Thoughts of an Average Woman

Normalcy, Breast Cancer, and Elizabeth Edwards

As some of my regular readers know, I was diagnosed with breast cancer in July of 2003. Hell, I remember the exact date (July 16) and time (4:25 m) when the doctor told me I had invasive ductal carcinoma. The following Monday I had an appointment with the breast surgeon, and my options were discussed. After deciding on a mastectomy and recovery from the surgery, I went off to the oncologist, and my follow-up treatment was discussed and decided upon. Thus far, other than recuperation time for the removal of my breast and lymph nodes, I did not stop any of my activities. Actually, I had gotten in trouble with my breast surgeon several times for doing too much, as I tore open the glue (no stitches in my operation).

Then, on the day that I had my first round of chemotherapy, I can still remember the nurse telling me that I was going to be nauseous, and that I wouldn't be able to do my regular activities because I'd be too tired and sickly. My answer to her was simply, "I don't have time for that nonsense." And the nurse launched into a "you have to recognize that your life is not the same anymore" speech.

Phooey!

Yes, I said phooey. Keeping to my regular schedule as much as possible (barring doctors appointments) was my way of dealing with the psychological changes that come with breast cancer. I would have a chemo treatment on Wednesday, Thursday I'd give myself the neulasta, shot and Friday would be my "bad" day -- the day I was most tired and slept most of the afternoon, and on Saturday I'd be traveling with my boys to Atlanta, GA, Kennesaw, GA, Huntsville, AL, or Nashville, TN for their travel hockey games. At that time, I had not missed one of my kids game in more than 10 years, and I'd be god damned if some disease was going to stop me from seeing their games that season.

I worked cleaning houses, not missing a day, other than for doctors appointment. I worked, running my hubby's and my construction business, without missing a damn thing. I did these things because I had to, and more importantly, because if I didn't, I'd lose my sanity. I kept to my regular schedule because I needed normalcy.

Of the other women I know with breast cancer, they kept to their regular schedules as much as possible, also, for normalcy.

So, when Elizabeth Edwards announced that her breast cancer had metastasized, earlier today, and that she and John decided the campaign would continue, I completely understood. Her normalcy, at this time, is campaigning for and with her husband. I can't tell you how much the need to lead a normal life is paramount to keeping your own sanity.

So, when I checked over at freeperville, just out of curiosity, well more like touching a bruise to make sure it still hurts, I couldn't believe the ignorance being expressed. Here's a sampling:
Watch Edwards milk this for every tear, vote and advantange like the oily personal injury attorney he is.

1 posted on 03/22/2007 3:24:15 PM PDT

It's disgraceful that someone who doesn't even need to work would willingly take to the campaign trail while his wife is dying and his small children (around 6 and 8) are left without a parent to care for them while she undergoes treatment.

9 posted on 03/22/2007 3:34:57 PM PDT

What a complete jackass. His wife may die and all he can think of is his stinking ambitions.

Pig.
10 posted on 03/22/2007 3:37:42 PM PDT
So, basically,Elizabeth's desire for normalcy is being spun as her husband being an opportunist? What would these people rather have? That Elizabeth and the thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer curl up and stop participating in life? How fucking 19th century!

I'm sorry, but for many women with breast cancer, and worse yet, metastatic breast cancer, curling up into a ball is just not an option, nor should it be an option for Elizabeth Edwards. To say otherwise is to show your ignorance of the situation, the disease, and her desires.

Update: as I was writing this post, I received an email from breastcancer.org. They have, one of the better community groups I've found online for those diagnosed with bc. The email says, in part:
Recurrence is every cancer survivor's greatest fear. Mrs. Edwards said, "Every time you get something suspicious you go into alarm mode."

We, at breastcancer.org, understand how scary it can be to hear news like this. So, we wanted to take the time to remind our community that a recurrence of breast cancer or metastatic disease is NOT hopeless. Many women continue to live long, productive lives with breast cancer in this stage. There are so many treatment options available now and more are always being studied. You can read more about breast cancer recurrence by visiting:

http://www.breastcancer.org/rcr_intro.html

Keeping a positive attitude and surrounding yourself with supportive people can make all the difference in the world. Mrs. Edwards said of her family's philosophy, "We're always going to look for the silver lining -- it's who we are as people."

We applaud Mrs. Edwards' decision to discuss her breast cancer recurrence publicly, and to simultaneously focus attention on the best treatment options to overcome this disease.The breastcancer.org community is inspired by her courage and determination and wishes her and her family the best during this difficult time.
I couldn't agree more!

Hurricane Lobbyists

Team Louisiana, the latest report on the levee failure in New Orleans, is putting a lot of blame on the Army Corps of Engineers.

The design and construction of the New Orleans hurricane levee system was flawed because the Army Corps of Engineers ignored warnings about the power of potential storms and made critical engineering miscalculations, according to a long-awaited investigative report from a team of Louisiana engineers and scientists.

