Ugh
Got a craving for a hamburger today. Stopped at a local Mom and Pop place. Got their California Burger. Swiss, Avacado, bacon and all the rest of the fixings.
Hottest day of the year so far. Only have AC in my bedroom.
I'm now stuffed and miserable so I'm heading to the bedroom. Not sure if I can keep my eyes open anyway.
That was my 1st burger in Months.
Hottest day of the year so far. Only have AC in my bedroom.
I'm now stuffed and miserable so I'm heading to the bedroom. Not sure if I can keep my eyes open anyway.
That was my 1st burger in Months.
0
-
I have a knot under my right shoulder blade and I can't work it loose. It's actually making my arm tingle and go a bit numb. Why are all of my nerves so screwed up? 0 -
From the Vermont Cynic, the local university rag
quote:In coming weeks, the Student Government Association will debate and vote on legislation that would forbit the American Red Cross from hosting blood drives on-campus.
The resolution is a reaction to a long-time Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy that prohibits men who have had sex with other men at any time since 1977 from donating blood.
According to ARC-Burlington spokesperson Chris Frenette, ARC is required to abide by the FDA rule. ARC released a statement last year urging the FDA to modify the deferral policy, calling it "unwarranted".
A document on the FDA's website said that sexually active gay men are at an increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
The SGA resolution, written by sophomore senator John Colin Quinn, states that the ARC deferral policy is a direct violation of University policy, and that "SGA does not support discrimination based on sexual orientation."
"The policy is outdated because of new technology, because of its wording, it is outdated in so many ways." Quinn said.
In preparation for a vote tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, SGA will host a panel including ARC representatives, UVM administrators, HIV specialists and community members, Quinn said.
Quinn also released a petition Friday in hopes of gathering 1,600 signatures from UVM students that support the legislation.
Will link to the rest of the article when they update their website with it. Man, there's pushing your political beliefs and then there's just finding an excuse to be a humongous tool. Banning the Red Cross because they're legally compelled to not let everyone donate blood?
Parents, recent high school grads, learn from my mistake. Keep the hell away from New England colleges.0 -
Trying to do my CDC's. Not working so well, fallen asleep twice so far. 0 -
I feel halfway sick. [B)][xx(][xx(] 0 -
Granddaughters post.0 -
are there any steel 30mm high rings for a picatinny rail that doesnt cost insane amounts of money? 0 -
Oh yea thats right.........women don't get HIV, or straight men for that matter. 0 -
Hell, I don't think anyone who's not stuck in the 50s is going to defend the policy. It's stupid and vicious and only still around because the FDA bureaucracy only moves quickly for massive quantities of money.
But still.
IT'S THE dirty RED CROSS.
COLLECTING BLOOD. TO SAVE LIVES.
FOLLOWING THE LAW SO THEY CAN STAY IN BUSINESS.
It's nice when people stand up and point out discriminatory, oatmeal laws, but until the Red Cross gets definitively tied to eating babies or putting gays in camps banning them from taking blood drives is just batpoop evil of the first degree.0 -
I'd rather see all donated blood tested as a policy, rather then bicker over what socio-economic group is eligible to donate, and what group is not.
Just test the donated blood before it is released to the hospitals. Cull-out the contaminated units. What's the big deal?
....or am I missing something here? Joe0 -
Well, according to the Center for Disease Control, male homosexuals have the highest risk of HIV. over 450,000 cases (since they began recording) opposed to hetero non-drug users, with about 164,000. Now compare the density of homosexuals to hetero, and the risk is much greater for homosexual males.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
You may note that the Red Cross does not allow crack addicts to donate either. There are 241,000 documented cases of injected drug users with HIV/AIDS.0 -
Oh yeah, I haven't been able to donate blood for a few years now either. service in the far east and southwest asia have kept me out of the Red Cross tent. Does that mean we should kick the red cross off our military bases? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by cce1302
Well, according to the Center for Disease Control, male homosexuals have the highest risk of HIV. over 450,000 cases (since they began recording) opposed to hetero non-drug users, with about 164,000. Now compare the density of homosexuals to hetero, and the risk is much greater for homosexual males.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm
You may note that the Red Cross does not allow crack addicts to donate either. There are 241,000 documented cases of injected drug users with HIV/AIDS.
