u235

As the clock runs out on this administration, so does the window of opportunity for unremitting greed by the oil companies.

Exxon Mobil delivered its strongest performance ever last year, earning a record $40.6 billion in net income because of surging oil prices, the company said Friday.

The figure, a 3 percent increase from the previous year, exceeded the company’s own record for profits at an American corporation, set in 2006, and is nearly twice what it earned in 2003.

Exxon said its fourth-quarter net income rose 14 percent, to $11.7 billion, or $2.13 a share. That also made it the company’s most profitable quarter ever.

I called it a while ago. As the last months go by the energy industry will go into overdrive to squeeze maximum profits before the next election. To borrow a phrase from Homer: "You mean it's the best quarter of your life... so far."

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet bazaars Friday, Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the capital last spring.

Putting bombs on the disabled is a new one. I suppose that's one way to manage health-care costs. Still, it's hard to imagine *anyone* saying that this was a good thing.

Muslims wonder why they have a bad rep. All they have to do is read the papers and observe what people are doing in the name of their religion. If muslims as a whole were to cease to support extremism then obviously these dick-heads would cease to exist as well. But muslims are not standing up and disowning them. Perhaps they're afraid to, but then "modern" and "civilized" societies don't use fear to retain members.

It's not much of a surprise however, considering that "true" muslims don't value women or disabled. I'm just surprised they waited this long to use them as fodder.

Do you think your doctor really cares about you?

That's a loaded and open sentence, with a number of inferences and interpretations. Care in the technical sense would mean "does your doctor attend to your medical needs appropriately?". Care in an empathic sense would mean "does your doctor take into account your emotional well being in how they deal with you?" There's other variants as well, but those are the two I'm most interested in.

The Times hosted a blarticle (I think I just made that word up) on the treatment of breast cancer and the gender of the doctor involved. Formed around numbers generated from a scientific study, the statement is made that female doctors were more likely to ensure that cancer patients received radiation therapy after surgery. Note that radiation therapy is essentially required as "standard treatment."

This of course made me think 'well does this mean that women make better doctors?'

81 comments later, people harped on that topic quite extensively, while others poked into the age and ethnicity of the patient and still others questioned the validity of the numbers used to support the premise of the writing. Some said "well women are more likely to treat other women with more attention". Others said "well chances are women doctors are younger doctors, so they'll me more into the latest treatments." Some said "women are more empathic and likely to listen to what their patients are feeling". But regardless of all the supposition, it's a good question, do women make better doctors?

Traditionally women are thought of as nurturing and social. Their role in primitive societies ensured that the community of the tribe thrived, as opposed to providing leadership, or defense. It might not be a big leap to say that this nurturing instinct is something that would be essential to a good doctor-patient relationship. But doctors, at least in modern society today, are also merchants who need to be careful of their time and investment in a patient. Given the cost of obtaining a medical degree, they have extreme financial constraints that preclude them from lavishing time on any one individual not in an emergency situation. Does that mean that men make better doctors because they can look at a problem un-emotionally and do what's best for all their patients?

Personally I don't care to cast judgement, in some areas I might be more inclined to work with a woman (lets say psychological issues, where I think a woman would be more understanding and tolerant) as opposed to orthopedics (where I consider it to be mostly a study in bio-physics). But perhaps that skirts the issues.

Maybe the better question to ask is: when you have a gender-specific problem, is it better to have a doctor of the same gender or not? As the moderator commented: perhaps a study of prostrate cancer would bring insight to this question.

link to article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/the-sex-of-your-surgeon-may-matter