=========================================================================
#836
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 16:48:11 -0400
From: FloraK@AOL.COM
Subject: For Lea S. Dooley only
Dear Lea,
I know of someone who attended the Beijing Conference and tried to e-mail you
with the information. However the e-mail address you listed was not correct,
and was returned to me. If you wish to reach me my e-mail address is Flora
K@aol. com.
Perhaps I can be of help.
Flora
=========================================================================
#837
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 16:46:00 EDT
From: bl38
Subject: list serve
Please add my address (bl38@umail.umd.edu) to the list serve. I am a
graduate student at the University of Maryland in the Department of Health
Education. If your require more info, please don't hesitate to ask...
Thank you very much. I look forward to receiving mail from this service!
Bethany Letiecq
=========================================================================
#838
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 19:23:30 EDT
From: "William J. Joel"
Subject: PSAC 96 CFP
The following message is being posted to many lists, mostly those that
have been identified as concerning problem solving and/or
education in some form. If you have already received a posting from
another source, our appologies. If you could post this notice, we'd
appreciate it, but if you do not we understand that as well. Our
intererst is in seeing that the largest number of net users know about
our conference. We feel it is an important conference and would like
very much to see it grow. Any help you can give in that respect would
be appreciated. Thank you!
Bill Joel, Net Publicity
------------------------------- Begin ----------------------------------
PSAC '96 Call for Participation
PROBLEM SOLVING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
Seventh Annual Conference
Theme: MODELING ACTIVE LEARNING
June 26 - 29, 1996
St. John Fisher College
Rochester, NY
--ABOUT THE CONFERENCE--
PSAC (Problem Solving Across the Curriculum) is a conference that is
integrative in all respects. Plenary speakers will challenge participants
to look critically at today's 'classroom.' Small group discussions will be
used to provide the opportunity for more in-depth exchanges about
promoting active learning.
Conference proceedings will be distributed at no additional charge at the
conference registration. The proceedings consist of accepted papers and
abstracts of poster and of workshop presentations. They will be a
valuable resource for faculty interested in incorporating active learning
into their classrooms.
Other features of the conference include:
* paper presentations, emphasizing discussions with the authors
* highly interactive workshops
* demonstrations and poster displays in the Hall of Innovation
* opportunities to socialize and network
Registration information will be sent out in March. Please consider
proposing a paper, workshop, poster/demonstration or discussion group
topic.
--FOR MORE INFORMATION--
Call the conference hotline: (716) 385-8452 #5
Marilyn Akins, Co-chair, Broome Community College
(607)778-5039 FAX (607)778-5345
akins_m@sunybroome.edu
Sheila Brady-Root, Co-chair, St. John Fisher College
(716)385-8452 FAX (716)385-7311
sroot@sjfc.edu
Susan Hochhauser, Information Officer, Dutchess Com. College
(914)471-4500 ext 47ll FAX (914) 471-3360
peltz@sunydutchess.edu
or point your favorite Web browser to http://www.cs.oswego.edu/misc/psac
--PARTICIPATION OPTIONS--
Demonstrations/Posters: The Hall of Innovation is a gallery display of
curriculum and teaching ideas. The Hall allows presenters to demonstrate
and discuss ideas with the viewers in a more leisurely atmosphere.
Demonstrations allowing hands-on activi ties are encouraged.
Papers: (10 minutes/10 minute Q&A) Teaching faculty are invited to submit
papers related to the theme of helping students participate actively in
the classroom to develop critical thinking and problem solving abilities.
Workshops: (1 hour) Workshops are intended to enhance the skills and
broaden the perspective of the participants. They should be hands-on or
participatory experiences.
--PRESENTATION PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS--
Topics could include (but are not restricted to):
* cooperative learning
* problem-based learning
* distance learning
* innovative instructional strategies
* diversity influences
* implementing student-centered pedagogy
* critical thinking and learning
* experiential learning
* cross-cultural theories of learning
* outcomes based education
* instructional technology
* alternative learning environments
* theories of problem solving
* problem solving in the classroom
* quality retention in alternative approaches
--ABSTRACTS--
* 100 word abstract of the presentation, on 3.5" IBM formatted disk
(WordPerfect 5.1 or higher format or ASCII) or e-mail. Must be
received by February 1, 1995; confirmation mailed by March 1.
* Indicate presentation type indicated: paper, workshop, or
demonstration / poster.
* Presentation title (12 words maximum).
* Equipment needs.
* Name, affiliation, and address of each presenter.
* Academic area(s) addressed by the presentation.
* Name, phone number, and e-mail address of principle author /
presenter (to whom all correspondence will be addressed).
* Self-addressed, stamped postcard if hardcopy acknowledgement of
the proposal is desired.
* All presenters must register and pay the registration fee.
Send abstracts to:
for PAPERS
Martin Rosenzweig
Math Department, Bryant College
Smithfield, RI 02817-1284
(401)232-6187 FAX (401)232-6319
mrosenzw@research1.bryant.edu
for WORKSHOPS
David Bozak or Esther Bozak
SUNY at Oswego
Oswego, New York 13126
(315)341-2347 FAX(315)341-5424
workshop@cs.oswego.edu
for DEMONSTRATIONS/POSTERS
Sheila Brady-Root
St. John Fisher College
3690 East Avenue
Rochester, New York 14618
sroot@sjfc.edu
--FULL PAPER SUBMISSIONS--
* Final papers must be received by April 15, 1996.
* Papers must be submitted in Word Perfect 5.1 or higher format on an
IBM-compatible, 3.5" disk.
