anonemouse

That's definitely true. But some are more biased than others.

I plan to attend both the support group and aftercare meetings regularly after getting banded, just so that I can be there for people who are wanting to get the band. I don't want them to think that what the RNY people say is reality.

The Heritage Foundation is very real, but it is also very, very biased. Jodie, most of the ROTC students are going to be upper-middle class, but ROTC students are a small fraction of people entering the military. One, most people entering the military are enlisting. ROTC students are training to be officers, not enlisted personnel. What BJean was saying was that not all articles are created equal. You need to look at the intent behind the article, the organization that printed the article, and person that wrote the article. I just glanced at your article, and one thing I noticed is that it doesn't talk about the military personnel themselves. It talks about "areas," as if a poor person can't live in a rich "area." Believe me, most rich kids would not enlist in the military. They would do what they do at your university and join the ROTC, or they would try to get into the military universities.

What would you have me say instead? What I said was correct, even if you didn't like the words I used or their connotation. If you support the war in Iraq, you ARE pro-war, even if you are just "pro-war-in-Iraq". If you are against the war in Iraq, you ARE anti-war, even if you are just "anti-war-in-Iraq". Again, what I meant by pro-war and anti-war was for the war in Iraq, not all wars in general. Believe me, I am not a pacifist, but I do consider myself anti-war when it comes to Iraq.

Tell them to give you a copy of your records. Legally, they can't refuse. I would seriously consider going to another psychologist, especially if this one won't tell you what standards you are expected to meet.

In my post, pro-war/anti-war was in reference to the war in Iraq, not war in general.

I think one of the major differences between those of us who are pro-war and those of us that are anti-war is our standard of evidence. As in, those of us who are anti-war actually have a standard of evidence. Those who are pro-war like to use buzz words that work people up emotionally. "We're protecting FREEDOM!" "There's a WAR being waged on DEMOCRACY!" "They'll attack US if we don't attack them FIRST!" They work to establish fear and paranoia in the WASPs. They hate having Vietnam brought up because there are obvious parallels between that war and this one. If people talk about Vietnam and the lessons we should have learned there, they have no defense. "But, but, that was the PAST! We're talking about the PRESENT!" Buzz words are just that, only words. If you can't back it up with actual evidence, they have no meaning and no use except to rile up emotions and paranoia. In contrast, most of us who are anti-war work with logic and actual evidence. THAT is why we (possibly) seem to have a little bit of a condescending attitude when it is directed at the pro-war folks. We can see the holes in your logic, and they are gaping. We know that the U.S. isn't always the good guy. If you have any doubt about that, look at the past. We put Saddam in power. We trained Osama. We have supported numerous dictators because they were friendly to OUR interests. Do you honestly think we didn't know that Saddam was killing his countrymen or that Osama was a nutjob? Get real. The United States isn't all sunshine and kittens. We don't give a damn about genocide or "terrorism" unless it threatens our interests or makes us look bad.

You know, I have noticed that about a lot of RNY patients. Not necessarily when you see them in person, but in pictures.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I think you and I agree with at least one thing, that conditions shouldn't be set on giving help. People shouldn't force others to sacrifice a huge part of themselves (their personal beliefs) in order to eat or sleep in a safe place. I applaud people that are truly helping others just to know they helped another human being. Where I draw the line is when they have conditions on that assistance that force people to sacrifice their own religious or personal beliefs in order to receive that help.

I would accept their help only if they didn't put any requirements on their help. If they said I would have to go to services or pray or thank God for the help I was getting, then no. And on the AA issue, some courts have made rulings that say a prisoner or parolee can't be forced to attend their meeting, because (and this is what the judge said) they were obviously religious.

