Where is the love?

He's done it again...the power of the veto used at the worst time (refer to my fight the power blog). Politicians should be judged on their voting record: I think Bush's speaks for itself- and screams hypocrisy.

The Prez is for children's healthcare--as long as we don't spend too much on it and private insurance companies reap the benefits.

Right, because this government isn't known at all to spend surperfluous amounts of money on the issues it finds important and private health insurance has proven to be affordable by all and takes cares of all...

When will this administration start taking care of it's own people?

Bush vetoes child health insurance plan

WASHINGTON - (AP Wire) President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.

It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.

Democrats unleashed a stream of harsh rhetoric, as they geared up for a battle to both improve their chances of winning a veto override and score political points against Republicans who oppose the expansion.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."

"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."

Democratic congressional leaders said they may put off the override attempt for as long as two weeks to maximize pressure on Republican House members whose votes will be critical.

"We remain committed to making SCHIP into law — with or without the president's support," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., referring to the full name of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The White House sought little attention for Bush's action, with the president casting his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage. He defended it later Wednesday during a budget speech in Lancaster, Pa., addressing a welcoming audience organized by the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry in GOP-friendly Pennsylvania Dutch country.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children."

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Eighteen Republicans joined Democrats in the Senate, enough to override Bush's veto. But in the House, supporters of the bill are about two dozen votes short of a successful override, despite sizable Republican support. A two-thirds majority in both chambers is needed.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Democrats were imploring 15 House Republicans to switch positions but had received no agreements so far.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said he was "absolutely confident" that the House would be able to sustain Bush's expected veto.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Congress should be able to reach a compromise with Bush once he vetoes the bill. "We should not allow it to be expanded to higher and higher income levels, and to adults. This is about poor children," he said. "But we can work it out."

It took Bush six years to veto his first bill, when he blocked expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells last summer. In May, he vetoed a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed another bill to ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research.

In the case of the health insurance program, the veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since January, but also many members of his own party and the public.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads Monday attacking eight GOP House members who voted against the bill and face potentially tough re-election campaigns next year.

And Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, said a coalition of liberal groups was staging more than 200 events throughout the nation on Thursday to highlight the issue. The group, which includes MoveOn.org, and several unions, also has a goal of more than 1 million contacts to Congress through calls, letters and e-mails demanding that lawmakers override Bush's veto. The coalition is spending $3 million to $5 million on the effort.

water water everywhere and not a drop to drink

Originally posted June 19,2007


Too many people I know rely on bottled water to drink- not just drink it- but rely on it. Sure I drink bottled water too- especially when I travel to certain regions of this planet- but for the most part I reuse my plastic bottles by filling them up with tap water. Why? Because it's there, it allows me to drink a lot more water/day than I would if I had to rely on bottled water, I save tons of money, and really there's nothing wrong with tap water. Perhaps it even makes me healthier because I am adapting to my local enviroment by drinking from my local source.

People complain about taste, pollution, etc. Bottled water has a taste too- but people get used to that. I remember the first time I tasted dark chocolate I did not like it because it was not as smooth and sweet as milk chocolate. But slowly and quickly my taste buds adapted and now I 100% prefer dark chocolate to milk chocolate- & dark choc is better for us than milk choc. Bottled water has taste based on the source of the water and the filter used. On top of that, bottled water sits on store shelves and the plastic slowly leeches into the water- which also gives it a taste. Soft plastic have tons of xeno-estrogens which are harmful for humans (but that is another discussion).

We are told that tap water is bad for us...but why is it so bad that we should not drink it? It is not full of bacteria, parasites, and pesticides like in some poverty stricken countries. This bottled water craze has only picked up in the last 10 years. My grandparents and parents seem fine. I was fine for the first 2 decades of my life. And actually the EPA has stronger regulation over water treatment, pollution, and contamination now than it did decades ago. Perhaps we should all be walking around with highly filtered masks because we pollute our air and I am certain that we ingest more air into our bodies per day than water. Is tap water that bad for us or are we all buying into a myth?

So much waste is created by the use of bottled water- think of the landfills full of plastic. On top of that, think of the gas and oil that is needed to 1) produce the plastic bottles 2)ship the bottles from maine, fiji, or wherever the pure natural spring source is to your local grocery store. Aren't we at war right now based on oil? Do we need to encourage our dependance on oil by refusing to drink the highly filtered highly regulated water than comes out of our local well sources just because we don't like the taste?

So many people in this world are suffering from lack of resources- some people don't have a source or access to drinkable water. Perhaps we should be grateful that we do, take full advantage of it, and save the bottled water for times of necessity rather than being greedy and using up the world's resources for ourselves. Let's stop pouring the resources down the drain.

Check out this article from the Union of Concerned Scientists that reminded me of my beliefs...Ok, I need to go dig out my nalgene bottle and put it into use again.