The "Team Louisiana" report echoed many of the findings of previous engineering inquiries but offered them in sometimes sterner terms, while highlighting some of the political forces that affected the flood system's formation.

As far as the politics of safe-guarding coastal cities from hurricanes, this report looks at the conflict of flood protections and development.

Army Corps of Engineers officials appear to have shortchanged the construction of essential flood protection systems to save money, according to the report, while at the same time, under local pressure, expanding the project's reach so that more low-lying land could be developed into new suburbs.

I'm really dismayed that in response to this a hurricane researcher states that there is no lobbyist for hurricane protections. Has our society descended into such a state that a project meant to prevent the decimation we saw from Katrina, was compromised because there was no lobbyist for the people's protection?

How sad.

Elizabeth Edwards Cancer Returned

I'm watching the Edwards' news conference on CNN.

X-rays showed something on rib, resulting in bone scan then biopsy, among other tests. Elizabeth's cancer has returned, and largely confined in the bone. Metastasis to the bone is not curable, but it is treatable. Damn!

But they are optimistic. Positive attitude. Nor does she expect to change any of her current activities. Good for her!!!

Elizabeth went on to explain that we all experience scares. Every time something is not right, you go into alarm mode. I completely understand that, having gone through my own scare a little more than a year ago.

The reason for the press conference, as opposed to a press release, was to show the public that she does not look sickly. Elizabeth is a-symptomatic.

The campaign will continue to move forward.

John is blessed with a remarkable woman.

The Failure of Micromanaging a War

Apparently, there was no strategy all the way around when it came to the war in Iraq. Not only was there no strategy for dealing with people that did not want to be occupied, but there was no strategy for setting up a governmental infrastructure. Which is probably why we are seeing religious factions taking over in Iraq, and a theocracy developing as opposed to democracy.

The U.S. government was unprepared for the extensive nation-building required after it invaded Iraq, and at each juncture where it could have adjusted its efforts, it failed even to understand the problems it faced, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

In a stinging, wide-ranging assessment of U.S. reconstruction efforts, Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said that in the days after the invasion, the Defense Department had no strategy for restoring either government institutions or infrastructure. And in the years since, other agencies joined the effort without an overall plan and without a structure in place to organize and execute a task of such magnitude.

Lines of authority remained unclear in the reconstruction effort. With a demand for speed and a shortage of government personnel, much of the oversight was turned over to the contractors doing the work. There was little coordination among the various agencies. The result was a series of missed opportunities to address the unraveling situation, Bowen said.

Micromanagement obviously didn't work. Why this is so heinous, is that people are directly harmed from this failed experiment.

Bowen said changes like those that took place in Iraq are not "short-term affairs."

"They are complicated, with social, political and security dimensions, and if you can't think of all the pieces of them together, then you're not ever going to end up with a response that works," he said.



One of the recommendations by Bowen is to use local contractors. You know, involve the people of the country we decimated. If we did that in the first damn place, the economic stability of the Iraqi people may have been vastly different from what it is now, today.

Titled "Iraq Reconstruction: Lessons in Program and Project Management," the report provides new details in a familiar story of unrealistic administration expectations for Iraq, inadequate planning and ever-changing goals, and lax to nonexistent oversight.

While I should say something about not going into Iraq in the first place (which I was against from the get go), at this point we have to look at changing the status quo of this administration and the neocon agenda in Iraq. That there was no workable plan or strategy should be saying a lot to the people of the US, who's tax dollars are being grossly misused.

The next step is to see what recommendations, if any, this administration will use.

AttorneyGate: Bush Obstructionism

Luckily I missed the Bush whine-fest yesterday evening, otherwise known as a press conference, as I was preparing one of the concession stands at the KCC for an Ice Bears game.

What I witnessed tonight was the rantings and false bravado of a schoolyard bully. The White House knows it doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and basically, Bush challenged the Democratic Party controlled congress to a game of constitutional chicken.

I was not surprised that Bush has drawn the line in the sand.

President Bush sought yesterday to defuse the controversy over the firings of U.S. attorneys, offering strong support for embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales while proposing to make Karl Rove and other top aides available for private interviews with congressional investigators.

The White House, however, limited the kinds of questions the aides would answer and said the interviews may not be conducted under oath or transcribed. The conditions enraged congressional Democrats, who vowed to go ahead with plans to issue subpoenas as early as today that would compel the aides to testify.

Defuse? Nah, I'd say more like fueled. Seriously, this deal-breaker goes beyond arrogance. The people, for whom he works, have a right to know what the hell is going on.

But, I am reasonably certain that Bush has used this tactic before, I have this strong sense of deja vu. Was it Bush and Cheney that were just interviewed by select judiciary members not under oath and no transcript for some other transgression? But which one?

