All Hank, all the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
RT -

When you wrote this, why didn't you use the term "relative risk." That is what the 1.9 figure is, isn't it? Isn't it "relative risk" of 1.9, or did I read it wrong?

SD

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

shouldn't you consider number of exposed people in relation to a relative risk? like say the relative risk of unprotected sex with strangers is high. probably the number of people in that risk pool is relatively low- very low probably compared to the number in the risk pool for 2nd hand smoke.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
shouldn't you consider number of exposed people in relation to a relative risk? like say the relative risk of unprotected sex with strangers is high. probably the number of people in that risk pool is relatively low- very low probably compared to the number in the risk pool for 2nd hand smoke.

Bunifa told me that she was in the nunnery before she joined myspace, so you should be okay.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Should profiling of airline passengers based on ethnicity or race be allowed?

So far


Yes
1893 votes (87%)

No
283 votes (13%)


FWIW, these things usually skew more left than one might expect. Apparently a lot of Dems read the journal......know thy enemy, indeed.

If the point of the profiling is to ask some people a second time whether they packed their own bags, why bother?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, running as an independent, gets 53 percent of likely voters, with 41 percent for Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont and 4 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Looks like the referendum on the DEms anti-war agenda is going to be fairly clear cut (much like the 04 referendum on the issue). When the polyscientists look back at this election in 10-15 years (during President George P. Bush's terms) I wonder if they will date the seminal event in the turn of the tide in the 06 elections to the Lamont's victoury. I am predicting yes.

Joe said that he'd caucus with the Dems. So either way, we're keeping the seat. Unlike a number of GOP seats.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the point of the profiling is to ask some people a second time whether they packed their own bags, why bother?

I don't think that is what the question was getting at, but I will have my assistant run a translator page check later this morning and let you know the results.

[Penske_Account]

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This unphottoshopped pic says it all (I think even Ty condemned the guy below):

These are telling too:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
These are telling too:

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Joe said that he'd caucus with the Dems. So either way, we're keeping the seat. Unlike a number of GOP seats.

It ain't over til its over. When the Rs dangle a juicy committee chairmanship in front of Joementum's eyes, I can imagine hearing the following short speech as he announces he is switching parties:

"....................I have made this move not because I turn my back on the ideals that I have always represented as a Democrat, but because certain factions of the party have changed the ideals that we hold ourselves out as representing. In making this move today, I feel that I do so in the best interests of my consituents and in a manner where I can both uphold the mission that they have honoured me by empowering me to carry out, and faithfully serve them in the process. In the coming years, I fully intend to communicate with and represent all of my consituents who have placed their faith in my and to reach back across the aisle to my colleagues in the Democrat Party in an effort to rebuild the bridges of trust and unity that are essential to the effective governance of our Nation as we proceed in these trying yet hopeful times. Thank you and may G-d bless our Nation and Israel"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It ain't over til its over. When the Rs dangle a juicy committee chairmanship in front of Joementum's eyes, I can imagine hearing the following short speech as he announces he is switching parties:

"....................I have made this move not because I turn my back on the ideals that I have always represented as a Democrat, but because certain factions of the party have changed the ideals that we hold ourselves out as representing. In making this move today, I feel that I do so in the best interests of my consituents and in a manner where I can both uphold the mission that they have honoured me by empowering me to carry out, and faithfully serve them in the process. In the coming years, I fully intend to communicate with and represent all of my consituents who have placed their faith in my and to reach back across the aisle to my colleagues in the Democrat Party in an effort to rebuild the bridges of trust and unity that are essential to the effective governance of our Nation as we proceed in these trying yet hopeful times. Thank you and may G-d bless our Nation and Israel"

If Lieberman is a Democrat, he gets fawned over by Republicans to cross over over and give them bipartisan cover. If he changes parties, he suddenly becomes Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee, only more dubious. As a Democrat, he's his own dog, but as a Republican, he's their bitch.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Joe said that he'd caucus with the Dems. So either way, we're keeping the seat. Unlike a number of GOP seats.

I think a Lieberman win would be a good thing for your party in that regard. It would really marginalize the strident left that fucks your party up.

If only we could have a similar event to marginalize the strident right in the GOP our govt might actuially someday resemble something normal, sensible people want.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Lieberman is a Democrat, he gets fawned over by Republicans to cross over over and give them bipartisan cover. If he changes parties, he suddenly becomes Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee, only more dubious. As a Democrat, he's his own dog, but as a Republican, he's their bitch.

Dissent on Chafee, he's too senior and too respect. Chafee is a innately a little bitch, so he gets treated as such. And Specter has plenty of power. We shall see, as I said, it ain't over til its over. Either way, the Kossacks lose, so perhaps you should reexamine your shiraz-addled allegiance to these blogospherics. Seriously, let's try to rebuild the bridges of trust and unity that are essential to the effective governance of our Nation as we proceed in these trying yet hopeful times. I know I don't hate America and/or Israel and I fully support appropriate democratic freedom for all. Join me, won't you?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
He clearly (i) refused to condemn Hezbollah when given the opportunity and (ii) proceeded to treat Hezbollah and the State of Israel as if they have some moral equivilency.

You're getting caught up in trying to knock Hanson - an always excellent read in my opinion - and ignoring the implications of Dingell's viewpoint. That somehow, the terrorists and Israel are on equal footing.

What Dingell said is that Hezbollah has a measure of political influence and that the Arab community in Lebanon views it as having some legitimacy, therefore, if there is going to be a negotiated peace, Hezbollah will need to have a place at the table. He also condemned their acts of terrorism. He said nothing more, and nothing less.

You're sounding like junior high, when it wasn't enough to just be one of the cool kids, you had to badmouth the dorks to stay cool.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm noting that you said this the next time the fat debate comes up. We've got a major obesity problem in this country because people don't think that extra donut is going to have an impact one way or another. And yeah, they're probably right about the single donut.

But then, the causal link between obesity and morbidity is about as tenuous as second hand smoke and cancer, so no worries.

You're overlooking one small thing, RT. When the fat debate comes up around here, it's centered purely on aesthetics.