Is Bottled Water Better?
June 2007

Bottled water manufacturers' marketing campaigns capitalize on isolated instances of contaminated public drinking water supplies by encouraging the perception that their products are purer and safer than tap water. But the reality is that tap water is actually held to more stringent quality standards than bottled water, and some brands of bottled water are just tap water in disguise. What's more, our increasing consumption of bottled water—more than 22 gallons per U.S. citizen in 2004 according to the Earth Policy Institute—fuels an unsustainable industry that takes a heavy toll on the environment.

Environmental Impact

Fossil fuel consumption. Approximately 1.5 million gallons of oil—enough to run 100,000 cars for a whole year—are used to make plastic water bottles, while transporting these bottles burns thousands more gallons of oil. In addition, the burning of oil and other fossil fuels (which are also used to generate the energy that powers the manufacturing process) emits global warming pollution into the atmosphere.

Water consumption. The growth in bottled water production has increased water extraction in areas near bottling plants, leading to water shortages that affect nearby consumers and farmers. In addition to the millions of gallons of water used in the plastic-making process, two gallons of water are wasted in the purification process for every gallon that goes into the bottles.

Waste. Only about 10 percent of water bottles are recycled, leaving the rest in landfills where it takes thousands of years for the plastic to decompose.

The Simple (and Cheaper) Solution

The next time you feel thirsty, forgo the bottle and turn to the tap. You'll not only lower your environmental impact but also save money—bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water. And because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standards for tap water are more stringent than the Food and Drug Administration's standards for bottled water, you'll be drinking water that is just as safe as, or safer than, bottled.

If, however, you don't like the taste of your tap water or are unsure of its quality, you can buy a filter pitcher or install an inexpensive faucet filter to remove trace chemicals and bacteria. If you will be away from home, fill a reusable bottle from your tap and refill it along the way; travel bottles with built-in filters are also available. Finally, limit your bottled water purchases for those times when you're traveling in countries where water quality is questionable.
www.earth-policy.org/Updates...te51.htm

Quizás, Quizás, Quizás

Originally Posted June 12, 2007

In the mood for love?

Just when I think I am not, there is too much going on my life, the universe reminds me that it has other plans in mind.

But perhaps I have just thought about this the wrong way. This is not about something entering my life. Allowing the universe to both quietly and forcefully bring a powerful emotion into my life only reminds me of one thing- how much I love myself, who I am, where I've been, and how I've grown. Loving myself has allowed me to shine and has brought good things to me. Perhaps the message is a lesson and a reminder of how happy I am right now and to continue down this path I have freshly carved out.


Am I in the mood for love? It may not be love, not yet at least, but sure feels like it is and it's so much more than I ever envisioned for myself at this point in my life. I'll let the universe and my heart lead me...

Quizás, Quizás, Quizás

"Follow your heart, but be quiet for a while first. Ask questions, then feel the answer. Learn to trust your heart."

May Day

may day may day help is on the way

originally posted May 4th, 2007

One year ago today I handed in my letter of resignation. What may seem like a series of tragedies that followed that day turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to me. One year ago today my life began to take a turn for the better. Life is what you create of it. I am now the strong successful independant woman I set out to be. It all started on that Day in May one year ago.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."

-Andy Warhol

We gotta fight the powers that be

originally posted May 3, 2007

i'm really sorry for the political post, ignore it if you must, but i couldn't let this one go- the presidential power of the veto.

only used 2 times in the current administration, the lowest of any president in our lifetime- but used against 2 topics that could really change this nation- bush used the power of the veto to prevent stem cell research and to prevent troop withdrawal and controlled spending.

debatable topics yes- but why the veto? once a bill passes the house and the senate, the president can return the bill to congress within 10 days with objections- but he chose to veto both bills. end of discussion. at this point the house and senate must have a 2/3 majority in order to overcome the presedential veto- which is next to impossible right now due to the near even split of dems/repubs in the house and senate. bush never had to use his veto before when his party was in complete control (hence the low veto record). in past administrations it was possible to overcome a veto due to the dem/repub distribution. sure dicussions over troop withdrawal and funding are currently ongoing, but in the current environment this will be a game of who will back down first.

i know what you are thinking- so what? this is an important topic for me for numerous reasons, but the most selfish being that my life's work relies on government grants. there is a rapid decline in academic sciences in the US as the republicans wage their war against science- hundreds of billions of dollars are being cut from the national institutes of health which must close it's doors to important research sectors due to lack of funding. just this past year they closed their doors to lens research in the national eye institute- which means that there will never be an understanding or cure for cataracts and other lens related disorders. you may not care right now, but 1 in 50 people develop cataracts and it is a major complication in asthmatics, diabetes, and many drugs used to treat other disorders- one day when you're blind you'll remember this post.

why do i stay in government funded academic science? because it is creative, thought provoking and artistic in every way. The US is loosing its good creative scientists to the pharmaceutical industry (or they leave science all together and go into banking or law or whatnot) daily as government spending on the military increases and science decreases. there's nothing wrong with working for a pharma but the true understanding of disease and disease prevention comes from academia- the creative drive behind new discoveries does not occur in the private pharma sector, it occurs in the public academic sector. as we continue to loose good creative scientists to industry & other fields (because they need to pay the bills and feed a family), we will end up loosing scientists all together and those that exist will work in money driven (not disease driven) industries developing more drugs with more complications and lawsuits in the future without the understanding needed to develop the drug properly & prevent side effects and complications. it's the difference between understanding the compound versus the system (how can you fix an unknown problem with your car if you only know how to change the oil- sure it takes time and money to learn about the whole car and how it works and fix the problem and it seems much simpler to just buy a new car and start again, but what if that car breaks too? obviously there is something wrong with the design and only true understanding of the whole design will allow you to fix and prevent future problems- silly analogy, i know) the best teams are when pharma and academics work together.

