marjon9

Hi Kirsten, it's hard to keep up with this thread these days. When I was a kid, walking to school in the snow, with no shoes, I used to read the "Considering Dr. Kirshenbaum" thread when there were just four of us on here. Those were the days. My feet still get cold thinking about it. I do still try to follow this thread as much as I can, but now this thread is filled with all these young whippersnappers who grew up with color television and electric refrigerators. They just don't remember what it was like in the old days. Anyway, enough of this foolishness. Congratulations to all making the trip to Denver. I think this is the only way to go these days for those wanting to get banded. As for Dr. Brinkley, believe it or not, I still have never gotten a fill. I still have quite a bit of restriction just from the original surgery. I'm starting to loosen up a bit and it is time to think of a fill now, but I have not yet gone to see Dr. Brinkley. From what I hear, she did raise her prices from $200 to $300 for a fill. That's sad to hear because people seem to really like her. I'm not sure if I'd be better off in the long run going to see her or going to that Dr. with the $500 program fee. But I do need to decide soon, since I think it is getting to be time for a fill. Whatever you do decide, let us know how it goes. I'd really like to hear how things work out with the local fill Drs. Talk to you later.

Many people have had good experiences going to Mexico. I would say that probably more than half the people who pay for the surgery without insurance do go to Mexico. But in fairness it must be said that circumstances have changed to some degree over the last couple years. Mexico used to be about half the cost or less compared to any U.S. option. These days there are a number of U.S. doctors (including mine, web site below in signature) who do the surgery for just a little more than the Mexican doctors. With that in mind, it is starting to make less sense to go to Mexico for the surgery, even though there are a number of truly excellent Mexican doctors. Some people really have trouble finding aftercare when they have had surgery in Mexico. This can be a huge problem. All of this should be carefully considered when making your decision.

I can't tell for sure, but from here it looks like Larry just might be a nappy-headed ho.

People have different experiences with PBing. Some people never do it. Some do it often. Some find it a horrible experience. Others, like me, don't really mind it much. I hate to vomit. Vomiting is pretty horrible in my book. But PBing is, to me, nothing like vomiting. When I PB, the food I just swallowed comes back up without any sort of a convulsion, and without any bad tasting digestive juices. It is basically the same thing that was just in your mouth a short while before. Some people find that "horrible." It really does not bother me. I would reserve judgment on the whole PB thing if I were you. First of all, you may not do it at all, or very much at all. And second, you may not find it particularly unpleasant. On a separate, related issue, you really should try not to PB at all for the first month or so after surgery. This gives the band a chance to "set." So stick carefully to your doctor's menu guidelines for the first month. But don't worry too much for now about long term PB issues. They are not a reason to avoid being banded. The health benefits of losing a lot of weight overshadow any PB issues that people face.

Here is an article I ran across today that tends to support Cusano. I'ts written by an actual scientist. Being the unimaginably fair-minded person that I am, I thought I'd post the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

I'm with those who have a less forgiving attitude toward mom. It would be nice if we all had supportive, understanding, sane and loving moms, but we don't. I certainly didn't. I think we are trained to believe that we are obligated to accept a lot of sick crap from our parents because we somehow "owe" them. I think there are some pretty short limits to that obligation. Just because someone is your parent does not give them the right to inflict pain on you, either physically or through psychological means. All of this may be attributable to some deep-seated insecurity in mom. I hope she gets the help she needs. But it is not your problem right now. You don't need someone giving you grief about this decision, either now, or later. (The "easy way out" comments will not necessarily stop after surgery). If you can find a way to avoid giving mom's comments "power" over you, then great, but that can be pretty hard to do. Moms know just exactly how to get to us. I would use Wendell's approach, either through a letter or in person. And then, I'd really stick to it. I think it's time to take a break from mom.

I would say that with me I have mainly just lost patience for poor quality. I agree with others who say that "some stuff just does not taste good anymore," but for me it is not about categories (such as Pizza or Pasta), it is about quality. I'm sure I would still like a really great pizza made in a fine Italian restaurant. But I no longer have an interest in the $2.95 all-you-can-eat pizza buffet extravaganza. In the past I would have considered the pizza buffet extravaganza to be quite the enticing culinary delight. In fact, I probably would have brought along my hydraulic throat plunger to make sure I got my full $2.95 worth.

