Friday, February 08, 2008

Recent Diabetes study in the news

Recent Diabetes study in the news.

I'm sure plenty of you have seen the articles in the news about the study to lower blood sugar was partially stopped due to increased deaths in 1 group.

"Among the study participants who were randomly assigned to get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal, there were 54 more deaths than in the group whose levels were less rigidly controlled. The patients were in the study for an average of four years when investigators called a halt to the intensive blood sugar lowering and put all of them on the less intense regimen." according to the NY Times.

Now, of course the medical industry is explaining, even tho the data hasn't been analyzed, what this means:

“It’s confusing and disturbing that this happened,” said Dr. James Dove, president of the American College of Cardiology. “For 50 years, we’ve talked about getting blood sugar very low. Everything in the literature would suggest this is the right thing to do,” he added.
and:
“It will be similar to what many women felt when they heard the news about estrogen,” Dr. Hirsch said. “Telling these patients to get their blood sugar up will be very difficult.”

At the very end, there is this:
It might be that patients suffered unintended consequences from taking so many drugs, which might interact in unexpected ways, said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Ya think?!?!?!

Keep in mind, not only was this group subjected to a program designed to "get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal", they were also aggressively treated for high BP and/or elevated cholesterol levels. And how were they treated? With high doses of multiple medications!

As one blogger pointed out, there are so many different drugs used, in so many different combinations, and so many different doses that it will be impossible to come up with any statistical reason for the deaths. And remember too, these people were also treated, often with multiple drugs for 1-2 other conditions....that we know of! How many drugs were these people taking for other conditions? (Not to mention their smoking status, their weight, activity level, gender, age, etc etc etc!)

Please, at least at this point in time, ignore these articles and continue to do what you've been doing!! All recent and past evidence indicates that the tighter the control and the closer to normal, the better the outcomes!

Back in the 70s, when all that was available, besides diet, was insulin and a handful of oral meds (designed only to stimulate the pancreas to produce more insulin) we saw fewer complications than we do today. We could predict sometimes which patients would do well, simply by how tightly controlled they were. Those that followed the diet (which was not ketogenic, but much lower carb than today's diet) and took their meds didn't have too many problems. But those that didn't take their meds, or stick with their diet, got all kinds of complications!

I seriously am starting to question the medical profession in the care of diabetics. I just don't understand how they can continue to encourage, no push, a high carb diet and then just keep adding meds! These statements are, in my opinion, criminal!

There are blogs all over the place about this subject and different takes on why we should continue what we're doing and ignore the advice of "experts". Here are links to a couple:
Dave Dixon's take at The Spark Of Reason,
Regina Wilshire's at The Weight of The Evidence, and
Jenny's at Diabetes Update.

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment Regarding FISA

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment Regarding FISA
By Keith Olbermann
MSNBC Countdown

Thursday 31 January 2008

And finally, as promised, a Special Comment - of FISA and the telecoms.

In a presidency of hypocrisy - an administration of exploitation - a labyrinth of leadership - in which every vital fact is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma hidden under a claim of executive privilege supervised by an idiot - this one… is surprisingly easy.

President Bush has put protecting the telecom giants from the laws… ahead of protecting you from the terrorists.

He has demanded an extension of the FISA law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - but only an extension that includes retroactive immunity for the telecoms who helped him spy on you.

Congress has given him, and he has today signed a fifteen-day extension which simply kicks the time bomb down the field, and has changed nothing of his insipid rhetoric, in which he portrays the Democrats as 'soft on terror' and getting in the way of his superhuman efforts to protect the nation… when, in fact, and with bitter irony, if anybody is 'soft on terror' here… it is Mr. Bush.

In the State of the Union Address, sir, you told Congress, "if you do not act by Friday, our ability to track terrorist threats would be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger."

Yet you are willing to weaken that ability!

You will subject us, your citizens, to that greater danger.

