Call It A Comeback
I say I’m 6?4?, and thin as a rail. But this version is disputed by Republicans and even some Democrats, who say I’m 5?7? and could stand to lose a few pounds.
Up next. Obama says he was good at basketball, but former high school friend says he took him at Horse once. Can we trust such a fibber?
Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. “There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.” Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”
I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.
As Dan Conley said some time ago, the Clinton campaign is easily the oldest and most corporate campaign since Mondale.
And that’s not a good thing.
Or perhaps the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board for continuing to print this garbage.
There’s just one problem. According to an analysis in one of the most credible peer-reviewed journals in the country, the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the risk is real. The study employed an often-used medical research technique called “meta-analysis” that allows researchers to combine data from other studies on the risk to get a larger picture. The result: Premenopausal women who used oral contraceptives prior to having their first child have a 44 percent higher chance of getting cancer than women who didn’t use the pill. If they used the pill for more than four years prior to their first full-term pregnancy, the risk increased 52 percent. Chris Kahlenborn, an internist at the Altoona (Pa.) Hospital and the study’s lead author, suggests one additional woman in 200 could get breast cancer. Extrapolated throughout the population, that could mean thousands more cases every year. I’d say that’s an important story.
I’m assuming Byrne didn’t understand the researcher because in the same issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings the editorial addressed the issue and it had something different to say:
Second, although OCs appear to be carcinogenic,7 the relative risk is small, and the absolute risk (excess breast cancers due to OC exposure) is very small. For example, the Oxford pooled analysis estimates that the excess number of cases of breast cancer expected to be diagnosed up to 10 years after discontinuation of OC use among 10,000 European or North American women is 0.5 cases for OC use from age 16 to 19 years, 1.5 cases for OC use from age 20 to 24 years, and 4.7 cases for OC use from 25 to 29 years. These cases are also likely to be clinically localized. Third, although a formal risk-benefit analysis is beyond the scope of this editorial, all risks and benefits of OC use must be considered, not just the risk of breast cancer. Other cancer risks may include cervical cancer and liver cancer in populations at low risk for hepatitis B viral infection. Additionally, IARC has determined that there is convincing evidence that OCs decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer, and there is accumulating evidence that they may lower the risk of colorectal cancer.7 Other major noncancer risks of OC use include ischemic stroke, venous thromboembolism, and myocardial infarction, but because these are rare events in women of childbearing age, the attributable risks are very small.8,16 Finally, there is a growing number of noncontraceptive health benefits associated with OCs, including relief from menstrual disorders; reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, benign breast disease, uterine leiomyomas, and ovarian cysts; and improved bone mineral density
The essential problem is that a Meta-Analysis is only as good as the controls in the various case control studies. If the case control studies don’t match control and cases to relevant risk factors, then the outcomes are troublesome to say the least.
In this case, the relevant matching of cases determining the inclusion of the study only included age and general demographic information, while the studies vary upon health and behavioral risk factors such as smoking, general health, and even genetics.
IOW, correlation is not causation and while there is an interesting correlation, for meta-analysis to be useful in such a broad range of studies, the controls need to be similar.
The point is well made in a follow-up letter to the Mayo Clinic Proceedings. \
Confounding factors are a major issue in the interpretation of all case-control studies. For example, I previously noted that confounding is to be expected in case-control studies of the associations between conditions that are truly caused by high or low levels of steroid hormones and some forms of risky behavior (treated as risk factors).2 In the case of premenopausal breast cancer, the disease is thought to be partially caused by high levels of estrogenic (and perhaps androgenic) hormones. Moreover, the behavioral trait of sensation seeking is associated with high levels of both estrogenic and androgenic hormones.3 In contrast to age-matched controls, a higher proportion of young female sensation seekers would be expected to choose to engage in voluntary “risky” behavior, eg, smoking, OC use, and abortion. Thus, the association of OCs with breast cancer may simply be a reflection of the independent association of both these factors with high levels of estrogens and/or androgens. The point could be tested by assaying the hormones of control subjects and of young women at the time they first choose to use OCs. I hypothesize that, at the time of OC initiation, users have higher hormone levels than controls.