* A style sheet and formatting guidelines will be sent to each principal
author.
To subscribe to the Problem-Solving Across the Curriculum mailing list,
e-mail to majordomo@cs.oswego.edu and type 'subscribe psac' (without the
quotes) for the message.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ You'll never know when you need to know what you know. +
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
=========================================================================
#839
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:11:23 -0400
From: FloraK@AOL.COM
Subject: Fwd: For Lea Dooley ONLY
Dear Lea,
As you can see from the attached letter's address, this AOL was not able to
deliver the e-mail. Therefore, I'm sending it through the HEDIR.
Sincerely,
Flora Bloom
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Beijing NGO/GO Conference
Date: 95-09-30 10:13:02 EDT
From: FloraK
To: Isd3615@is.nyu.edu
Dear Lea,
I am the NGO representative at UN for professional organizations in health
education and perhaps can be of some help. The UN has a resource center and
is on the world-wide-web. Both are ways to find information about NGO
conferences and activities. Also, a professor from the mid-west who attended
the Beijing Conference was interested in obtaining more information
regarding the conference. She probably would be happy to talk with you about
it. Her name is Susan Koch , phone: 319-277-4879; Fax: 319- 277-4879.
Additionally, you may want to discuss it further with the NGO/DPI's
World-Wide Web expert. So it might be advantageous to contact Mr. Robert
Pollard as well % Habitat II, DC2-0980, 2 U. N. Plaza, New York, NY 10017.
Phone: (212) 963-8718/ 212-564-5937; Fax: 212-963-8721; E-mail:
rpollard@igc.apc.org; Home Page: httpl//www.igc.apc.org/habitat -- He can
tell you how to access information on the world-wide web, and download
whatever you may need or how to look for information at the Resource Center.
The resource center is on East 45 Street near First Avenue. If you wish to
visit their the NGO/DPI resource center or library, you can either talk to
Mr. Pollard about it or call me .
Sincerely,
Flora Bloom
718-253-5723 (in Brooklyn)
E-mail - FloraK@Aol. com
=========================================================================
#840
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 09:22:09 -0500
From: "David C. Wiley 245-2946"
Subject: Looking for a Job!!
The following message is from a graduate student seeking employment. Please
delete if not interested!!
I am a graduate student at Southwest Texas State University graduating in
December, 1995 with a Master's degree in Health and Wellness Promotion. I am
currently seeking a position in peer education in a university setting or any
other position in community health and wellness promotion. I have four years
of
experience in corporate wellness and two years experience with peer education.
I
am willing to relocate!! Please contact me if you are aware if any available
positions or potential positions (DW13@a1.swt.edu).
Thank You,
Rebecca Rosenthal
=========================================================================
#841
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 10:51:19 -0700
From: "Andrew Jenkins (Central Washington University)"
Subject: OJ Verdict
Fellow HE's,
I've just arrived back at the office after a few days recovery from knee
surgery and was surprized at the *lack of discussion* on the OJ trial
verdict on this and other listserves. After three days (phew!) of
watching talk-TV, I'm left with a thousand and one feelings over the
outcome.
Despite whether or not we feel the "right" decision was made, we (as
educators) can be enthused about the fact that some crucial issues have
been brought to light, questions of equality in justice, police racism and
misconduct, spousal abuse and murder, poor vs. "rich" justice, cameras and
the right of the people to know, etc.
Personally, I'm excited about all the learning opportunities and the
opportunities for meaningful dialog that may extend from this
controversial trial and verdict. In this light, our campus pluralism
taskforce has organized a (very impromtu) panel discussion and open forum in
our student union center. I'm certain campuses across the country are
doing likewise. Our meeting is not until Wednesday (you know campus
scheduling!) but in the meantime, I'd love to hear from any and all of you
regarding advice (for me and the taskforce), personal feelings, points to
ponder, issues, hazards encountered, etc.
I'm certain that there are positive outcomes from this controversal ruling
and as the dust settles, we'll find a stronger, more cooperative America
in the wake.
Lastly (phew!): Beyond my selfish plea for advice, I'd also like to
suggest we open discussion on the HEDIR on the issues raised and their
impact on our profession and efforts in health promotion.
What think ye?
Keep the Dream.
Andrew P Jenkins, PhD, CHES, HA
Central Washington University
=========================================================================
#842
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 14:35:27 -0400
From: "Lea S. Dooley"
Subject: Re: OJ Verdict Delete if you've heard enough..:-)
In- <9510051756.AA29653@is.nyu.edu>
Andy,
I am a graduate student living in New York City. I watched the verdict
at home while on the phone with a friend. After the verdict was reached
a small riot erupted on my block. Most of it was in Spanish so I caught
the gist but not all of it. Basically what happened was that when the
verdict was reached many people who were extremely angry about it ran out
onto the block and started screaming. They were joined by a few people
who were happy and as you can imagine there was about 45 few tense
minutes until they all gave up and dispersed.
A fellow student (young, black, male, if anyone is interested in his
demographic info) commented that if there was no racism in this country
OJ would have been convicted. An interesting comment and certainly food
for thought.
Personally, I am saddened that OJ became a symbol to anyone of the
"typical black man who is unjustly accused". I keep hearing that over
and over again. Have we forgotten that this is a man who beat his wife
repeatedly? Even if he was innocent, is he really someone we should
applaud given his history with Nicole Simpson? The fact that this man
beat his wife seems to have fallen to the way-side in all of this.
For myself, I believe he is guilty. However, I also believe that the
verdict was correct. This trial was a mockery of our justice system.