This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough even for you to understand: If Congress approves a new FISA act without telecom immunity and sends it to your desk and you veto it - you, by your own terms and your own definitions, you will have just sided with the terrorists.

Ya gotta have this law, or we're all gonna die. But you might veto this law!

It's bad enough, sir, that you are demanding an ex post facto law which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive, and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans, under the flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.

But when you then demanded again, during the State of the Union address, that Congress retroactively clear the Verizons and the AT&T's, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared!

"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."

Believed?

Don't you know?

Does the endless hair-splitting of your presidential fine print, extend even here?

If you, sir, are asking Congress, and us, to join you in this shameless, breathless, literal, textbook example of fascism - the merged efforts of government and corporations who answer to no government - you still don't have the guts to even say the telecom companies did assist you, in your efforts?

Will you and the equivocators who surround you like a cocoon never go on the record about anything?

Even the stuff you claim to believe in?

Silly me.

Of course Mr. Bush is going to say "believed."

Yes, it sounds dumber than if he had referred to himself as "the alleged president," or had said today was "reportedly Thursday," or had claimed "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

But the moment he says anything else, any doubt that the telecoms knowingly broke the law, is out the window, and with it, any chance that even the Republicans who are fighting this like they were trying to fend off terrorists using nothing but broken beer bottles and swear words couldn't consent to retroactively immunize corporate criminals.

Which is why the Vice President probably shouldn't have phoned in to the Rush Limbaugh Propaganda-Festival yesterday.

Sixth sentence out of Mr. Cheney's mouth: The FISA bill is about, quote, "retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States."

Oops.

Mr. Cheney is something of a loose cannon, of course.

But he kind of let the wrong cat out of the bag there.

Because Mr. Bush - and the corporations he values more than people - didn't want anybody to verify what Mark Klein says.

Mark Klein is the AT&T whistleblower who appeared on this newscast last November, who explained, in the placid, dull terms of your local neighborhood I-T desk, how he personally attached all of AT&T's circuits - everything carrying every phone call, every e-mail, every bit of web browsing - into a secure room…

…Room Number 641-A, at the Folsom Street facility in San Francisco - where it was all copied so the government could look at it.

Not some of it; not just the international part of it; certainly not just the stuff some truly patriotic and telepathic spy might be able to divine had been sent or spoken by or to a terrorist.

Everything.

Every time you looked at a naked picture, every time you bid on eBay, every time you phoned-in a donation to a Democrat.

"My thought was 'George Orwell's 1984,'" Mr. Klein told me, reflecting back, "and here I am, being forced to… connect the Big Brother machine."

You know, Mr. Bush, if Mr. Klein's "Big Brother Machine" - the one the Vice President conveniently just confirmed for us - if it was of any damn use at all at actually finding anything, you could probably program it to find out who started that slanderous e-mail about Barack Obama.

Use Room 641-A to identify that E–assassin, sir, and I'll stand up and applaud you.

Yeah, I'm holding my breath on that one, too.

But of course, sir, this isn't about finding that kind of needle in a haystack. This isn't even about finding a haystack. This is about scooping up every piece of hay there ever was, and laying the groundwork for the next little job which you have to outsource to AT&T and Verizon.

It was your Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, letting this one out of the same bag.

The need for Homeland Security to stave off cyber-attacks against the government's computer networks.

And how do they do that, sir?

By constantly monitoring the internet - the whole internet.

And who actually, physically, does that, Mr. Bush?

Right. The same telecom giants for whom you want immunity - Quickly. So quickly, you wouldn't believe it.

Because this previous domestic spying, and this upcoming policing of the internet - they may be completely evil, indiscriminate, unlawful. So you have to dress it up, as something just the opposite.

It isn't evil… it's "to protect America."

It isn't indiscriminate… it's "the ability to monitor terrorist communications."

It isn't unlawful… it's just the kind of perfectly legal thing, for which you happen to need immunity!

There's yet another level to this, and here we move from Big Brother… to Sleazy Son.