Ron Cusano believes global warming is a hoax? I'm deeply shocked and surprised! I would so very much have expected Ron Cusano to take the other side on this. NOT!! Obviously, Ron, you are going to advocate any position that is, from your perspective, opposed by "liberal tree huggers." You could not care less about the scientific issues here. You are simply interested in taking the most extreme right-wing position you can on any issue, and throwing it out there to stir up debate. On most forums, people like you are called "trolls." It's not such a bad thing. We all seem to enjoy taking your bait and chewing on it. But it's pretty silly for you to suggest that you are actually interested in a scientific discussion here. Not that the issue of global warming itself is actually relevant here in this "troll" post, but I would nonetheless like to make one point about that actual issue. Yes, it is true that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling over many years. But one thing is obviously different now. And that is, we humans are generating massive amounts of emissions that are going directly into the atmosphere. How can any thinking person believe that these massive emissions will have no effect on our climate and atmosphere? When the argument is made that the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles for many years, this argument seems to imply that there is no fundamental difference in the circumstances now compared to the way they were in the past. But this is obviously not true. It is only very recently that we humans have been adding all these enormous volumes of emissions to the mix. Say what you want about global warming, Al Gore, or whatever. But your argument that this is just "business as usual" for the earth is just silly and ignorant. I don't have the final answer on what all these emissions are doing, but it is absurd to forward an explanation for global warming that does not take into consideration the new, and huge, contribution we humans are making to the atmosphere. Simply arguing that "the earth has always gone through warming and cooling cycles" just does not cut it. By the way, Ron, have you yet started an organization called "Scientists for Blind, Stubborn Ignorance"? Just curious.

A big change in your life equals a big change in their lives. I think it's pretty normal that they are stressed. I don't think there is much you can do about it. Everyone will feel relieved when you finish the surgery and cross over to The Light Side. Until then, just take it a day at a time.

Great news! I'm glad to hear it. But frankly, I'd go in there and give the speech anyway. You've got it ready to go, may as well let 'er rip! :welldoneclap:

People often say that the band is just a tool and that you still have to do the work. That is true to a degree, but in my experience it is also true that the band itself does part of the work for you. And that part often makes all the difference. Many people find that when they have the band they don't have the same type of cravings, and that their food preferences change, and that even when they "slip up" they still can't do that much harm because they can't eat that much. Think of it this way, let's say you are a compulsive speeder in your car and you have twelve tickets and they are about to take away your driver's license. Now imagine that you have a way to put major speed bumps in the road every 50 feet. Now ask yourself, can you still speed? Is it possible that you might get another ticket? Well, yes, it is still "possible" to speed, and you still "might" get another ticket, but it is much, much less likely. Going too fast over speed bumps is hard to do. It is physically painful. It's just much less likely to speed when there is a speed bump in every direction wherever you go. Now, admitedly, there are some people who are so determined to speed that that find a way to do it even with the speed bumps. But they are rare. For most people, even if they could not control their speeding before, they find that the speed bumps provide enough of an obstacle so that they can do it now. Anyway, you get the point. The band is like that. In a sense it's "just a tool." But it is a tool that really helps. Remember this: Everyone here -- EVERYONE -- had trouble controlling food. Yet the band works for most of us. Just because you are a person who has trouble controlling food now, this does not mean that later you are likely to join the ranks of those few who find a way to defeat the band. And one last point. Almost all of us, including me, had the same doubts you are having now, and for the same reason. So that part, too, is quite normal.

Hi sunnysea, thanks for asking. I am still a fill-free bandster. My restriction has loosened up a little, so I am not PBing much any more. But the restriction I have is still enough for now. I'm still losing. Slower now, but still losing. I'm down to 305 now. Twoterville is just over the horizon. That will be a good day when I arrive. My wife and I are going on a short vacation next week. When we return I may start to plan for a fill. If my restriction loosens up too much more, it won't be good. The thing I am afraid of a little bit is, once I need restriction, it may be hard to get it back. I'm afraid it will take 6 fills, 6 months, and $2000 to get there. That's just speculation, I may get restriction with one fill. But you never know. Anyway, thanks for asking. I've been lucky so far, not needing a fill yet. I see that our bunch of busy bandsters is doing well. Howdy to Kirstin and Shesha and Drewslou. The Dr. K group is getting so big now it's hard to keep track of everyone. Talk to y'all later.

