commentopia

JULY 19, 2010 -- AUGUST 2, 2010

THE AGONY AND ECSTACY OF HIGH HEELS

I am a womanist. And I like sexy heels with pointy toes. And sexy boots. With buckles. And it is my right as a woman to choose my footwear, and my body shape, and if that means eating nothing but cabbage soup and mutilating my own feet and I feel like a goddess--it's all good.

That being said I usually wear my birkenstocks and eat gas station food. But sometimes I switch it up and in no way do I feel like I am pandering to some wacko matrix of man-dictate. Even though on some level intellectually, I know that I am perpetrating my own sexual incarceration.

And I think on it...and then my eye wanders over to the hot little slingback number staring back at me from the corner of my closet, purple with black ribbons to tie... Read the article NPR/Why high heels hurt even after you take them off

<>

Imagine how Barbie feels.

Seriously, I quit wearing high heels, because they bothered my feet, and I wised up to the whole thing. You can wear a sexy low heel if you feel the need to attract or dress up. Otherwise, in slacks why not wear a flat supportive shoe.

The Alexander McQueen shoes mentioned, are ugly, and why anyone would risk their health wearing them obviously they do it only for the attention. There's plenty of attention seeking people, if they break their neck wearing them, I guess that takes them out of the gene pool and we'll be so much the better for it.

Read the article NPR/Why high heels hurt even after you take them off

<>

Back at the dawn of liberation, the sisters burned the wrong garments. They should have begun with high heels.

Read the article THE ECONOMIST/Stiletto stiffness

AVANDIA ANXIETIES? LOOKING AT THE CHOICES

 

I was diagnosed in 2005 with Type ll. They gave me boxes of Avandia. Did a modicum of research and ended up throwing it all away after 3 days use. Threw away all other diabetic drugs. INSTEAD, decided to to lose weight, work up a hard sweat over 45 minutes daily, cut out carbs with the exception of veggies.

Five years later, at 54, I'm near my college weight, I'm in some of the best shape of my life, and my testing reveals a range of 80 or so to 140 depending on time of day and whether I've eaten or not.

Here's the absolute truth: Type ll's don't need diabetic drugs. It's all nonsense, and no matter how well meaning our docs are, they are part of a culture that is drug-dependent, and beholden to companies like Glaxo, who make BILLIONS a year on these dangerous drugs. When are we going to wake up and take our health back?

Read the article CNN/Concerned about Avandia? Here are other choices

<>

I am diabetic, but live in Canada, where they are more concerned with weight loss and diet control that putting you on the latest pill.

Diabetics have to realize that it's a major lifestyle change, that they can't just keep on eating the same way after their diagnosis and just take extra pills.

I've changed my diet and lost almost 40 lbs since I was diagnosed 3 months ago, and have only missed 2 days' work as a result of blood sugar issues.

A coworker was diagnosed in January, continues to eat the same old way, has gained 30 lbs, and has been out of work for seven months on disability due to "diabetes medical condition".

Read the article CNN/Concerned about Avandia? Here are other choices

<>

I really sympathize with Avandia users. It can be very hard to find the right medicine to control this disease. Some just don't work for some people, others actually make them ill. So when you find one that works really well, you stick with it. To find out that it's putting you at risk for the same things you're taking the medicine to prevent is devastating. But if you feel it's worth the risk, you should be able to keep taking it.

Also, some insurances charge differently for different medicines, so another one might work for you, but it might be far too expensive for you to afford on a regular basis.

I think it should simply be put at the bottom of any doctors recommendation list for new patients, and doctors should go over the risks with current users and then let them make their decisions.

Read the article CNN/Concerned about Avandia? Here are other choices

 

JULY 5, 2010 -- JULY 18, 2010

HOW BIG A ROLE SHOULD THE GATES FOUNDATION PLAY IN EDUCATION REFORM?

BILL GATES SPEECH

Bill Gates seems like a genuinely good person and a dedicated philanthropist. My issue with him is that his influence is completely out of proportion to what it should be.

Public schools do not exist to serve the whims of the few, the privileged and the powerful. They exist to serve the entire community. No lasting reform can take hold when it is driven by the agenda of a small group of people. Yes, systems can change to reflect the will of those in power, but these changes will not last when they are driven from needs outside of the vast majority of wider community.

One example of this can be seen in MicroSoft's now-severed relationship with the School of the Future (SOTF) in Philadelphia. I remember the board meeting when then-ceo of schools, Paul Vallas, heralded this school-corporate relationship. It sounded like a great idea at the time. However, over the past 4 years, the school has suffered due to tech issues, curriculum issues, weak achievement and administrative turnover. A year ago, MicroSoft pulled their support from the program.

This school is one of the small schools that the Gates Foundation funded and it was highly mediocre despite some very promising elements. So, why did it falter? Well for starters, the wonderful project-based, technology-based curricula was inappropriate for the student population, many of whom came to the high school several years below grade level.

This should have been understood given that SOTF was NOT a selective admit school, but largely a resource for the poor, West Philly community where it resides. Why was this basic need not anticipated? It certainly wasn't due to a lack of good intentions. In my opinion, it was due to a disconnect between then decision-makers and those whom the school was actually supposed to serve.

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Bill Gates' troubling involvement in school reform

<>

This is interesting, but Bill Gates is hardly the only person experimenting on our children.