Issues were brought into that courtroom that would never have made it
into any other court proceding. Partly due to this, doubts were raised
in my mind as to what I would do in the jurors situation. I think that
we have to keep in mind that they are charged with giving a verdict of
guilty only if the prosecution has proven that he was guilty without
reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury. Hhhhmmm....there were many
doubts in this trial. Not all of them were related to whether or not he
was guilty, but that is up for debate, I suppose.
You're right, many issues were raised in this trial. Not the least of
them is the state of racism in this country. So some good can come of
this, hopefully. Keep us posted on how your forum goes,
Lea Dooley
=========================================================================
#843
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 23:29:18 -0400
From: Andrea Frank
Subject: WD-40
I have found several cans of WD-40 (along with empty beer cans) on the ground
in Milwaukee area parks in off-the-beaten-path places where kids have
obviously been partying and trashing up the park. This past week I
apparently interrupted a group of 10-12 year olds who immediately took off as
soon as I strolled by, leaving a can of WD-40 in their wake. Does anyone know
if this is one of the things kids are inhaling to get high these days? What
other aerosols is anyone aware of that kids are using? I will inform my
neighborhood association and park watch groups so we can keep an eye open for
discarded containers and inform parents and teachers in the community of the
apparent prevalence of the problem. Please post any replies to all on the
hedir, as this is an issue that is probably relevant to many of us.
Andrea Frank
Milwaukee, Wis
=========================================================================
#844
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:05:51 -0700
From: Mary Annese
Subject: Re: WD-40
In- <9510060331.AA26504@mx5.u.washington.edu>
Andrea,
In response to your question regarding inhalants --
Most commonly found inhalants are:
Adhesives: airplane glue, rubber cement, PVC cement
Aerosols: paint sprays, hair sprays, deodorants, air fresheners,
analgesic and asthma sprays
Anesthetics: nitrous oxide, halothane, enflurane, ethyl chloride
Cleaning Agents: dry cleaning, spot removers, degreasers
Solvents: polish remover, paint remover, paint thinners,
correction fluid, fuel gas, lighter, fire extinguisher
Food Products: whipped cream, whippets
Room Odorizers: Locker Room, Rush, Poppers
I've never seen WD40 used or listed but if it contains toluene; ethyl
acetate, hexane, methyl chloride, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone,
trichloroethylene, butane, propane, flurocarbons, hydrocarbons, etc. it
has potential use for sniffing ad huffing.
An excellent resource is the National Inhalant Prevention Coalition.
Contact Harvey Weiss at 1-800-269-4237. For a nominal fee they have
available an impressive comprehensive set of materials on inhalants and
poisons that kids use to get high ($35.00)and includes posters, teachers
manuals, information that can be copied and distributed. The Inhalants
and Poisons Awareness Week is March 17-23 and there will be a national
conference in San Antonio Texas January 12-14, 1996.
Sorry, I don't know specifically about the WD40 - not having a can
around, I can't check the chemical content - but I hope this info helps.
Sincerely,
Mary
......Mary F. Annese, MPA, Project Coordinator..Health of the Public......
(206) 685-4331 (voice) ... (206) 328-2845 (fax) ... (206) 322-3305 (modem)
............."WHEN SPIDER WEBS UNITE, THEY CAN TIE UP A LION".............
=========================================================================
#845
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 09:49:19 -0700
From: "Andrew Jenkins (Central Washington University)"
Subject: Re: WD-40
In- <01HW3EI440WI0017MK@AURORA.CWU.EDU>
Andrea, Yes, the it's likely the kids were "huffing" the WD-40. The
largest risk beyond the obvious brain damage, is acute respiratory
collapse. The viscous nature of the lubricant allows it to "coat" the
aveoli and reduce the permiability of the membrane to O2. Combine this
with the depressant effects on the medulla and your kid gets gradually
sleepier and sleepier until he/she arrests (worse case scenario). Other
volitile solvents(eg. gasoline, butyl) do much the same thing in terms of
respiratory depression but do not have the lung coating properties of
WD-40. Fresh air and 02 therapy can prevent collapse with these solvents
but not with the lubricants.
Sorry about he fast and sloppy response. Others? Issabel?
Hope this helps.
Andrew P Jenkins, PhD, CHES
On Thu, 5 Oct 1995, Andrea Frank wrote:
> I have found several cans of WD-40 (along with empty beer cans) on the
ground
> in Milwaukee area parks in off-the-beaten-path places where kids have
> obviously been partying and trashing up the park. This past week I
> apparently interrupted a group of 10-12 year olds who immediately took off
as
> soon as I strolled by, leaving a can of WD-40 in their wake. Does anyone
know
> if this is one of the things kids are inhaling to get high these days? What
> other aerosols is anyone aware of that kids are using? I will inform my
> neighborhood association and park watch groups so we can keep an eye open
for
> discarded containers and inform parents and teachers in the community of the
> apparent prevalence of the problem. Please post any replies to all on the
> hedir, as this is an issue that is probably relevant to many of us.
>
> Andrea Frank
> Milwaukee, Wis
>
=========================================================================
#846
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:58:00 EST
From: Isabel Burk
Subject: wd-40 and other inhalants
FROM: Burk, Isabel
TO: SMTP:HEDIR%SIUCVMB.BITNET@UBVM.C
SUBJECT: wd-40 and other inhalants
Date: 10-06-95 12:41 EST
PRIORITY:
Hi Andrea, and any other hedir members interested in inhalants. WD-40 and
many other solvents/volatile spirits/petroleum distillates are used by lots of
people nationally. According to Univ. of Mich. 1994 stats, 19.9 of all 8th
graders have huffed, sniffed or bagged to get high; other grades are high, as
well. This number has been steadily increasing. Latest craze is whippets,
nitrous oxide in small cannisters expelled into balloons and then inhaled.