Great. we have some agreement. And I share your concerns on the rest of the non-jihadis. And we shouldn't be actively driving them against us. How do you deal with these ideas: 1) Jihadis are actively creating as much chaos as possible inciting civil conflict in Iraq; In Iraq I don't believe it's just a Jihadi thing in that way. Yes, some of them are trying to make sure the "West" does not succeed in creating a stable society in Iraq. But I also think that it's now mainly a civil war. And the argument can be made that there is not much the U.S. can do to control a civil war. But this argument is not very impressive when you see that American incompetence created the conditions for this civil war. If the U.S. had gone in with enough force to control the anarchy, and then started meaningful, open-minded dialogue with all factions in Iraq, and including Iraq's neighbors, we would have had a vastly greater chance of really making this thing work. 2) The elected government of Iraq continues to request US presence; While this may be true, it is not that impressive an argument to me. I think this government was largely established by the U.S. It was an election, but the U.S. made the rules for the original appointed government. The present government evolved from that. And I also don't find it that impressive that the Iraqi government requests our presence, in light of the fact that they'd all be slaughtered in 45 minutes if we left. 3) The express goal of US policy has always been to leave ASAP; Again, that's a bit of a big "so what." U.S. incompetence has made that impossible. It's not enough to say that it is the U.S. goal to leave. You have to take intelligent action to create the conditions where that is possible. 4) Success or failure of the jihadis in Iraq will have large effects on their larger goals; That may be true, but it is U.S. incompetence that created the conditions for the massive number of jihadis, that we now use as an excuse to continue staying in Iraq. 5) Many of the Iraqi jihadis are drawn from other countries; it serves a useful purpose for them to be gathered in a more concentrated region; This is a really good argument against U.S. policy. The only reason these Jihadis are "drawn" to Iraq from other countries is because of the presence of U.S. troops, and the chaos created in Iraq by U.S. incompetence. It may be that we need to stay now to barely try to hang on in order to avoid an international catastrophe of gargantuan proportions. But since we caused the problem, it's just not a really exciting reason for why we have to stay. 6) at least SOME of the criticism about hatred of US is misunderstood, in that the crimes by Jihadis against the civilians ARE known by the Iraqis themselves, and at least SOME of the reports of increasing cooperation and effectiveness of the Iraqi resistance to such reflects growing support for US policy, not less; I'll have to take your word for that, because I don't see it. I know people like McCain and a few others are talking about all the progress we are making thanks to the "surge." But I listen to CNN and other stations with reporters on the ground who repeatedly state that they see no progress, and that McCain and his buddies should share whatever it is they are smoking. I believe the efforts to respect mosques, etc and some of the Iraqi traditions by our military, demonstrates what many of those 'undecided' want to see; we are not assaulting their religion, we are assaulting the thugs who are trying to take over their country. Again, I just don't see this outpouring of support and goodwill directed toward Americans and U.S. policy in Iraq. Let me know what news sources I should be looking at, and I'll check it out. To date, I have not seen any of what you are describing. Of note is the marked difference between Jay Gardiner and Paul Bremer in their versions of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Perhaps any differences the potential results is moot. In any case, do you not believe it is significant, that the Iraqis have in fact elected their own government? Does not the increasing presence of Iraqi police and army elements taking an ever larger role signify total failure of US policy? In the overall context of things, with the chaos on the ground in Iraq and the scores of people being blown up every day on all sides, I just have a hard time getting excited about how the Iraqis elected their government. I think the people were with us on that, with the blue fingers in the air, and all that. But we shattered all those dreams with our Rumsfeld and Cheney arrogance and incompetence. I wish these people well, and I hope there is something we can still do to help. But it is hard to stop a ten ton granite boulder that is rolling down a steep hill. It might have been possible to stop it from rolling in the first place with a little bit of common sense. But now, it looks like it's too late to me. I hope I'm wrong. Do you believe US support for Iraqi people and the attempts to include the various factions in one government, not worth the effort? It was a good idea at the beginning. But the realities on the ground have now spiraled out of control. It's hard to care about what color the drapes should be when the house is on fire. And do you believe those very Muslims you speak about, more likely to recognize what they are gaining thru the US effort? I have seen no evidence of that for a very long time now. I think they once had some hope. I think that hope is now irretrievably shattered. And it's our fault. I agree building trade/jobs etc is needed. Perhaps the real arrogance US has, is believing it can change the basic social fabric, where there is a marked difference in economics, law and civil rights, education, etc. Are we sounding closer together? I think we are close together in our desire for a good outcome in Iraq, but I think there may still be quite a divergence with respect to our views on the causes of the problems we face today, and way forward from here.