Mr. Bush's new Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey, the one who has already taken four different positions on water-boarding, and who may yet tie that record on this subject of telecom immunity - he has a very personal stake in this.

There happens to be a partner in the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani, named Marc Mukasey. And Bracewell and Giuliani and the Attorney General's son Marc, just happen to represent… Verizon.

You know, Verizon - Telecom Giant.

And all of a sudden this is no longer just a farce in which "protecting the telecoms" is dressed up for us as, 'protecting us from terrorist conference calls.'

Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich trying to protect the Krupp Family industrial giants by literally re-writing the laws for their benefit.

And we know how that turned out: Alfried Krupp and eleven of his directors were convicted of War Crimes at Nuremburg.

Nevertheless.

For those of us watching a President demanding this very specific law (the one the Germans had was called the "Lex Krupp") there is one surprising bit of comfort in all this:

Clearly, Mr. Bush is at his hyperbolic worst here.

Consider how his former chief of staff Andy Card came on and scolded Chris Matthews and me after the State of the Union address.

"The President's address tonight was very important," Card said, "because it really was a sobering call to reality for us.

"And the reality is, we have an enemy who wants to hurt us. The primary job of the president to protect us.

"He talked about protecting us. He talked about the needs to have the tools to protect us."

Indeed, Mr. Bush.

The primary job of any president is to protect us.

Not just those of us who own Internet and Telephone companies - All of us.

And even you, sir, with your intermittent grasp of reality… even with your ego greater than a 100-percent approval rating… even with your messianic petulance - even you could not truly choose to protect the corporations instead of the people.

I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame.

Even if it's you throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Mr. Bush, it still means we can safely conclude… there is no baby!

This is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or protecting the people from terrorists, sir.

It is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution, or pretending to protect the people from terrorists.

Sorry, Mr. Bush. The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.

Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason… but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible.

Good night and good luck.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

New home...finally!

Finally! I'm no longer homeless! I rented an apartment in Raleigh and moved in last Thursday. Still waiting for all my belongings, but at least I'm finally out of that hotel!!

I have a kitchen!! I have a stove and a refrigerator, and a sink big enough to wash dishes!

Note coffee maker that I got for Christmas!
Back door is to the right of the stove.
Door to the left of refrigerator is to the utility room.
Wall next to utility room is excellent for my freezer.

Since I don't have any of my furniture yet, I've only been able to decorate the bathrooms and the kitchen, For the kitchen I'd already decided (based on the house I never got) to go with red and black, so I decided to continue that idea here.

The half bath, located between the living room and kitchen will be blue to match the living room colors. The upstairs bath also has red as it's primary color as I bought the carpet, accessories, etc for half bath, but carpet wouldn't fit. It's not that I'm a big red fan, although I do like red. it's just that I wanted bright colors as the whole place is beige and white.

Half bath
Half bath
Main bath
Main bath
I'm currently sleeping on an air bed. It's one of those that is higher than just a mattress and it's a twin size. I'd already decided to buy one of these for when I visit Laura & Chris, so it's not a big deal having to buy it a bit earlier. Friday night I guess I got too close to the edge, as I ended up face first on the floor in the middle of the night! I'd prefer to have a full size mattress, but they cost double the price!

My bed...looks normal, right?
Can't wait to get my own bed (latex foam mattress) back!

So, right now, it's just me and the pups. I'm an "empty nester", at long last! This is the first apartment I've ever had by myself. Actually only the second apartment ever, the last one was when I got out of school and got an apartment with my friend Jeanne. She moved out and my husband to be moved in, then we bought our first single-family home. (I've lived in 3 single family homes, Avon and Brockton in Massachusetts and one in Durham, NC)

This apartment is a town home style, which I want to try to see if I can live in that style long term. Since the deal with the house in Mebane fell through, I've decided to rethink buying a condo or town home. At this point, since I have a 6 month lease, I'm not going to look much, unless of course something catches my eye. I have a few friends on the lookout for deals in their areas, but won't start seriously looking until at least the beginning of May.

