Even when I was in grade school, they were cutting back on field trips but at that time it wasn't because of the cost of diesel fuel for the school busses.  Back then it was just because they were mean and didn't want us to have any fun while we were in school.  Well that's what I thought anyway. 

Today though, school districts are cutting back field trips and other outside of school activities because of the cost of diesel fuel for the school buses.  Diesel is still well above $4 a gallon and now school districts are trying to scramble and figure out how they are going to cover the cost of paying for the buses fill-ups.  

Cutting field trips and other school functions is pretty much the only option they've got. Although some districts are eliminating school days altogether.  Some are eliminating Monday classes completely shortening the school week.  To compensate they are adding about an hour to the end of the remaining class days.  This puts the onus on the parents to a) find childcare for their children on Mondays and try to figure out how they're going to handle their children being in school longer during the day.  

More of a squeeze being put on consumers...this time indirectly from the gas pump.  

The state of North Carolina has put aside $45 million for fuel costs next year and is planning to add about $45 MILLION more. That's around $90 million just for fuel.  In a school district.  Imagine what the other $45 million would do if it were spent on something for the actual schools themselves and not transportation costs.  

Somehow I don't think consumer's robotic responses of "Drive less, walk more!" or "Ride a bike!" are going to help here and unfortunately they don't make cross-over school buses.  Or hybrid buses for that matter. 

Any other wise ideas brainiacs?

Read about it here.

Wait wait wait.   A politician involved in a sex scandal?  NO FREAKIN' WAY!!!!

For Jeebus' sake...who freakin' cares?  I mean your sex life is your sex life.  As long as it does not impact your effectiveness on the job who cares who you sleep with, prostitute or not?  I mean it's not like your last job was prosecuting and shutting down prostitution rings, and convicting their members and now being involved using one makes you an entire hypocrite and calls into question your decision making ability....

Oh wait.

Football has lost it's last great quaterback this week.  The incomparable #4 for the Green Bay Packers, Brett Favre.  After 17 seasons and securing virtually every quarterback record in the NFL he's made the decision that he's too mentally exhausted to play anymore.  He'll be 39 this year and admits that he still can play but that he chooses not to because it's become too exhausting to push himself to the level he'd need to be at to helm the Packers for another season.  I know for the last few years the question of Favre retiring had come up too many times to count but each year, until this one, he came back and prove that he still could play.   

In reading the press releases and text of his interview it was plain to see that this decision did not come easily to him and that it weighed heavily on his mind, as it should.  I think he's made the right decision though.  Sure, I would have liked to see him not throw that last pass against the Giants in the playoffs.  Sure I would have liked to see him run all over the Patriots in the Super Bowl.  It just wasn't meant to be. 

I am fortunate enough to be one of the people in the generation that has watched him through his entire career.  I remember watching Don Majkowski get hurt and this young kid named Brett Favre get called off the bench to take over and he never looked back from there.  I remember his Super Bowl win (and loss).  It was a great 17 years for him and for the fans. 

In my mind he is the last of the "great quaterbacks" from the 80s and 90s.  He ranks right up there with John Elway, Joe Montana, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, and Steve Young.  It was one heck of a run and I have to wonder now, who will be the first new quaterback to start the next era of "The Greats"?

I'm sure you've seen television ads for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and I'm sure you've seen ads to get checked for prostate cancer and to get a colonoscopy to be screened for colon cancer.  All of those advertisements and public service announcements are for a very worthy cause.  Early cancer detection and treatment.  As a general rule of thumb with cancer, the earlier it is detected the better chance there is for survival.  That's why yearly mammograms, colonoscopies and other tests are recommended and urged for America's ever-aging population and these tests have done a world of good.  More and more patients are being diagnosed with these forms of cancer at earlier stages when they are most treatable.  Breast, colon and prostate cancer 5-year survival rates are at all time highs thanks to massive amounts of research and studies being devoted to those diseases that help develop new treatment options. 

But there's one type of cancer that by year's end, will have killed more people than prostate, liver, kidney, colon, skin AND breast cancer combined.  It will kill three times as many men as prostate cancer and nearly twice as many women as breast cancer.  For the last 37 years, it has been the leading cause of cancer death in the United States yet it has consistently received the least amount of research funding available.   It's lung cancer.   Over 50% of lung cancer cases will be diagnosed this year in its advanced stages (IIIb or IV) where there is little that can be done to treat it. 

Have you ever seen a public service announcement for a test for lung cancer?  Probably not.  Why? Because there isn't a test for lung cancer.  Lung cancer has received a paltry amount of research funding compared to breast, colon and prostate cancer.  Its 5-year survival rate continues to be one of the lowest survival rates.  Underfunding has kept this rate only slightly higher than it was in 1971. 

It's one of the most difficult cancers to detect often because outward symptoms are not usually detected until the disease is at an advanced stage and there is virtually no screening or assessment available for early detection.   

What can you do to help?  A lot actually.  You can visit the Lung Cancer Alliance (www.lungcanceralliance.org) and get educated about lung cancer.  You can read about who's most at risk, treatment options and most importantly sign the petition asking Congress and the President to make lung cancer research a national health priority.  Increased research funding will lead to new treatment options, new methods of detection and possibly even a way to catch it in its early stages. 

You can help.  Help make lung cancer research a priority just like breast, prostate and colon cancer research.  Who knows, your signature on the petition may lead to a cure someday.

Help make lung cancer research a priority. 

Sign the petition. 

Avastin, a relatively new cancer treatment medication, has recently been granted FDA approval in the treatment of breast cancer.  Findings by the drug's maker Genentech have shown Avastin to slow the growth of tumors in breast cancer.  Avastin has already been approved and used for treating colon and lung cancer and it has been in use as a breast cancer treatment but only as an off-label treatment.

While it is not a cure, it may slow or help reverse tumor growth in late stage cancer treatments which could lead to prolonging patients' lives and possibly increasing their quality of life for the time they have left.  While the argument rages on about whether slowing down tumor growth is as significant as survival rates in determining a cancer drug's effectiveness, this decision by the FDA potentially opens the door for other cancer fighting drug makers to seek approval for their drugs' ablility to slow down tumor growth.  In studies, Avastin has not been shown to extend patients' lives or increase the overall quality of their life according to Genentech.

I'm sure you can see both sides to the arguement.  Is it worth approving this drug for breast cancer treatment based soley on the the fact that it can slow tumor growth in some patients without providing an increase to quality of life or extension of life?  I'd have to answer yes.  If it's not harming the patient's quality of life or definitively reducing the length of time they have to live, I think it's very much worth the FDA's approval.  Slowing tumor growth is one part of the battle against cancer.  Erradicating the tumor is another.  I think another tool in the battle against breast cancer will prove to be beneficial in the long run.

What do you think?

On the web: Genentech, Avastin Wins FDA Approval