PhARMA, Pfizer, and ExxonMobil.

John Green, congressional liaison, has lobbied for 168 clients, including insurance industry trade groups, predatory lender Ameriquest, ChevronTexaco, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others.

Susan Nelson, the campaign finance director, has had at least 43 lobbying clients, including EADS/Airbus, American Health Insurance Plans, and Verizon.

Mark Buse, McCain’s Senate chief of staff, has lobbied for 62 clients, including ExxonMobil, Freddie Mac, and telecom interests like AT&T, TimeWarner and Cablevision, who have interests in front of McCain’s Commerce Committee.

Wayne Berman, another senior advisor, lobbied for 104 clients, including Fannie Mae, the American Petroleum Institute, ChevronTexaco, and the National Rifle Association.

More GOP Players here

The RNC consistently delivered their thematic half-truths, national security paranoia and all but ignored Americans greatest concerns which is getting and keeping good jobs, how to pay for skyrocketing food, shelter, healthcare and gasoline.

The Republicans stubbornly continue to embrace their glory days of Ronald Reagan and think it's shameful for Americans to want some relief from the health insurance companies who skim 30% of our premiums for themselves and use the money to pay for exhorbitant CEO salaries and lobbyist fees in order to keep us hostage to this expensive and broken system that denies affordable insurance and very often denies care.

Our greatest challenge as Americans today is to fight for our rights, and fight for our lives! We have more to lose and more to fear with four more years of a Republican regime who only awards the top income earners and shelters corporations from taxes, while the rest of us are kept in a downward spiral of high unemployment, and higher prices for the basic goods and services we need to stay alive.

Break the bonds of slavery and oppression in November - VOTE OBAMA-BIDEN !

Pre-pregnant: A term that may be applied to a woman of childbearing age, who should consider herself -- and be treated by the health-care system -- as potentially pregnant, regardless of whether she is using contraception or plans to have a baby anytime soon. (Washington Post)

Use it in a sentence: Labeling fertile women as pre-pregnant implies that the only reason a woman should care about her health is for the sake of any purely theoretical fetuses, while also paving the way for limiting women's freedoms (such as to drink or have a pet cat) in order to protect those same little theories.

photo credit

Sightline Daily | Northwest News That Matters

Top Picks of the Day

10. How Big Oil Went From Friend to Foe in Alaska Toronto Globe and Mail 09/05/2008

Your physician may prescribe special healthcare equipment for home use when it will help you perform tasks that you may not be able to accomplish without the help of the equipment or if it provides therapeutic benefits for you. If you will only be using the equipment for a short period of time or if your medical condition could change then healthcare equipment rentals are a better option than purchasing. In some cases your medical healthcare plan may cover some of the costs of the rental and you may be able to deduct the rental costs on your income tax.

When you are making your decision between purchasing or rental talk to your doctor about your current and long term equipment needs and ask your healthcare plan provider what may be covered by your plan.

If you have purchased or have used rental healthcare equipment and have any advice or would like to share your story I encourage you to leave a comment

Particle List Of Available Healthcare Equipment Rentals

• Hospital Bed

• Lift Chair

• Walker

• Scooter

• Wheel Chair 

Additional Resources

Healthcare Equipment Rental

For example, the whole furor around the nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be vice president by John McCain has brought to the forefront the issue of Down syndrome children and the divergent views about whether people should knowingly give birth to children with this condition. I have already given my views on the subject on this blog, but there are certainly those who disagree as seen just by comments posted here.

Physician and writer Rahul K. Parikh gives what by all appearances is a concerned response to Palin's decision in an article in Salon:

By knowingly giving birth to a Down syndrome child, Palin represents a minority of women. A 2002 study found that about 90 percent of pregnancies in the United States where the fetus was diagnosed with Down syndrome were terminated.

Kids with special needs require and deserve intense therapies and attention to their needs. That's likely something Palin, with her political and social stature, can afford both financially and emotionally. But that may not be the case for other families, who have to struggle to balance work with home and family. They simply may not be up to the challenge of raising a child with Down syndrome. Sadly, kids with developmental problems like Down syndrome are at a higher risk for being abused by parents and other caregivers.

And if you can't provide that, what should you do? Well Parikh doesn't say, but by labeling Palin "anti-choice" gives the reader a pretty good idea. Yes, let the mother choose, but not the child. Of course it seems compassionate to consider the poor mother and family of a Down syndrome child and what they will have to face. Smith addresses such "compassion" in an article "Waging War on the Weak" that he wrote for the Discovery Institute:

(The "new eugenics") perceives some lives as having greater value than others, and which in some cases sees death—including active euthanasia and assisted suicide—as an appropriate “solution” to the problems of human suffering. The original eugenics movement expressed this relativistic view of human life through hate-filled rhetoric; for example, eugenicists described disabled babies like Miracle in terms that today would be considered hate speech. Thus, as recounted in Edwin Blacks' splendid history of eugenics, War Against the Weak , Margaret Sanger took “the extreme eugenic view that human ‘weeds' should be ‘exterminated.'”

Today's new eugenicists are not that crass, of course. Indeed, rather than screaming hate and pejoratives from the rooftops, they instead ooze unctuous compassion as they croon about a “quality of life” ethic and preventing the weak—against whom they are secretly at war—from “suffering.” But behind the politically correct language, and indeed, hiding within the hearts of those who perceive themselves as profoundly caring, lurks the same old disdain of the helpless who offend because they remind us of our own imperfections and mortality.

This kind of thinking is subtle but deadly. Smith does a great job of exposing this kind of thinking in his blog. Are these issues important or is this just a big fuss over little things? No, not when you consider that health care is a major issue in this election.