A common sense world is the only place that facts matter. We now must put our blood supply at greater risk so as not to offend homosexuals. If your stats are correct, male homosexuals and IV drug users are 30 - 40 times more likely to have HIV/AIDS than the straight, non-drug using population.
Thus, eliminating this 10% of the donor pool eliminates over 80% of the risk of HIV/AIDS, isn't it just ignorant not take that step?. 100% testing (which is done now) is not 100% effective. Eliminating 80% of the problem makes any testing 5 times as effective, which improves the quality of our blood supply.0 -
Is there a data-base of those undesireable [medically] to donate blood? Is a drivers' licence required? SSN? Anything?? How does Red Cross screen donors?
You, sir, the one in the blue shirt, are a homosexual. I can see it written all over your face. Because of that we will not accept you donating blood.
....and you, sir. Yes, you. You look like a drug user to me. Because of that we will not accept you donating blood.
No better way to eliminate disease in donated blood than to test it. (Relying on the integrity of the donor to fill out the questionaire honestly doesn't cut it if the blood is going into my body.)
Hell, a blood donor may not even know he/she is a carrier for HepB/HIV, etc.0 -
They screen for HIV and Hep B. Always have, far as I know. Beyond that, yeah, unless you have trackmarks all up and down your arm and are physically incapable of not screaming out I HAVE SEX WITH MEN for fifteen minutes they have no way of knowing and don't care. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by givette
Is there a data-base of those undesireable [medically] to donate blood? Is a drivers' licence required? SSN? Anything?? How does Red Cross screen donors?
You, sir, the one in the blue shirt, are a homosexual. I can see it written all over your face. Because of that we will not accept you donating blood.
....and you, sir. Yes, you. You look like a drug user to me. Because of that we will not accept you donating blood.
No better way to eliminate disease in donated blood than to test it. (Relying on the integrity of the donor to fill out the questionaire honestly doesn't cut it if the blood is going into my body.)
Hell, a blood donor may not even know he/she is a carrier for HepB/HIV, etc.
They ask you to fill out a form with a few questions on it, and hope you have enough integrity to answer the questions truthfully, or simply leave without filling out the form.
My wife had surgery at Duke University Hospital a couple of weeks ago. Before the surgery they explained that their blood supply had been tested, but there was still a risk with blood transfusions. She had to sign a form accepting the risk for them to be able to give her blood if needed during the surgery.
There are several categories of people who can not donate blood. Not just homosexuals. Anything they can do to reduce the risk of a blood transfusion is acceptable to me, even if it hurts somebody's self-esteem.0 -
It's interesting to note that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of heterosexuals, and others, who needed life-saving blood transfusions were infected with HIV while the gay lobby fought against this rule, sued and lost.
I wonder how many children were infected, used as propaganda, (ahem...Ryan White), who would still be alive were they not infected with THE GAY/JUNKIE DISEASE (and that's what it is, keep your lying propaganda in your mouth where it belongs) by those suing to protect sodomites from being "singled out" for their PROMISCUOUS, RECKLESS, SELFISH and SELF-DESTRUCTIVE...not to mention disgusting, aberrant lifestyle and sexual stupidity.
Nauseating.
But, it's just another example of how this country will allow ourselves to be bred out, destroyed, killed, torn down, and stomped into dust, broken to pieces on the Altar of Political Correctness, while good, THINKING, JUDGEMENTAL, people are shouted down by the childishly spiteful, nihilist, destoyers of America.
I weep for our future.
D.0 -
JamesRK: givette here. Thanks for answering my question. I honestly didn't know. I caught hepatitis years ago in Vietnam, and have never donated blood due to the risk. Best, Joe 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Svobodov
Hell, I don't think anyone who's not stuck in the 50s is going to defend the policy. It's stupid and vicious and only still around because the FDA bureaucracy only moves quickly for massive quantities of money.
But still.
IT'S THE dirty RED CROSS.
COLLECTING BLOOD. TO SAVE LIVES.
FOLLOWING THE LAW SO THEY CAN STAY IN BUSINESS.
It's nice when people stand up and point out discriminatory, oatmeal laws, but until the Red Cross gets definitively tied to eating babies or putting gays in camps banning them from taking blood drives is just batpoop evil of the first degree.
When was the last time you gave blood?
I guess by your statements, never.