Also popular: gasoline-soaked rags and air freshener, potpourri scent. In the
case of WD-40 and similar products, the user wants the propellant gas and
vapors only.
I'd be glad to send you my article on inhalants and some other information as
well. Please post your name and mailing address to me at
burk112w@wonder.em.cdc.gov. If you have specific questions, send them or call
me at 914-248-2454.
For posters and creative materials, contact the National Inhalant Prevention
Coalition at 800-269-4237. Inhalant Awareness Week is in March each year.
BTY, I will be doing a workshop on this topic at the American School Health
Association Conference in Milwaukee later this month.
=========================================================================
#847
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:10:00 EST
From: Isabel Burk
Subject: wd-40
FROM: Burk, Isabel
TO: SMTP:HEDIR@SIUCVMB.siu.edu
SUBJECT: wd-40
Date: 10-06-95 12:53 EST
PRIORITY:
Hi Andrea. WD-40 and lots of petroleum distillates, solvents, etc. are
huffed, sniffed and bagged by kids and people. approx. 20% of all 8th graders
have tried inhalants; lots of younger kids and older teens use, too. This #
is increasing. It's a big problem in all parts of the country, for all ethnic
groups.
The intoxicating effects are from the propellants, solvents, volatile vapors,
gases ( nitrous oxide included), intensified by oxygen deprivation.
If anyone wants a packet of information on inhalants (including my article)
send me your name and mailing address to BURK112W@WONDER.EM.CDC.GOV.
I will be doing a workshop on this topic at the American School Health Assoc.
in Milwaukee later this month.
Isabel Burk
Putnam/No. Westchester BOCES
914-248-2454
=========================================================================
#848
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 10:55:41 -0700
From: Holly Lenz
Subject: Re: WD-40
In- <9510060331.AA22135@ucs.orst.edu>
Andrea:
During my work with a National non-profit substance
abuse center we encountered many products that
were used for "huffing"...The most popular products were:
Hairspray...sprayed into half a glass of water and the
fumes are inhaled from the top half of the glass.
Freon.......from air conditioning units.
"Pam" vegetable cooking spray...and
Gasoline soaked rags.
Time after time we would hear the parents tell us that they had
no idea this was going on... and the kids would swear they had
no idea that it was dangerous because these products were just
"laying around and people use them all the time."
Thank you for bringing this up. It is an issue that
all health educators need to be involved in.
Holly Lenz
Oregon State University
=========================================================================
#849
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 16:55:38 -0500
From: Patti Lubin
Subject: smoke-free campus
>Hi, I'm Patti Lubin from Northwestern University. I 'm trying to gather
>information and need your assistance.
1. Is your campus smoke-free or working towards it?
2. If your campus is smoke-free, is the policy for indoor areas only?
3. Who was responsible for implementing this policy?
4. How is it enforced?
5. Are cigarettes/tobacco products sold in the student union or other
places on campus?
6. What is the size of your campus?
Thank-you in advance for your input.
>
>patti
*******************************************
Patti Lubin, R.N.
Co-Director, Health Education
Northwestern University Health Service
633 Emerson Street
Evanston, IL 60208-4000
Voice: 708/491-5909
Fax: 708/467-3090
E-mail: p-lubin@nwu.edu
*******************************************
=========================================================================
#850
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 01:16:35 -0500
From: "Samantha Jerrings, President,
International Students Association,
Eastern Division"
Subject: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 300+ Popular USA
Titles
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#851
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 11:14:17 CST
From: Bill Cissell
Subject: Sharing a Hotel Room in San Diego
Hi!
I would like to share my room at the Horton Grand Hotel during the SOPHE and
APHA Annual Meetings. I reserved one, on a double occupancy basis, from
10-25-95 through 11-02-95. I will not arrive until 10-28-95; some situations
locally preclude my departure before then. The room rate is $89 per night, if
used on a single occupancy basis, and $99 per night when used on a double
occupancy basis.
I would be willing to let someone else rent the room during the dates of 10-25
through 10-27-95 and share it with me any part of the period of 10-28 through
11-2. In Washington, D.C., last year, I shared a room with three others, with
one on a cot and another in a sleeping bag on the floor. So if students who
need to save on hotel expenses are interested, I am willing to share the room
with them. The limits on how many can join us is generally set by the first
roommate who agrees to share the room. If you want to limit it to two, that
is
fine with me. If, however, you wish to add one or two friends, that is fine
with me, as well.
As far as sharing the expenses, fully employed professionals split the costs
evenly for the nights they occupy the room. When students are involved, they
are generally permited to split at a more favorable rate. For example, if two
students room with me, I will pick up $50 per night, plus half the sales
taxes.
The students would split the rest of the cost ($49 per night, unless the cost
of a cot is added), plus half of the sales taxes. If a cot is added, the
students would split $59 per night, plus sales taxes.
If no one expresses an interest in using this room during any of the dates,
10-25 through 10-27, before 10-15-95, I will cancel the reservation I made for
these dates. WARNING: My wife tells me that I snore upon occasion. None of
my conference and convention roommates have ever complained that my snoring is
bothersome to them, but I would not want to have anyone commit to sharing room
expenses without truth in advertising.