Byrne wants there to be a national scare over a finding that is interesting, but not definitive. That’s not science.
And it brings into question why the Tribune is promoting this clown and whatever junk science idea he has for the column. The Trib has very able science reporters who do a decent job sorting out evidence and reasonable interpretations of data. Why they choose to allow a completely ignorant fool to scare people from a fairly valuable piece of editorial real estate is the real mystery.
I’d hate to see the oppo on that.
Just make it stop:
John Laesch, of Yorkville, said he supports the carbon-free and nuclear-free plan put forth by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research at www.ieer.org. He said that while he is in agreement with Foster on several points, he disagrees that money should go to more research. Laesch believes the technology for environmentally conscious energy is already available.
Instead, he said, consumers should be given incentives to buy electric and hybrid cars, solar panels and wind turbines, or to hook up to public power grids. And Laesch said the government could easily afford such subsidies by reordering some priorities.
The ‘plan’ he links to is absurd.
1. This bans corn based ethanol. A position I agree with, but I’m not running in the 14th District.
2. This would require the retrofitting of all houses with gas heating and cooking.
Let me make this very simple. While we need to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, we do not need no CO2 emissions. In fact, any reasonable energy plan will incorporate cleaner fuels like natural gas, especially since it is an accessible source for fuel cell hydrogen.
3 and Oh My God is John Laesch a fucking moron:
Adopt vigorous research, development, and pilot plant construction programs for technologies that could accelerate the elimination of CO, such as direct solar
hydrogen production (photosynthetic, photoelectrochemical, and other approaches), hot rock geothermal power, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO
The plan John likes so much includes more money for research because the technology is not developed.
Zahm screws up the petition challenge in Illinois 14.
Local conservative political operative Jon Zahm, a volunteer on state Sen. Chris Lauzen’s campaign, was one of the two objectors to claim that many of the signatures on Dilger’s petition are invalid, putting him below the minimum amount needed to run for the office.
In a three-page report issued Thursday, Illinois State Board of Elections hearing officer Kelly McCloskey Cherf recommended that the full board reject that objection on a technicality. Cherf stated that the objectors should have identified the specific objection for each signature in an attachment to their objection petition.
In reality, Dan Lipinski’s voting record has been mainstream Democratic, and certainly not the Bush shill he is portrayed falsely to be by the Floggers.
Lipinski is 100 percent with the AFL-CIO, Children’s Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Coalition, and Alliance for Retired Senior America. He’s 92 percent with the League of Conservation Voters (maybe the Floggers can’t read either and think that’s “Conservative” Voters).
The National Journal analyzed all the voting records and concluded that Lipinski is “more liberal” than 71 percent of other members of Congress, and that puts him in the mainstream of America.
Uh…no. It puts him in the mainstream of an incredibly conservative run Congress. The votes are from the 208th Congress, not the 209th Congress.
It gets better though if you look at the disaggregated ratings which National Journal divides into three categories: Economic, Social, and Foreign Policy.
Going to the generic numbers, one thing to note. Of the 43 below him in overall scores, 21 are Southerners, 9 are from Border states meaning outside of the South, he’s one of the most conservative Democratic Members of Congress. Only four of the 13 are in urban centers, though 2 of those are from Fresno and Bean is the other one.
He’s also in the most Democratic seat percentage wise compared to the rest of those below him.
In other words, not only is he a conservative Democrat, he’s the most conservative one in a heavily Democratic district. It’s one thing to be conservative in Utah or Mississippi, it’s another to be that conservative in Chicago. Why would a Member of Congress from Chicago vote like one in Mississippi?
Going to the breakdowns, he is the most socially conservative Democrat in Illinois. Costello and Bean are both more progressive.
Foreign Policy? Only Bean is more conservative amongst Democrats. She’s in a Republican +6 District, he’s in a Democratic +10 District.