Bush's obstructionist tactic subverts our checks and balances, not to mention allowing his aides to hide the truth, rather than speak the truth before the people.

Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

Recently, Knoxville's red-light districts came under fire in the state legislature. The premise of camera's at red lights is to reduce accidents, but, all the while it also increases revenue. One of the problems with Knoxville's red-light cameras, that I briefly discuss, is that the yellow light is set at 3 seconds (at camera intersections), and studies have shown that lengthening the yellow light to 4.5 - 5 seconds also reduces accidents. What interested me about the bill regulating red-light cameras was how it addressed the privatization of our police department.

However, any more substantive discussion has ended this year. Mayor Haslam is no longer being forced, by the proposed bill, to address lengthening yellow lights, and contracting the collections of red-light tickets to a private company.

Legislation imposing restrictions on the use of cameras to ticket motorists running red lights was killed by a House subcommittee Tuesday after debate between Knoxville's police chief and the bill's sponsor.

Now, in my original post, I mention that yellow-light studies seemingly didn't have much impact on Knoxville's decision to install red-light cameras. And, I think I unfortunately stumbled on something.

But when questioned by Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, sponsor of the bill, Owen acknowledged that at least one study indicates that a longer yellow signal reduces the number of motorists running the light.

McCord said a Texas study shows that adding one second to the yellow light time reduced tickets for running red lights by 53 percent and accidents by 40 percent. Owen, while saying he did not know of that specific study, knew of a case were red-light violations were reduced by around 36 percent with increased yellow time.

[...]The chief said timing of the light sequence "is a traffic engineering question, not a police question." He said the city was not necessarily opposed to increasing yellow light time, especially if that can be shown to have a positive effect in reducing accidents.

Hmm, so Owen only remembers/reads certain yellow light studies? From a link in my previous post link, I found a list of studies that support the lengthening of yellow lights. It appears that there is sufficient information being put out for anyone to read that lengthening yellow lights reduces accidents. That being the case, why is the city not moving on that, unless the underlying issue is increased revenue? Revenue gathering by Knoxville was my assertion from the beginning.

It isn't surprising that groups like the IIHT don't support lengthening yellow lights. But, we should also look at the Virginia study which shows an increase in rear-end crashes. Owens points out that Virginia is using red-light cameras -- they have 7. But, they are evaluating them, and there is a report to their Dept of Transportation. Is Knoxville reporting to someone, anyone? If so, is that report public information?

I'm disappointed that it doesn't appear there were any discussions on the privatization issue included in the bill.

AttorneyGate: Clinton Didn't Do It Too

Taking ThinkProgress's title, for all of you whining that "Clinton did it too" regarding the US Attorney firings, the Congressional Research Service released a report nailing that excuse to the wall, where it belongs. Scott Lilly analyzes the report here.

Defenders of the Bush administration’s decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys in December have argued that the move was not out of the ordinary since those appointed to that position are presidential appointees and thus serve at the leisure of the president.

[...]

The answer is that of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December, according to the available evidence gathered by CRS. The average incidence of such involuntary departures was one out of every two-and-a-half years; the largest number of such departures prior to this administration was a total of four departures during the Clinton administration.

But the December firings by the Bush administration stand in even more stark contrast with the firings that took place in previous administrations when the grounds for the departures are examined. In virtually all instances prior to the December firings, including two previous departures during this administration, serious issues of personal or professional conduct appeared to be the driving issue.

[...]It is clear that of the four administrations that controlled the executive branch of government during the past quarter-century, only the current administration has held the view that U.S. Attorney can or should be removed absent serious cause. In no instance is there any indication of a removal because a U.S. attorney failed to meet certain political criteria, such as prosecuting cases that were considered too sensitive to partisan issues or failing to prosecute cases that would be helpful from a partisan perspective.

And there you have it. Clinton didn't do it too. And, Bush has been the only administration in the last 25-years to push out USA's for failing to pass a political litmus test.

Some Doctors Abuse Medicare Loophole

When a doctor (including doctor's groups and other health care providers) owes back taxes, including payroll taxes, they are not supposed to be able to collect Medicare payments until those back taxes are paid. A GAO report outlines that these doctors are still collecting Medicare payment, and that Medicare has nothing in place to flag delinquent doctors. What Robert Pear writes about the GAO findings today should be disturbing to us all.

Thousands of doctors and other health professionals who participate in Medicare are delinquent in paying federal income and payroll taxes, owing more than $1.3 billion, but they continue to receive Medicare payments because the government does little to check their background, federal investigators said Monday.

“Many of these individuals accumulated substantial wealth and assets, including million-dollar houses and luxury vehicles, while failing to pay their federal taxes,” the investigators said. “One physician gambled millions of dollars at the same time the individual owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal taxes.”