References on my behavior as a roommate include: Dr. Robert D. Patton, (615)
929-1723; Dr. Carl J. Peter, (606) 223-4401; Dr. Rick Barnes, e-mail
HPBarnes@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu; Dr. Rick Petosa, e-mail
Petosa@ohstmva.acs.ohio-state.edu; Dr. John R. Harvey, Jr., e-mail
MFJRH@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu; Dr. Ying Liu, (305) 623-1402 (W) or (Home) (305)
273-0532; and Dr. Robert D. Russell, c/o Dr. Mark Kittleson, e-mail
GA3748@siucvmb.siu.edu.
Bill D_Cissell@venus.twu.edu
=========================================================================
#852
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 1995 15:02:43 -0700
From: Jennifer Mann
Subject: international internships
In- <9510061854.AA05886@ucs.orst.edu>
I am a senior in health promotion and education and will be graduating in
December. I am applying for the Peace Corps and was told that I will not
be leaving until May or June. Therefore, I am hoping to do an internship
either in Africa or Latin America from January to April to gain more
international work experience while I wait to leave. In 1994 I worked
with a women's group in Kenya for six months in a rural health clinic and
this last summer I worked in a family planning clinic in Ecuador for
three months. I can communicate well in Spanish and I also speak some
Swahili and French. If anyone on the HEDIR newsgroup has any information
about finding an internship in Africa or Latin America please respond to
me at: mannj@ucs.orst.edu
Thank you,
Jennifer Mann
=========================================================================
#853
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 01:15:31 -0500
From: "Samantha Jerrings, President,
Association of International Students,
Eastern Division"
Subject: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 300+ Popular USA
Titles
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#854
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:01:31 -0400
From: "Robert H. Anderson (West Virginia University)"
Organization: WVU Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Ctr.
Anyone interested in tobacco control, please read this email message I
re
ceived from a colleague at UC BERKELEY. If you support this request, you must
act by October 10.
Bob Anderson, WVU
Please ignore this message if you have already received it.
A group of people are putting together an op-ed ad for the NY Times
regarding the political attack on Stan Glantz's NCI grant. If you or anyone
you know would be interested in signing the ad, please email Stan Glantz
(glantz@cardio.ucsf.EDU) their name, title (for purposes of identification
only) and phone and fax numbers by Tuesday October 10, and he will pass it
on to the people doing the ad.
BACKGROUND
The Congress is still considering a report from the House Appropriations
Committee that includes language which
terminates support for a research grant directed by Dr. Stanton Glantz, a
Professor of Medicine and Bioengineering at the University of California,
San Francisco. Dr. Glantz has been active in research identifying the
hazards of second-hand smoke, and in monitoring the influence of political
donations by the tobacco industry on the voting records of state legislators
concerning tobacco control initiatives. After lobbying by smoking rights
advocates, the Senate Appropriations Committee issued its report which
threatens to disrupt Dr. Glantz's NIH support the middle of the project
period which was approved and funded following the normal NIH
peer-review
process.
In the absence of a strong response from the academic community, it is
likely that the Congress will intervene in the NIH peer-review process and
rescind funding for Dr. Glantz's research. The "statement of concern" that
appears below was drafted by the chair of Bioengineering at UCSF and deals
with Congressional intervention in the NIH peer-review process.
STATEMENT OF CONCERN
On or about July 25, 1995, the subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee that deals with the NIH appropriation approved a Committee
Report that included the following language:
"Study of campaign contributions. The Committee was disturbed
to learn that NCI has funded a research grant studying tobacco
industry campaign contributions to State legislators and voting
records by those individuals on tobacco control initiatives. While
the Committee is not rendering judgment on the merits of the
grant proposal, it feels strongly that such research projects do
not properly fall within the boundaries of the NCI portfolio, espe-
cially when nearly three-quarters of approved research projects
go unfunded. Accordingly, the Committee does not provide any
further funding for this research grant within the NCI appropri-
ation."
This language clearly is aimed against a grant entitled "Effect of Tobacco
Advocacy at the State Level" (CA-61021) which is directed by Dr. Stanton A.
Glantz, Professor of Medicine and Bioengineering at the University of
California, San Francisco (UCSF). The overall purpose of Professor
Glantz's grant is to study the activities of the health community in
promoting tobacco education and the activities of the tobacco industry to
thwart legitimate efforts of the public health community. His application
originally was submitted in response to an NCI Research Program
Announcement issued on March 27, 1992 soliciting investigator-initiated
proposals in "Tobacco Prevention and Control." The grant was funded on
July 1, 1994 after being peer-reviewed following normal NIH procedures,
and after it received a priority score placing it in the top 10% of all
proposals. Work sponsored by this grant has led to major publications in
leading peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of the American
Medical Association and the American Journal of Public Health. In sum,
this research project addresses a very significant health care issue in our
nation, and includes research that should contribute significant new
insights into our understanding of the nature and extent of tobacco industry
influence on state and local tobacco control public policies.
The Committee Report cited above interferes with the scientific peer-review
process and threatens to disrupt funding of this important research project
in the midst of the approved funding cycle. We therefore offer the following
observations in support of Professor Glantz's research, to declare our
support for continued research into tobacco control policy, and to protest
any infringement of the integrity and objectivity of scientific research in
our
country:
(1) Dr. Glantz's research is a legitimate use of public funds which focuses
on an important health care issue that is a leading cause of morbidity
and mortality in our nation.
(2) The mandate of the NCI is to fund research into the "cause, diagnosis,
prevention, and treatment of cancer", and few problems are of greater
importance than tobacco use and its effects on public health. In recent
years, Congress has specifically directed NCI to expand research into
tobacco control strategies. We therefore assert that it is crucially
important to continue tobacco policy research as part of the larger
mission of NCI to control cancer.