Well, I am both a student and a teacher. I am getting a Master's degree in biology and I teach non-majors' biology labs and assist in a couple of education-majors' biology classes. I love being a student, which is probably why I am leaning towards getting a PhD. I like teaching, but I would prefer to be teaching something that is more interesting than general biology. Give me ornithology, herpetology, evolution, conservation biology any day over general introductory biology. I am trying to learn to be more assertive and stern in my classes. I am not a very confrontational person, so I tend to be less assertive than I should be. I get a little better every semester, though, just from the mistakes I have made in previous ones. For example, I will be shutting the lab door when my lab starts this semester. It is one that is locked on the outside, but you can still open it from the inside. I had way too many people coming in late last semester, some as late as 45 minutes into the lab. Not this semester. The class starts, the doors close, and if they are late: too damn bad. They should have gotten out of bed sooner (I teach 8 AM labs). One thing I have found that might be worse than being a fat teacher is being a teacher that is close in age to your students. A lot of mine try to be friends instead of seeing me as the person in charge. Another thing I have to work on, I know.

I am talking about away from an educational environment, though, although I guess you could still say if depends on the situation. Take a factory for example: If you worked on a line there and couldn't keep up, they wouldn't keep you around for very long. You would probably be fired. Smaller companies might be more lenient, but I think that as a whole, once you get a job you can't tell your boss that you are going to be working on your schedule instead of his. They will expect you to meet their deadlines and keep up with the other employees.

I read about one lawsuit where a paroled drug or alcohol offender had his parole revoked because he did not complete the terms of the required substance abuse program he was in. Apparently, he was Catholic and the center was Protestant-based. He was told that his religion was witchcraft and that he should convert. When he refused to convert, they said he did not finish the program.

That's the thing. They can legally discriminate and STILL get federal and state funding just because they are faith-based organizations, which shouldn't happen, IMO. To me, they should make the decision (or the government should make it for them) to either follow their doctrine and discriminate OR accept goverment funding, not both. I have no problem with fully private organizations discriminating (I don't like it, but it's legal), but it is entirely different when they are accepting federal or state funding.

I am as liberal as someone can be, but I think education is definitely where we have gone too far with political correctness. It has gotten to where we are holding people back for the fear of holding people back. I think that by high school, the students should be divided up into groups of similar learning strategies and intelligences and then asked to excel within that group. In other words, people with vastly different learning strategies and IQs shouldn't be asked to reach the same educational goals. In the current system, you get people that honestly aren't that smart in the same classes with people that are far ahead of them and then the curricula is tailored to the less-intelligent.

The Salvation Army is notorious for their discriminatory hairing practices against other religions and gays. States are currently losing the battle when it comes to a lot of the faith-based substance abuse programs. In many cases, states have lost law suits because they were requiring prisoners to attend these non-secular programs as a condition of their parole. That is my problem with them. Prisoners should not be required to attend religious services.

Wild, I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is straight-up bull. If it were actually true, we would all be in perfect health and there would be people out there getting rich by peddling it as a solution. Now, if you can provide some actual scientific research that supports your idea, I would be interested. Instead, all you have done is yell and insult us.

I just called the insurance company and they said that they hadn't gotten any of my paperwork! This sucks! Everything goes smoothly until you get a deadline, and that is when everything starts to stall.

Maybe you can see if any gyms in your area offer family deals. You could possibly do it as a family,

How quickly were you approved by your insurance? My paperwork was sent to insurance today and my contact at the surgeon's office said to start calling the insurance company around the middle of next week. Could I be approved that quickly?

Exactly, and I think it is like that in most of the real world. You don't get to say, "Wait, I'm just slower than everyone else!" You either keep up or you don't.

Here are some: abstinence-only sex ed faith-based prisons funding for church construction religion-based substance abuse treatment programs government funding of Salvation Army and Boy Scouts, among other discriminatory organizations In short, I believe that any initiative or organization that is faith-based, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. has no business receiving funds from the government.

It is supposed to be until you reach goal. Which for most bandsters, seems to be a couple of years. I know I won't be able to do that. I am not getting banded so that I will dieting the rest of my life.

I agree to a point with this. As an atheist and a firm believer in civil rights, I would certainly prefer that my taxes aren't given to some faith-based initiatives. But they are. It's part of being a tax-paying citizen. We don't necessarily get to choose where our tax dollars go.

Don't nominate yourself for comeback queen. That had all the effect of, "Yeah well, your mom's FAT!" *snort*