I've been thinking about changing to a condo or town home as that would relieve me of the responsibility of the outside maintenance. I'm not thrilled with having people living above me, and I have 2 dogs that must go out several times a day, so the town home set up sounds better. I've never lived on 2 floors, however, and I'm concerned about my legs and feet with the arthritis. So far I like having the 2 floors, even when I've had to run up and down the stairs because I forgot something. Not sure how long it will be, however, that I get tired of the stairs!

Once I get the rest of my furniture I'll post more pictures.

In the meantime, here are a couple new pics of my pups.....my pups who are very confused about what's going on.....and what the heck is the noise when no one is doing anything? (Floors are VERY creaky, it's about all we hear of the neighbors)

Daisy
Duke

Oh yea!! Forgot to mention. I'm still smoke free and I've been sticking to my plan. I've been getting around 20-25 grams of carb (total) a day, the one exception being Thursday (moving day) when I grabbed an Atkins bar....that alone had over 20 grams!

I've been to the food store and have lots of meat in the freezer, and veggies in the refrigerator. Once I get all my pots and pans, microwave, etc I'll be better off. Tonight I'm just having yogurt with fruit and walnuts as I'm too lazy to cook!

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Happy New year!!!


Wow....what a year!! Lots of changes this year....most of them good.

I've fallen completely off plan, gained a ton of weight back, but as of today I'm back. Setting new goals and revising plan for the new year. I'll be posting that within the next few days.

I fasted today, just having coffee and water. Just a few more days and I should have a kitchen. Probably no table, chairs, etc....but a kitchen where I can cook!! And!! It's close enough to work that I can go home for lunch and not eat out!! Woo Hoo!!


Roast pork tenderloin with cucumber spears and Caesar dressing, Brussels sprouts with butter, and home made applesauce.
Maybe this will be on the menu again soon!! I set Brian up with food and recipes for 3 meals today. Meatloaf and 2 chicken dishes that are too carby for me. But it got me to thinking about some of the meals I can make!! I want to try mashed cauliflower and a couple of new veggie recipes I found. I want to have a steak with Worcestershire sauce and sauteed mushroom, cooked exactly how I like it. And I am definitely making meatloaf soon! I also have a ham to cook....the spiral cut one I forgot to bring with me to Laura's house on Christmas!

In the news:
Dr Vernon and others are reporting the recent about-face by the ADA in regards to low carb diets. It's a pretty poor endorsement, and it's only for those that need to loose weight, but I think it will prove valuable! Low carb is only recommended for those that need to loose weight, and there are all kinds of cautions to check blood work and watch medication doses. BUT! I think this is going to be a good thing.


I'm thinking maybe we're going to be seeing docs using low carb to get patients to loose weight and they are going to see dramatic improvements, not only with the patient's weight, but blood sugar levels, lipid levels, etc. They are also going to see drops in blood pressure. Eventually it is going to have to dawn on someone that there really is something to this way of eating! I mean really....eventually they are going to realize it.....right?? How about when patients start reporting less GERD? better sleep patterns? Lessening of arthritis symptoms? Come on.....it's gonna happen, right?

On the non-smoking front....I'm still not smoking and have not had even a puff! For the most part it's still been easy, but I'm having a bit more frequent cravings. Actually over the past few days it's eased off again, so maybe this is the way it goes. It certainly isn't because my stress is any less, although having Brian on his own is a bit of a relief!





Just for fun, here are some pictures of my dogs:


Daisy (left) and Duke enjoying their 5th birthday dinner.

Brian playing with Daisy.


We're good puppies!

Trying to get attention while mom is wrapping presents.


And Laura's dogs:
Cheyenne

Kita

Kita (left) and Cheyenne playing.


And finally, Laura's Christmas Tree!!









Thursday, December 13, 2007

What if bad fat isn’t so bad?

I'm working, and don't really have time to do this....but I had to post this!!