(3) Political intervention in the peer review process undermines the
confidence of the scientific community and the public in the fairness
and objectivity of the NIH scientific review process, and violates
the fundamental tenets of scientific research.
We therefore urge the Department of Health and Human Services, the
National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute to continue
support of Professor Glantz's research, and call on the Congress of the
United States of America to remove the language forbidding the use of NIH
appropriations to fund research grants studying the extent of tobacco
industry influence on state and local tobacco control public policies.
***---------------------> End of Original Mail <---------------------***
=========================================================================
#855
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:35:14 -0800
From: Todd Rogers
Subject: SUBSCRIBE
**********************************************
Todd Rogers, PhD
Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention
1000 Welch Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1825
Voice: (415) 723-6528 FAX: (415) 725-6906
=========================================================================
#856
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 17:07:58 -0400
From: Andrea Frank
Subject: Re: support of Stan Glantz grant
>>>
A group of people are putting together an op-ed ad for the NY Times regarding
the political attack on Stan Glantz's NCI grant. ... The overall purpose of
Professor Glantz's grant is to study the activities of the health community
in promoting tobacco education and the activities of the tobacco industry to
thwart legitimate efforts of the public health community.If you or anyone you
know would be interested in signing the ad, please email Stan Glantz ... and
he will pass it on to the people doing the ad. ... >>>
Robert Anderson's, (WV Univ.) posting of Oct 9 raises some interesting
issues. I'm not suggesting that Glantz's cause is unworthy nor am I
advocating support of the tobacco industry, but I think some critical
reflection in the matter needs to occur.
The House Appropriations Committee said:
>>>While the Committee is not rendering judgment on the merits of the grant
proposal, it feels strongly that such research projects do not properly fall
within the boundaries of the NCI portfolio ...>>>
Note that the appropriations committee is not necessarily disagreeing with
supporters of Glantz that: >>>(1) Dr. Glantz's research is a legitimate use
of public funds which focuses on an important health care issue that is a
leading cause of morbidity and mortality in our nation.>>> However, the
Appropriations Committee states the project is not an appropriate use of NCI
funds.
Glantz's supporters go on to say: >>>(2) The mandate of the NCI is to fund
research into the "cause, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer",
and few problems are of greater importance than tobacco use and its effects
on public health. In recent years, Congress has specifically directed NCI to
expand research into tobacco control strategies. We therefore assert that it
is crucially important to continue tobacco policy research as part of the
larger mission of NCI to control cancer.>>>
The problem here is that the NCI's original mandate does not apparently
include the term "tobacco policy research". The question is not whether
tobacco policy research SHOULD be conducted, but whether funding such grants
using NCI money can be justified on existing legal, ethical, or rational
grounds. Using mere assertions (ie. "We therefore assert...") to support the
continued appropriation of NCI funds for Glantz's research makes a weak case.
>From here, Glantz supporters leap to another argument that >>>(3) Political
intervention in the peer review process undermines the confidence of the
scientific community and the public in the fairness and objectivity of the
NIH scientific review process, and violates the fundamental tenets of
scientific research.>>>
A couple of assumptions here need to be challenged. One is the myth that the
scientific peer review process is totally objective and isn't political. I
know people who've resigned or been forced to resign from NIH peer review
committees because they objected when colleagues repeatedly made funding
decisions on grounds OTHER THAN the scientific merits of the proposal.
Personal relationships and other non-scientific factors often affect who does
and doesn't get money. "Scientific" fundings decisions are frequently
neither fair, nor objective. The history of medicine and science is replete
with cases where bogus research has been supported and/or meritorious
research and research findings have been suppressed, all via peer review
committees. ( A good read in that regard for those interested in "Making
Science: Between Nature and Society" by Stephen Cole, Harvard University
Press, 1992.)
Elite groups of scientists making decisions behind closed doors is not in the
public's best interest. Yes, the "non-scientific" influence of politicians,
lobbyists, and others often leaves much to be desired -- but is the
establishment and promotion of an authoritarian scientific monarchy, ruled by
an elite group of omnipotent, omniscient scientific potentates who make
decisions behind closed doors without public input or political
accountability a preferable system? Isn't that contrary to the basic tenets
of a democratic society?
Another assumption that needs to be challenged is that even if research of
tobacco policy is deemed a worthy endeavor, that Dr. Glantz -- a Professor of
Medicine and Bioengineering at the University of California -- is the best
qualified and credentialed individual to conduct such research. While I know
nothing about Dr. Glantz and in no way desire to disparage him or his work,
isn't it possible that a political scientist, educational policy analyst,
mass communications specialist, or other social scientist with a doctoral
degree would be the most appropriate and best suited candidate to oversee a
policy research project?
In making the decision to fund Dr. Glantz, I wonder if the NIH or NCI peer
review committees contained any social scientist members at all, or was
instead composed of physicians and biological scientists? Isn't it
reasonable to assume that a peer group of scientists would have an inherent
bias in favor of giving grant money to physicians and "hard core" scientists
just like them rather than to Ph.D. level social scientists, even when the
project was a social science research project? How are physicians and
bioscientists qualified to evaluate individuals who aren't their peers or to
make decisions about funding social science policy research proposals that
fall outside their area of expertise? Shouldn't a PEER review committee
making decisions about policy research be composed of a group of social
scientists rather than physicians or biologists? Under these circumstances,
isn't the House appropriations committee acting in the public's best interest
and doing EXACTLY what the public elected them to do: to ensure that the
scientific community is held accountable for the way it spends publicly
funded tax dollars, and to question whether research projects such as
Glantz's "properly fall within the boundaries of the NCI portfolio" and if
so, whether a professor of medicine and bioengineering is the best qualified
individual to oversee this type of non-medical, social science, POLICY
research?