Here are the requirements:
http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html
Gay are not the only ones prohibited, anyone born in Cameroon or ever hax sex with someone from cameroon is prohibited, members of the military who were stationed in europe (there is a time frame) are also prohibited.
Perhaps the gays should start their own blood bank, I wonder how many of them would want to join.
Don
I have a drawer full of pins like these.0 -
When was the last time you took an English class? I didn't stutter, and I didn't use too many big words for anyone who's got it as a first language. How 'bout you try reading that post again there champ. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Svobodov
When was the last time you took an English class? I didn't stutter, and I didn't use too many big words for anyone who's got it as a first language. How 'bout you try reading that post again there champ.
What did I miss-read?
quote:Originally posted by Svobodov
Hell, I don't think anyone who's not stuck in the 50s is going to defend the policy. It's stupid and vicious and only still around because the FDA bureaucracy only moves quickly for massive quantities of money.
When did you donate last?0 -
So you think it's a good idea to ban a tenth of the population from giving blood, because some of 'em have a disease we can test for now?
You think this is a good idea because they also ban people who go whoring in HIV-infested countries? You think this has anything to do with a normal person giving blood? What? What kind of insane process does your clinic put you through exactly? Did you just come off the boat last month and don't understand our foreign language? I really don't get what you're thinking your reasoning is here. But hey, good luck next time you have a messy accident, maybe you should ask 'em to make sure they don't give you any queer blood for your transfusion just to be sure.
A deferral of a couple months from the last time you had sex (or were in Cameroon, or were in the army) long enough that the disease would show in tests, is plenty. A 30-year ban for anybody who admits they're gay (or are high risk in other ways) is pointless flailing left over from back before we had this magical little thing called a blood test.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Svobodov
So you think it's a good idea to ban a tenth of the population from giving blood, because some of 'em have a disease we can test for now?
You think this is a good idea because they also ban people who go whoring in HIV-infested countries? You think this has anything to do with a normal person giving blood? What? What kind of insane process does your clinic put you through exactly? Did you just come off the boat last month and don't understand our foreign language? I really don't get what you're thinking your reasoning is here. But hey, good luck next time you have a messy accident, maybe you should ask 'em to make sure they don't give you any queer blood for your transfusion just to be sure.
A deferral of a couple months from the last time you had sex (or were in Cameroon, or were in the army) long enough that the disease would show in tests, is plenty. A 30-year ban for anybody who admits they're gay (or are high risk in other ways) is pointless flailing left over from back before we had this magical little thing called a blood test.
Again,
When did you donate last?0 -
I don't talk about when I gave to charity, and I don't use that as an arguing point. I believe talking about how much you give away negates the value of a charitable act and makes you an jerk. Satisfy yourself with 'often enough that I noticed this ban', then, 'cos I'm not gonna get in a dickwaving contest with some fool online about who's the most generous giver. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Svobodov
I don't talk about when I gave to charity, and I don't use that as an arguing point. I believe talking about how much you give away negates the value of a charitable act and makes you an jerk. Satisfy yourself with 'often enough that I noticed this ban', then, 'cos I'm not gonna get in a dickwaving contest with some fool online about who's the most generous giver.
My my, you stoop to name calling pretty quick.
I think you never read the blood screening at a blood drive, otherwise you would have known that "gays" are not the only ones prohibited.
And I doubt you know anything about the backlash the red cross blood services had about "tainted blood" making it through the system.
Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by Svobodov
So you think it's a good idea to ban a tenth of the population from giving blood, because some of 'em have a disease we can test for now?
I don't know if you are not capable of understanding or have just made up your mind to refuse to understand. testing the blood supply reduces the risk of transferring disease. It does not eliminate it. By accepting blood donations from the high risk groups you are sentencing someone to death. Not as many as before the tests, but some. Probably not anybody you know, so I guess it doesn't matter.0 -
...I like the idea of the swishers just getting blood from the same same...maybe they will just "help themselves" out of exsistence since they sure as hell can't be bred out...[^] 0 -
quote:and makes you an jerk.
When was the last time YOU had an English class? The article an is the form of 'a' before an initial vowel sound (an arch; an honor) and sometimes, esp. in British English, before an initial unstressed syllable beginning with a silent or weakly pronounced h: an historian. Jerk does not qualify, nor does it accurately describe Don.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments