No, NoHall, I didn't say anything about anything being mandatory. Whatever, ya'll. I already knew ya'll were geenyuses.
You clearly and intelligently keep proving it over and over. ;-) Maybe Gilda and lots of other women never saw this list. So 
for them and their loved ones. I still think screening would be good, worthwhile research and you haven't changed my mind. Early treatment is the best cure. 
yet again. 
All I can say is wow, did I open yet another can of worms? Sorry. You obviously both, Punz and skunk, know way more than I do about ovarian cancer research. Granted. I never claimed to be an expert in the field. It never hurts to bring some attention to an important subject now does it? It was on the Today show this mornin' as a topic on Cancer week. IMHO< it was relevant, screening for ovarian cancer. How could that possibly offend anyone?
ditto. Candidates love to feed us garbage based on popular things in the news, or on the Today Show and Good Morning America (neither of which are great "news" sources). Having focus on minor problems rather than the larger problems affecting many more people, is a distraction and nothing more than getting a foot in the door for more money and more votes. Lung cancer from smoking, as do traffic accidents from talking on cell phones, causes many more horrible deaths than ovarian cancer, yet if the candidates distract us with "feel good" stuff, maybe we won't think about it, as long as we can get our 18pack of beer or 1.5L of wine, watch a sappy movie or watch a football game on the weekends. If Punzy's valuable and much appreciated replies on this thread don't have anything to do with poliTRICKS, I'm a cat lover. Wake up and smell the beans.
So sorry if I came across as a know it all. I always think the best thing about this forum is that we can share our own viewpoints and sometimes someone has a deeper understanding of a particular issue and we can all learn something. I never post on the mortgage or environmental threads, but I read them both and have learned a lot from Shelly, Mango, and Christian. I've learned things I wouldn't have picked up on by just reading the paper and watching the news, and I think I have better, more nuanced positions on those issues for reading SoWal.
Lately, I've started to worry that marketing combined with entertainment news will be the downfall of our democracy. Let's say I'm the CEO of Acme Pathology Labs, and I want to get some research dollars. What's the best way to do that? Have my top doctors write well-reasoned applications for research grants? Or hire a medical PR firm and a lobbyist? The medical PR firm and lobbyist will give a much higher rate of return. The PR firm will come up with some alarming statistics and create ready made story for the media, and then the media presents it as it was spoon-fed to them. Next, they link it to "women's issues" and have all the candidates pledge to support it. The candidates all do, because they all assume Americans are to stupid to understand a nuanced position. Karl Rove and his ilk have taught them that the way to win elections is the same as the way to sell a box of cereal. Sadly, it seems they are right.
We'll just agree to disagree on the screening test vs. BRCA testing and improved treatments. I guess, like Shelby, I'd rather have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special. I'll stay off this thread.
And now back to Hillary....She's GREEEEAAAT!!!!
From what I hear, they cannot air the shows in which he appears, once he officially announces, which means neither he, nor his co-actors would be getting those nice royalty checks. I'm sure he waited until the last moment in his mind so that he could squeek out a bit more money. No surprise there. Newt is probably waiting until everyone else cuts their own, or each other's, throats. You know how well you remember the items in a list? The first two items stand out, along with the last item on the list. Maybe Newt will be that last item, and it will allow him to save money that these others are spending.