MSNBC has an article out that is pro fat! It's written by Nina Teicholz and notes that

Suppose you were forced to live on a diet of red meat and whole milk. A diet that, all told, was at least 60 percent fat — about half of it saturated. If your first thoughts are of statins and stents, you may want to consider the curious case of the Masai, a nomadic tribe in Kenya and Tanzania.

In the 1960s, a Vanderbilt University scientist named George Mann, M.D., found that Masai men consumed this very diet (supplemented with blood from the cattle they herded). Yet these nomads, who were also very lean, had some of the lowest levels of cholesterol ever measured and were virtually free of heart disease.

Scientists, confused by the finding, argued that the tribe must have certain genetic protections against developing high cholesterol. But when British researchers monitored a group of Masai men who moved to Nairobi and began consuming a more modern diet, they discovered that the men's cholesterol subsequently skyrocketed.

Similar observations were made of the Samburu — another Kenyan tribe — as well as the Fulani of Nigeria. While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved. (Emphasis mine)
In the article, Ms Teiholz discusses how this theory became accepted as fact and the controversy that was heard at the time. She also talks about the findings of the Cochrane Collaboration, which did a meta-analysis of studies that met strict criteria.

"I was disappointed that we didn't find something more definitive," says Lee Hooper, Ph.D., who led the Cochrane review. If this exhaustive analysis didn't provide evidence of the dangers of saturated fat, says Hooper, it was probably because the studies reviewed didn't last long enough, or perhaps because the participants didn't lower their saturated-fat intake enough. Of course, there is a third possibility, which Hooper doesn't mention: The diet-heart hypothesis is incorrect.
Really, a very positive article! Check it out!


Maybe the tide really is changing?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

28 days

Quit smoking record - 28 days

28 days gone!!! Whoo Hoo!! And a weight loss on top of it all!!




OK....on November 14th I quit smoking. I had been back on plan for just 2 weeks after having a short but intense binge. After the first week I gained 6 pounds, mostly water according to the doc. I had been using sugar free candies and lollipops to replace the cigarettes and decided enough was enough. As soon as I stopped the junk I lost a few pounds. When I started the tighter dietary restrictions I lost even more (even tho my daily calorie intake is up!). Final outcome, I am 10 pounds lighter than my heaviest weight at the end of the first week, and 4 pounds lighter than the day I quit!

I'm still up 4 pounds from my lowest before the binge, but I'm gonna get there!

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Day 25!

No smoking!! Day 25 now!




Doing good....some cravings, but not bad. Shut myself off on any sugar alcohols or artificial sweeteners for a few days, I was getting out of control!

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment

NEOCON JOB


Thursday 06 December 2007

There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr.. Bush has left us with tonight.

We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole -- or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked -- at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so -- whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.

A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

After Ms Perino's announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear.

In August the President was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what "everybody thought" about Iran might be, in essence, crap.

Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad:

"I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

And as he said that, Mr.. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans?

Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used, to scare us about Iraq?

In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.

A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.

Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush.

The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.

And the mind reels at the thought of a Vice President fully briefed on the revised Intel as long as two weeks ago -- briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago -- who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan's presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller.

Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable, that Dick Cheney is either this president's evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is.

What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation -- or a criminal one?

Mr. Bush -- if you can still hear us -- if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you're Remington Steele -- you must disenthrall yourself: Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts are optional, the Intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store.

The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you -- and your country -- blind.

Not merely in monetary terms, Mr.. Bush, but more importantly of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force.

Mr.. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your Administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860's and 1870's and 1880's -- the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland...

Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr.. Bush.

Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them -- the opponents whom history proved right.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland... Bush.

Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron.

But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman.

The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post's website.

It is staggering.

March 31st: "Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon..."

June 5th: Iran's "pursuit of nuclear weapons..."

June 19th: "consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon..."

July 12th: "the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons..."

August 6th: "this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon..."

Notice a pattern?

Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror -- but there may not even be a tree there...

McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

August 9th: "They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program..."