What raises his overall score to what it is are the economic issues. Otherwise his record is conservative and quite mediocre. Even on economics he’s the 4 most conservative with Bean, Rush, and Costello below him.
It’s more than that though–it’s not just his overall voting record, but his voting record on key issues. Taking these rating, his record is more troubling. On Patriot Act amendments to restrict records seizures–Lipinski voted with Republicans. He voted against extending non-discrimination rights against Telecoms. He voted to bar the federal government from enforcing a court ruling regarding prayer in Indiana government. He didn’t just disagree, he voted to stop the spending of money to enforce the law. He couldn’t even take a position on a Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriage. He voted to remove the authority of federal courts over Pledge of Allegiance cases. So, again, it’s not the point of arguing over whether the Pledge is constitutional, it’s about whether the Courts can hear a case concerning the 1st Amendment. He voted to prohibit the awarding of attorneys’ fees in lawsuits against government officials involving the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion. So the government could violate your rights, but it wouldn’t have to pay for attorney’s fees when it loses.
Add to this his hostility to Reproductive Freedom, Stem Cells, and a horrible anti-gay record, he’s an embarrassment. Oh, and he voted for FISA including warrantless wiretaps on Americans.
It gets worse–on a vote to prohibit funds for military operations against Iran unless Congress has declared war, he voted against it. He wants to give George Bush more blank checks.
On two critical bills dealing with our international arms reduction treaties, he voted with Bush–in one case he voted to approve a deal with India on nuclear energy despite India’s violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is itself a violation of the NPT. And he has voted to fund the deployment of the space based anti-missile system which violates the ABM treaty. Of course, that system doesn’t even work so it’s hard to figure what he was voting for deploying other than a neat idea.
Lipinski votes like a Congressman from the south–not a Member of Congress from a solid Democratic district in the Midwest. Oh, and his entire apparatus is corrupt.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/173B1vzoub4" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
But let’s point out something about Pera’s run for State House in 1996 and being included in his literature. So was his opponent:
Sun Times, October 21, 1996
State Rep. Eileen Lyons (R-Western Springs), who ousted Democratic incumbent David B. McAfee by 1,560 votes in 1994, is part of the movement that has transformed suburban politics. Her victory helped Republicans win control of the Illinois House for the first time since 1980.
Lyons, 55, a mother of four daughters who became a leader in school and civic activities in Western Springs, was urged to run by people who wanted more women in public office. “People kept telling me that we needed more women in government,” she said.
In Springfield, Lyons has been active in women’s health issues. She sponsored legislation that requires insurance and HMO coverage for at least 48 hours of inpatient care for mothers following a standard delivery of a newborn and 96 hours following a Caesarean section. When another legislative candidate proposed a similar idea at a recent forum, Lyons noted that Gov. Edgar recently had signed her legislation into law.
She co-sponsored tax caps for Cook County, legislation for Chicago school reform, and welfare reform.
Lyons also has taken a leadership role on environmental issues. When a group of constituents asked her to help block the construction of incinerators in the western suburbs, she responded. “I felt as though it was my obligation to help this community to halt this threat,” she said.
She was among the sponsors of legislation that repealed the Retail Rate Law that gave incinerator operators a no-interest, 20-year subsidy. Rep. William O. Lipinski (D-Ill.), who credited Lyons with helping block the proposed incinerators, has displayed her photograph in his campaign literature.
Lyons also worked with Lipinski to oppose the expansion of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District’s sewage reservoir in the McCook quarry.
Despite her accomplishments, Lyons is locked in a very tight race for re-election with Democrat Mark Pera, a lawyer and former member of the Western Springs Utilities Commission. Both candidates favor changing the way public education is funded and oppose a new regional airport at Peoton
Clearly Barack Obama is a flip-flopper.
Sometimes, when you are doing the press releases for major candidates, you need to stop and think, just how much inside baseball is too much.
Howard Wolfson needs a vacation. And a life.
ArchPundit