[...]“Our investigation found abusive and potentially criminal activity,” including willful failure to pay taxes, Mr. Kutz said in testimony prepared for the hearing.

Some of the abuses found in the report:

¶Medicare paid more than $100,000 to a doctor in 2005 even though the doctor owed nearly $1 million in federal taxes. The doctor was also delinquent in paying child support and had lost hospital privileges because of “substandard care.”

¶Another doctor was paid nearly $100,000 by Medicare even though the doctor owed more than $600,000 in individual income taxes and had been convicted of laundering money through offshore accounts. The doctor owes tens of thousands of dollars in child support.

¶Medicare paid more than $100,000 to a doctor who owed more than $2 million in federal taxes and had an “extensive history of not filing” tax returns.

¶Medicare paid more than $1 million to a doctor-owned business in 2005, even though the business owed more than $1 million in taxes. The doctor “owns a million-dollar house, a pleasure boat and several nightclubs while owing taxes.”

Pear notes that this loophole is because Medicare has refused to cooperate with the IRS. Congress and the people should be screaming that Medicare should be cooperating, and that those that are abusing the system should not be receiving medicare payments. That lack of cooperation translates into billions of dollars in uncollected taxes. This is just one of the abuses of the Medicare system, perpetuated by a small amount of doctors, that ends up hurting the majority.

AttorneyGate: And They Say it's Not Politically Motivated

Last night there was another massive document dump, of emails detailing the conversation to dismiss USA's.

The e-mails detail conversations about attorneys targeted for dismissal. There are no e-mails from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who reportedly does not use e-mail, though the Justice Department says messages show some indication that Gonzales' former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, kept the attorney general apprised.

Among this latest document dump was an email discussing Gonzales' outrage at Paul McNutly's senate testimony earlier this year.

The Justice Department last night gave the House and Senate Judiciary committees 3,000 pages of new documents related to the firings, including one e-mail that says Gonzales was "extremely upset" by Senate testimony Feb. 6 from his deputy, Paul J. McNulty. Gonzales felt that "some of the . . . statements were inaccurate," the e-mail says.

Justice officials said Gonzales specifically disagreed with McNulty's statement that a Little Rock prosecutor was fired to make way for a GOP operative. They also said the new documents show that political motivations were not a factor in the firings.

Note that it is officials at the DOJ that are saying the firings are not politically motivated. Yet, when McNutly testified before the senate Judiciary committee, saying that at least one was politically motivated, Gonzales' busted a vein. (meaning he was pissed). If there is no truth in McNutly's words, why would Gonzales be so upset, and reportedly want this part of the story to "die"? The McNutly testimony and the ensuing spin is getting hard to keep up with.

The WaPo story also discusses Fitzgerald's ranking. Note that Fitgerald was fully involved in PlameGate, at the time of this ranking.

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald was ranked among prosecutors who had "not distinguished themselves" on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005, when he was in the midst of leading the CIA leak investigation that resulted in the perjury conviction of a vice presidential aide, administration officials said yesterday.

The ranking placed Fitzgerald below "strong U.S. Attorneys . . . who exhibited loyalty" to the administration but above "weak U.S. Attorneys who . . . chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.," according to Justice documents.

Let's go back to the chart of those USA's that were fired. 4 of the fired USA's had probed or oversaw republican corruption, as was Fitzgerald. If these firings were not politically motivated, why would Sampson give Fitgerald a "middling" ranking?

Mary Jo White, who supervised Fitzgerald when she served as the U.S. attorney in Manhattan and who has criticized the firings, said ranking him as a middling prosecutor "lacks total credibility across the board."

"He is probably the best prosecutor in the nation -- certainly one of them," said White, who worked in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "It casts total doubt on the whole process. It's kind of the icing on the cake."

I agree with Mary Jo White. This lack of credibility and doubt is why there is an investigation, and that investigation must continue.

By all appearances, the rankings, as worded coupled with some of those USA's that were fired, are politically motivated. It also appears, to me, that these firing was a concerted effort to castrate investigations into the republican Culture of Corruption that the people are so tired of.

Office of Women's Health Can Continue

A few weeks ago it was revealed that the FDA was quietly defunding the Office of Women's Health, which had the likelihood of closing down the office for the rest of the year. For some good news, yesterday it was reported that von Eschenbach returned the funding.

"It is disappointing that on the important issue of women's health, FDA had to be persuaded to simply maintain the funding level that was requested by the administration and provided by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), chairman of the House appropriations committee that funds the FDA.

At the same time, she said, "It is very gratifying that the FDA reversed course."

It wasn't only disappointing, it was discouraging that von Eschenbach would even entertain such an idea. It was even more discouraging that women had to fight to not be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to their health in this day and age.

The fight for women's health is far from over. But, at least the minimal funding will remain for this year.