Ok, so back to the point. Bush has been able to wield his power and get his way numerous times. In this game of chicken, who will back down first during negotiations? I am worried that bush will win and congress will back down and give him lots of money to spend on the military because they don't want to be seen as un-patriotic for not supporting the military and being the cause of military deaths because money wasn't there to support the troops. Funny enough the real patriotic thing to do would be to bring them back home to their country and families (which bush won't do) and to give them proper healthcare and benefits (which bush cut). If congress backs down first, bush will be able to spend more on this war and cut $$ from science and education.

Please please reach out to your congressman and support them- with words of encouragement- telling them to not back down and do what is right. don't let bush just use his veto to end the fight.

Ok I'm done ranting and rambling. For now.








Our freedom of speech is freedom or death

We got to fight the powers that be

Lemme hear you say

Fight the power

So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye

from the ash of the fiery bowels of a volcano, a new beautiful life emerges

originally posted January 1, 2007

I am happy to say goodbye to 2006. A new life awaits in 2007 and it all starts today. It's not about resolutions- it's about leaving the past behind and starting over again. If 2006 was good to you, you're lucky- but make 2007 even better. In Dec I already felt the changes- this is the year I will find the greatness that is me. Welcome 2007.

For last year's words belong to last year's language and next year's words await another voice. -T.S. Eliot

FDA Oks food fom cloned animals

beware the crabbage

originally posted Dec 28, 2006

Why don't more people have a problem with this?

Being a scientist I am all for scientific advancement, but only when the research is done ethically and rigorously. I am not against cloning. I am against the fact that food from a cloned animal will not be labelled. As a result, the FDA does not allow the consumer to make a choice. The FDA doesn't want consumers to make a choice because it means that the public would then ask questions and would be educated enough to choose against cloned food products.

Why could it be unsafe to eat cloned foods? No one really knows- only time will tell. But that's the point. These studies th FDA has done are only a litle over 5 years long. 5 years is not enough time to understand the consequences of introducing new factors into the enviroment. Not only does the cloned food need to examined over longer periods of time, but it needs to be investigated in different age groups.Think about a child and how quickly they grow- their diet affects how they grow much more than it does to an adult. But also as an adult, a 20 year old is completely different from a 40 year old which is vastly different from an 80 year old person- different metabolisms, health problems, etc need to be considered with the differing age groups.

The FDA states that there is no difference in the food from clones and food from other animals. But at the same time the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies. This clearly states that we don't understand the process of cloning completely. It is not as simple as replacing the DNA of the donor egg with the DNA of choice- something must be happening that scientists don't understand to result in death and deformity in cloned animals.

Farmers want to replicate animals because they can make copies of exceptional animals, like pigs that fatten rapidly or cows that are superior milk producers.The FDA states that it's not a genetically engineered animal because no genes have been changed or moved or deleted. But cloning doesn't guarantee an exact replicate of the original animal- it only promises and exact replicate of the genetic code. It dosen't take into account enviromental factors (the physical naure around it, the diet, the way the organism is brought up, etc)- there are many many factors that will contribute to the expression of that genetic code. It is the same reason identical twins can have completly different health problems, personalities, strenghs and weaknesses, etc. So this means that just because the original cow they decided to genetically copy is healthy, it does not promise that the replicate will be healthy. Then what happens when you end up with herds of cows that have been replicated? Now they are more susceptible to disease because they are genetically identical. The risks go on and on and suggests more studies need to be done.

So what am I trying to say with all this? Science has not figured out all the answers. Science has helped us have more food available, but it has also lowered the quality and nutrition in our food. Nature is unpredictable and we can not predict the outcomes with short term studies. Ask questions about your food- where it came from, how it was grown, and think about how you feel when you eat it. Demand foods be labelled- you should have a choice. If you want to eat cloned foods, that is fine, but if you want to stay away fom this, eat organically as much as you can- especially when it comes to dairy products and meats. Take control of your own life by knowing what you put into your body- don't let the FDA make that choice for you.

Those are reruns you're seeing.

to those that care (or don't):

i apologize. yes those are reruns you are seeing. i posted these 6 blog entries over the past 9 months on another site. i don't write often and when i do, it's from a source of inspiration fueled by some emotion (frustration, love, growth, sadness) so these blog entries have a special meaning to me. i don't want to forget about them because they were posted elsewhere. so until i write a new blog, here are some older ones formally posted on another, sometimes parallel network. maybe a new writing venue will inspire me?