Too often we send letters and support causes without critically examining
their merits. Maybe Glantz's research deserves support, but I think there
needs to be more open discussion on the matter before anyone adds their "John
Hancock" to an national ad in the New York Times.
Andrea Frank
=========================================================================
#857
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 16:19:34 -0500
Comments: Warning -- original tag was
From: "Samantha Jerrings,
President by way of jerrings@atcome.net Samantha Jerrings by way
of jerrings@atcome.net Samantha Jerrings" <75022aab22@AOL.COM>
Subject: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 300+ Popular USA
Titles
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#858
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 19:01:51 -0400
From: "Lea S. Dooley"
Subject: Those magazine ads.....
What is going on with those magazine ads that we have been receiving???
I've had over 5 in my box from this list alone. I have to say that I'm
finding it totally inappropriate for this list. Mark, can you get rid of
it? Does anyone else feel the same way?
Lea Dooley
=========================================================================
#859
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 18:01:55 CST
From: "Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
Subject: Advertising on HEDIR
Many of you have noticed that we have been deluged with requests
for free magazines. Whether it is doing any good or not, each time
such an advertisement (or any other advertisement) is sent via HEDIR
the following memo is sent to them. I'm sure they're shaking in
their boots when they get done reading it, but there's probably
not more that I can do. Suggestions or comments are always
welcomed.
Memo:
I'm am the owner and operator of the HEDIR listserv. You recently
sent a memo via the HEDIR list. Please note that the HEDIR is a
copyrighted list and the use of this list without permission from me
is a violation of copyright codes. Please refrain from using this
list to promote your services. Failure to do so will result in legal
action.
_____________________________________________________
Mark J. Kittleson, Ph.D., ga3748@siucvmb.siu.edu
Southern Illinois University
Founder and Owner of the International E-Mail Directory
and the HEDIR listserv
=========================================================================
#860
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:11:13 EST
From: "Wallace, Harvey A"
Subject: Re: WD-40
In- In reply to your message of Thu, 05 Oct 1995 22:29:18 EST
Additional information about inhalant abuse may be obtained from the
following: International Institute for Inhalant Abuse, 799 East Hampden
Avenue, Suite 500, Englewood, CO 80110-2790 (Phone:303/788-1951)
=========================================================================
#861
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 11:44:37 EDT
From: MICHAEL DAVID BALLARD
Subject: Graduate Programs
Dear Colleagues:
The Department of HPER at Morehead State University is in the process
of
revisi
Sincerely,
Michael D. Ballard, Ed.D, CHES
Assistant Professor
Morehead State University
Department of HPER
Morehead, KY 40351
=========================================================================
#862
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:41:21 EDT
From: MICHAEL DAVID BALLARD
Subject: GRADUATE PROGRAM
Dear Colleagues:
The Department of HPER at Morehead State University is in the
process of revising its graduate program. We are interesting in the
development of a health promotion degree with an emphasis in health
services/health care administration. Any suggesstions pertaining to
course requirements and/or degree requirements would be greatly appreciated.
Michael D. Ballard, Ed.D., CHES
Assistant Professor
Morehead State University
201 Laughlin Health Building
Morehead, KY 40351
=========================================================================
#863
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:03:28 -0700
From: Holly Avey
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
----- Transcript of session follows -----
421 siucvmb.bitnet.tcp... Deferred: Invalid argument
550 HEDIR@SIUCVMB.BITNET... Host unknown: Invalid argument
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by well.health.Arizona.EDU (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
id AA39338; Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:20:50 -0700
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 08:20:49 -0700 (MST)
From: Holly Avey
To: HEDIR@SIUCVMB.BITNET
Subject: Re: support of Stan Glantz grant (fwd)
Message-Id:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I forwarded Andrea Frank's message regarding Dr. Stan Glantz's grant to
the TOBACTALK listserve. Here is one reply.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:42:51 -0700
From: Scott Leischow
To: Multiple recipients of list TOBACTALK
Subject: Re: support of Stan Glantz grant (fwd)
To Andrea Frank:
Though I would not want to suggest that your arguments
are somehow unfair or biased, the substance could very
well pass for those used by the tobacco industry.
Put another, less subtle, way, you excel at cloaking
crapola in honey. I actually do agree that the issue
of public funding of policy research is worthy of
discussion and debate - particularly when the policy
"research" appears to be a lobbying effort. However,
I do not believe that funding should be discontinued
until after that debate has ended - otherwise the
elimination of funding seems designed more to
shut someone up (which is probably the intent with
regard to Dr. Glantz).
I shall not refute every point made, but I can think
of nothing more frightening than to radically change
the scientific review process. While the review process
is not always optimal, and could be improved upon in
some respects, it has been a major reason why some
of the best scientific research is conducted in the U.S.
I admit my bias - I have served on scientific review
committees. But those who know nothing about the
process should try to realize that those who serve
work exceeedingly hard (for little pay) and usually do
an excellent job of reviewing and evaluating research.
Part of the review process is to evaluate and judge the
qualifications of the applicant to complete the
research as proposed - this is taken very seriously
and surely was a part of Dr. Glantz' review.
Many of the questions raised, such as composition of the
review committee, are in the public domain. Typically
the committee includes members who have expertise in
the areas to be reviewed - did you check this out
before you wrote your piece?