I had the same experience. From reading this site, getting banded was like "deja vu all over again."

Before a realistic alternative can be offered, I feel like we really need to be talking about the same topic. I agree completely with everything you wrote above. But the point I am making has nothing to do with any of that. The point I am making is this: There is a vast sea of "rank and file" Muslims, for lack of a better term, who are not "yet" jihadists. I think it is fair to say that most Iraqis used to fit that category before the present conflict. Those moderate, "undecided" Muslims are being herded over to the extremist camp in part because of the actions and policies of the U.S. If I advocate "being nice" to Muslims, it is this group of undecideds that I would seek to target. If our policies demonstrate understanding, respect, and good will, instead of arrogance and brute force, and if our policies encourage economic development and jobs instead of breaking down the front door of civiliian homes and terrorizing children, and humiliating people and torturing people with dogs in prisons, I feel like we would MAKE OURSELVES SAFER. My point here is not to apply the "golden rule" to Muslims. My point here is to survive. I don't want millions more young angry (intelligent) Muslims despising Americans with every Fiber of their being. Creating that reality in this world just does not make any sense. Now, I fully expect that you will disagree with what I am saying. But, at least, lets talk about the same topic. I am simply not disagreeing with you that extremist muslim jihadists are impossible to retrieve. I agree with you on that. There is no point in repeating this again. My argument goes, instead, to the idea that we should not be making millions MORE extremist jihadists who will then come after us with all their ingenuity for generations to come. I oppose herding the undecideds over to the extremist camp through the arrogant and ill-conceived displays of brute force from the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

I've lost 35 pounds in about 2 months. When I lose 5 more I'll be under 300 for the first time in a very long time. And the thing I like is that so far this has not involved any sort of "will power." I eat anything I want. I just happen to like meat and vegetables more than Pasta and cake. So, I eat whatever I want any time. It's just that I can only eat about 1/3 of what I used to eat, and then I'm full. Some days my carb and calorie intake may be a little high. But other days it's pretty low. I just find that I don't need to worry about it. Now, I know that not everyone has had this same experience, and others have to work more at watching what they eat. I've just been lucky with that so far. I may find that I, like others, plateau after a while with my weight loss, and then I'll need to get more focused on food choices and exercise. But so far, it's been a breeze.

I see you did respond. Our posts crossed in cyberspace

The issue here is not whether Saddam was a bad guy, or whether most of our American troops are good people. That is not the issue. It is a red herring to mention these things. The issue is, what is in the best interest of the United States today. Our actions in Iraq today are not in the best interest of the United States. The Iraqis hate us. The overwhelming majority of Iraqi's believe it is perfectly acceptable to kill an American. That is an indisputable fact. What we are doing there makes us less safe. Feel free to set up your Cheney-esque arguments that "we are in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government." Please. I'd be embarrassed to utter such a statement. If they didn't invite us, we'd just set up an "Iraqi government" that would. But in any event, that's pretty irrelevant. What matters is today and the future. Our actions today encourage Islamic extremism, and make us less safe. This is true notwithstanding the fact that Saddam was a bad guy, and most American troops are good people.

Is that really the approach you are going to take here, to simply ignore the substance of what is said in people's posts and complain that no one is answering Jack? This approach gets you off the hook quickly but it makes for a boring discussion. I would be interested in debating some of these topics with you, but there is no point in having a debate if you don't want to respond to the substance of the arguments. On several occassions you have stated "I talked about that before, give me examples." When I respond with examples, you ignore the substance of the post. That is not a debate worth having.