What about the frequent changes to language and math teaching? We oscillate toward and away from phonics or whole word recognition. Look at elementary school math, which currently seems rigged to give an advantage to students with strong language skills, since every math problem is now a word problem. Slightly higher math is also being held hostage to unproven theories. Some decades we allow 8th graders to take Algebra, other decades we insist that young minds can't grasp abstract math until later in high school.

I think there are more fundamental problems with our education system than the influence of Bill Gates. While I don't entirely demonize teacher's unions, I am troubled and frustrated that we don't have systematic ways to measure teacher quality. Why should it be that these members of our society are subject to less job evaluation than any other professionals?

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Bill Gates' troubling involvement in school reform

<>

A perfect example of the "Whoring of Public Education." The selling of education is exactly what is wrong with public education. I started teaching in 1970 and have seen many new reforms come... and after millions of dollars and years of lost learning...go. Our children are not for sale neither is their education. The public education decision-makers have been too quick to jump on the latest fad.

In the years since I stood in front of my first class, I have seen open classrooms, the "creative" spelling phenomena, TQM, Kagan, Ruby Payne, high-stakes testing, inclusion, whole language, now, 21st Century Skills, and many more...they have been no more effective than the plan Gates, Duncan, and Obama are selling.

We do need to do something. But these plans should be more suspect than embraced.

America's colleges and universities have been doing business the same way for tens of decades...if they change, it is usually incremental...keeping what's good. Why does America keep messing with K-12 education...why can't we keep what works, and tweak what doesn't?

Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Gates Foundation playing pivotal role in changes for education system

 

THE FAT OF THE NATION

 

Self-control and better education about food nutrition in schools, including graphic depictions about what it can do to you - they should teach nutrition education like the scared-straight programs for drunk-driving.

Parents are not teaching their children about what to eat either. Parents need to be better educated as well as to what can be purchased at the same or better price at the SAME supermarket they use now that is healthier for them. You CAN get healthy foods at a regular food market. We need to set examples at home.

One thing the government should NOT do is try to regulate choice (okay, maybe schools). People try to blame only the giant fast-food chains. There are plenty of other small restaurant businesses that may serve fatty foods as well. These are just businesses - yes, they try to sell you things - that is what a business does.

We should always be allowed to have choice in what we eat. We just need to be smarter about managing ourselves and our children. Why give in to advertising when we can be stronger than that - are we really that weak? It is the parents giving in to their children giving in to the advertising.

Read the article ABC NEWS/Obesity nation; Why are Americans so fat?

<>

Americans eat more processed foods than any other country. By processing foods, the body doesn't have to work as hard to digest the food energy out of it. Add the socially acceptable sedentary work habits of americans and you have people who collect additional pounds of stored food energy. If americans ate more raw-harder to digest-foods and added more movement to their lives, they could lose more weight.

Read the article ABC NEWS/Obesity nation; Why are Americans so fat?

<>

Maybe because everything is too cheap. We just moved to Switzerland after living in California/Colorado my whole life. A soda at McDonalds here is $3. You can not eat out for under $25 per person. A happy meal is $10 and a regular meal at McDonalds is close to $20.

People are forced to cook at home. You can not afford to eat out here. But then there are no fat people. I'm sure that if prices were as high in the US people would not eat as much. It really makes you think "do I really want to spend $20 on a hamburger, or can I just eat something at home"

Read the article ABC NEWS/Obesity nation; Why are Americans so fat?

 

JUNE 28, 2010 -- JULY 4, 2010

COUPON CLIPPER EATS FOR LESS THAN A DOLLAR A DAY

EATING WELL ON $1 A DAY

 

My partner's mom has done this for many years, and she is no odder than anyone else. She's just a lady who worked hard, holding down two or three jobs at a time to support a family and put two kids through college. She has a big pantry in her basement and a big chest freezer. I've seen her check out with a full cart of normal, healthful groceries (she's very health conscious) and pay less than $20, sometimes less than $10.

She couldn't do this every time, and probably doesn't do it as often now that the kids have all moved out, but it's doable and normal for a lot of people, especially with stores like Kroger, which do double coupons on certain days (at least they did at the time).

Read the article BOING BOING/Coupon-clipper eats for a month on $27.08

<>

It may be cheap. It may be healthy. It may be delightfully subversive.

Still, $5 is a small price to pay for a good bacon cheeseburger once in a while.

Read the article BOING BOING/Coupon-clipper eats for a month on $27.08

CARTOON CHARACTERS MAKE IT TASTE BETTER

 

So now there are people calling "for the elimination of all marketing of food products to children"? Seriously? What happened to parents being responsible for the food they feed their children? A 7 year old does not earn money to buy food with. An 8 year old does not do the grocery shopping.

Don't want your kid eating junk food? Don't buy it for them. Don't want to argue about it in the grocery store? Then don't bring your kid grocery shopping with you. It's not rocket science.

Read the article CNN/Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food

<>

I remember growing up in the 70's, a much less heterogeneous era, and their fruit loop ads with cartoon characters, Saturday morning cartoons with ads for Twinkies and Hoho's, Lucky Charms ads.

Of course back then, parents would say no and kids would go outside and play. It always seems to be the fault of somebody else, parents and kids not taking responsibility.

When do seven- year- old kids drive down to the grocery to buy food. If the parent can't give the kid oatmeal, is that the fault of the companies. Your whole life you're bombarded with choices, if you can't deal with it as a kid, how can you deal with in adult life.

Read the article CNN/Cartoon characters attract kids to junk food