August 28th: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons..."

October 4th: "you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon..."

October 17th: "until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon."

Before August 9th, it's: Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

After August 9th, it's: Desire, pursuit, want...knowledge technology know-how to enrich uranium.

And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003...

And you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th...

And that's just a coincidence?

---

And we are to believe, Mr.. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week?

Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true -- something like "what the definition of is is -- but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.

Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial... but ethically, it is a lie.

It is indefensible.

You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

You, Mr.. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

--

And more over, you have just revealed that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board, are also bald-faced liars.

We are to believe that the Intel Community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad?

And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

---

You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August...

But you also knew... it was... accurate.

And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent...

You merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside...

While you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of -- as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote "nuclear holocaust" -- and, as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: "World War Three."

---

My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase "George Bush has no business being president."

Well, guess what?

Tonight: hanged by your own words... convicted by your own deliberate lies...

You, sir, have no business... being president.


Click to see the video on YouTube.



Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Quit smoking record

Quit smoking record

As some of you maybe aware, I'm in temporary housing (yes, I'm still waiting! but I just can't get started on that right now.), have just been told that I "definitely" have Rheumatoid Arthritis, and quit smoking.

This has been one of the easiest quits ever, initially I was using both the patch and Chantix, but now it's getting dicey. I stopped using the patch over the weekend, as I forgot to put one on, and now I'm starting to feel the effects of the nicotine withdrawal. UGGGG I want a cigarette, but I cannot have one!

So.....I decided I need to post. I'm not guaranteeing I'll post every day, but I will update the ticker at least every few days...Let's say at least on Wednesday and Saturday.

Here's my ticker so far:




Today, Wednesday, December 5th, is my 22nd day smoke free.

I am continuing with the Chantix and I will not smoke.

I am sticking with low carb, but depending way too much on "low carb foods". I'm using sugar free lollipops in place of cigarettes, and I've got the munchies all night!

Luckily the doc I'm seeing for the quit smoking is Dr Eric Westman, fairly well known in the low carb community. He's working with me on both the quitting and the diet. In fact right now I'm on, at his suggestion, a diet with several restrictions (nightshade veggies and grains mainly). I'm also supposed to minimize my use of artificial sweeteners, which I haven't been doing too well lately. The first week I quit I gained over 6 pounds, but I've lost that and since then my weight has been stable, which is good, but I'm not loosing like I wish I was....probably due to the junk I'm snacking on.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Update 10/7/2007

Well, here I am, all settled in at my motel room!! I'm in a small, nice motel close to the highway. I have a queen bed, refrigerator and microwave and Internet access, but wireless and wired.

The owners also allow dogs, so I have my 2 with me. They're adapting well.....seem to think they own the place now! There are other people with dogs, and so far things have been good. My friend works here and last night, while I was visiting her, another woman came by with her dog. My two were actually crying because they couldn't say hi....but the woman wouldn't let her dog meet mine as it's a recent rescue and she didn't know how her dog would behave.



This is going to be longer haul than I figured. I'm getting information a little at a time and not happy. As of right now I do not have a pre-qualification letter!! The good news is I no longer owe anyone!!! Well except my car and a small personal loan (may get paid off, depending on ending balance)....and one charge on my report owed to "unknown", which for obvious reasons won't be paid at this time.


The ranch is now sold, so the bungalow is the one I'm hoping for. They finished the bathroom and did a great job! I'm hoping to put down an offer soon!!


I've been doing pretty good with sticking with my plan. The night I finished moving and the next day I binged. Red hots, crackers with peanut butter and chocolate! Back on track the next morning, Wednesday, and have been sticking with plan since. I've pretty much maintained.


I'll update again soon! In the meanwhile, if you haven't already, check out some of the blogs on Kimkins!! Spread the word!
Deni's blog,
Laura Dolson's take on About.com,
Becky's blog,
Kristen's blog,
Kimkins Dangers,
Carol Bardelli's blog post,
and her Anti-Kimkins site.