mousecrazy, you state that you "already addressed the fallacy in logic that Americans are creating terrorists." Here is what you said: "If you are of the mind that WE AMERICANS are creating jihadists...or more of them...I respectfully and firmly must disagree. America did not and does not create radical Islamic behavior anymore than you and your neighbor create gang crime." To me this argument does not "address the fallacy of logic" at issue here. Frankly, it's a pretty weak and ridiculous comparison. We are sending our troops to knock down the front doors of Iraqi civilians, and engage in all manner of terrifying behavior in the civilian neighborhoods of Iraq. This does not compare in any way to gang violence. We are giving Iraqis, and virtually all other citizens of the Middle East, reason to hate us. This is exceedingly unwise if our goal is to protect ourselves from Islamic extremism. I want to be clear that I am not arguing that George Bush, or Americans in general, created all Islamic extremists. That is not my point at all. My point is, by taking the path of arrogance and brute force in the neighborhoods of the undecided, we are providing them with the motivation to join up with the bad guys. If we took a different approach, one that demonstrated respect and understanding, and if we put our hundreds of billions of dollars toward activities that would tend to improve the lives of Iraqis and Palestinians, etc., we would have far fewer individuals who are inclined to join up with the Islamic extremists. How can you possibly deny this? How can you make that far-fetched comparison to gang violence? As for the money part, of course I'm not advocating any sort of direct cash subsidies to individuals. I'm talking about engaging in business ventures that would make a profit for the U.S., and have a tendency to provide jobs and non-military technology where they are desparately needed. If families have the resources to prosper, why would they join up with militant extremists? Would you? It is simply not rational to deny that our behavior in the Middle East creates more extremists who hate us and would die for the privilege of doing us harm. This is not just a friendly debate. The policies you support make it much more likely that I will die of a terrorist attack. I wish you would just take a step back and contemplate for a moment how you would feel if heavily armed soldiers from another land came to your neighborhood breaking down the front doors of you and your neighbors, terrorizing your children, taking prisoners for questioning. Add in the photos from Abu Ghraib, the stories of American soldiers who rape and murder. You really believe that this type of behavior would not have a tendency to encourage you toward "extremists" who are fighting against this? That is simply not rational.

Let's assume there are groups of violent jihadists trying to hurt us. Assuming that, would you not want to go after them? And if so, why would you support this diversion in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the groups that attacked us. And surely you must acknowledge that our efforts in Iraq are increasing the number of violent jihadists. Or, do you not acknowledge this?

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims. If you feel comfortable categorizing them into some sort of violent, homogenous group that you can condemn and feel superior toward, have at it. But whatever you say about them, no rational person can fail to acknowledge that our current policies are making many more of the radical type, and making our world much less safe than it would have been had we taken an approach toward them that was a little less Neanderthal. As each month ticks away in the "war on terror," each of us is closer to the next horrendous terrorist attack. It is impossible for me to understand how anyone could believe that having American troops on the ground, breaking down the doors of people's homes, running prison torture chambers, and occasionally raping and murdering civilians, is helping to make us safe against radical Islamists. You are all obviously intelligent people, what happened to you?

The key point that needs to be made about radical Islam is that our actions are making many more of them. I'm not saying that George W. Bush created all radical Islamists, there are many more thanks to his policies. Muslims are human beings who are, essentially, exactly like us. All humans are fundamentally the same, with an interest in dignity and security. Our arrogant, greedy, militaristic policies in their homelands are making more and more and more of them turn radical. Due to the war in Iraq, there are millions more profoundly angry people who are willing to die to kill YOU. Yet you support the policies of the Bush administration, while claiming to be "fighting terrorism."

It's not that you are crossing lines of tolerance and diversity. It's more along the lines of saying things that make you look ignorant. Do you have any concept of how many Muslims there are? And how many are wealthy? And how many different cultures and nationalities they represent? And how many different belief systems there are within the Muslim faith? When you say that "the women, if given the choice, would rather blow themselves up as suicide bombers than die in disgrace," you make yourself look ridiculous and ignorant, and you diminish the credibility of your viewpoints.

In my opinion this is just intellectual poppycock. You have failed to address the key point. By our actions today, we are making more of the bad guys. That's the truth, and anyone who gives an objective look at reality has to admit that. You say you do not have a pro-war ideology, you have a survivor idealogy. If that is true, why in the world would you ever want to make millions of hungry human beings hate you with every cell in their body. Do you really think this will help you survive? I think it is fair to ask, what would Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandi, and Nelson Mandela do in this situation? Do you think they would have taken the Bush/Rumsfeld approach? I didn't think so.