I am especially troubled by your use of the term
"elite groups of scientists". Would we rather that
science proposals be reviewed by "elite groups of
politicians", or "elite groups of tobacco
industry executives", or "elite groups of
lobbyists"? In fact, scientists are not really
an elite group at all - they just happen to
know something about a particular topic. And when
they review grant applications, they do not make the
decision about what gets funded - they simply provide
a score that is considered when funding decisions are
made.
One last question, Ms. Frank. Do you now, or have you
ever, received funding, directly or indirectly, from the
tobacco industry?
Finally, all those interested in debate
about smoking should check out the newsgroup alt.smokers (I
believe that is the name). Regards.
Scott Leischow
The University of Arizona
=========================================================================
#864
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 10:07:04 -0700
From: Holly Avey
Subject: Re: support of Stan Glantz grant (fwd)
I forwarded Andrea Frank's message regarding Dr. Stan Glantz's grant to
the TOBACTALK listserve. Here is one reply.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:42:51 -0700
From: Scott Leischow
To: Multiple recipients of list TOBACTALK
Subject: Re: support of Stan Glantz grant (fwd)
To Andrea Frank:
Though I would not want to suggest that your arguments
are somehow unfair or biased, the substance could very
well pass for those used by the tobacco industry.
Put another, less subtle, way, you excel at cloaking
crapola in honey. I actually do agree that the issue
of public funding of policy research is worthy of
discussion and debate - particularly when the policy
"research" appears to be a lobbying effort. However,
I do not believe that funding should be discontinued
until after that debate has ended - otherwise the
elimination of funding seems designed more to
shut someone up (which is probably the intent with
regard to Dr. Glantz).
I shall not refute every point made, but I can think
of nothing more frightening than to radically change
the scientific review process. While the review process
is not always optimal, and could be improved upon in
some respects, it has been a major reason why some
of the best scientific research is conducted in the U.S.
I admit my bias - I have served on scientific review
committees. But those who know nothing about the
process should try to realize that those who serve
work exceeedingly hard (for little pay) and usually do
an excellent job of reviewing and evaluating research.
Part of the review process is to evaluate and judge the
qualifications of the applicant to complete the
research as proposed - this is taken very seriously
and surely was a part of Dr. Glantz' review.
Many of the questions raised, such as composition of the
review committee, are in the public domain. Typically
the committee includes members who have expertise in
the areas to be reviewed - did you check this out
before you wrote your piece?
I am especially troubled by your use of the term
"elite groups of scientists". Would we rather that
science proposals be reviewed by "elite groups of
politicians", or "elite groups of tobacco
industry executives", or "elite groups of
lobbyists"? In fact, scientists are not really
an elite group at all - they just happen to
know something about a particular topic. And when
they review grant applications, they do not make the
decision about what gets funded - they simply provide
a score that is considered when funding decisions are
made.
One last question, Ms. Frank. Do you now, or have you
ever, received funding, directly or indirectly, from the
tobacco industry?
Finally, all those interested in debate
about smoking should check out the newsgroup alt.smokers (I
believe that is the name). Regards.
Scott Leischow
The University of Arizona
=========================================================================
#865
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:57:02 -0700
From: Holly Lenz
Subject: Re: support of Stan Glantz grant (fwd)
In- <9510101710.AA03629@ucs.orst.edu>
To all HEDIR participants,
I would like to suggest that we, as a group, commit to
CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION. This involves the following:
* Criticize and evaluate constructively,
* Respect diversity of opinions,
* Keep arguments focused on issues rather than on people,
* Support the "raising of doubts" as a valuable opportunity
for joint learning to occur,
* Encourage exploration of underlying value differences, and recognize
the potential for joint values to emerge,
* View one another as potential contributors rather than potential
competitors.
I honestly believe that many more of us would participate more often in
discussions on the HEDIR if we all operated from these guidelines.
I would like to thank Andrea Frank and Andrew Jenkins for moving
discussions forward and challenging us all to respond. I sincerly hope
that many more of us will.
Holly Lenz
=========================================================================
#866
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 14:02:32 -0600
From: JULIEG@CC.USU.EDU
Subject: race,class,gender issues
I am currently putting together a course for community health education
undergraduates entitled "race, class, and gender issues in health education"
The course is an attempt to view health from a larger perspective than
the individual lifestyle factors approach. I have had little success
in finding a text that frames health in a more sociological context. We
are currently using a text entitled "Mamma might be better off dead"
which is a case study of a poor urban families experiences with limited
access to health care. My question is are other people teaching similiar
courses or know of texts, videos, activities that may be useful in a
course such as this. Any ideas or input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Julie Gast, PhD
Dept. of HPER
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-7000
julieg@cc.usu.edu
=========================================================================
#867
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 15:48:57 CST
"Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
From: "Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
Subject: A Change!!
My Fellow Health Educators:
Please read this memo. I'm sorry it is long, but it is important.
It was my original intent with the HEDIR listserv to provide a forum from
which all health educators from all worksites can share information.
Realizing that some of the information may be more light-hearted than others,
I still believe the HEDIR is still an important vehicle that we as a
profession have yet to fully take advantage of. Although some may be troubled
by the light-hearted memos that are sent via HEDIR, I for one, am not.
The "serious" memos far outweigh the "light-hearted"
one. Also, what may be light-hearted for one person may be serious for
another person. I have steadfastly indicated to the subscribers of the
HEDIR that I will not
censor messages. That is not my role, nor do I feel I am competent enough to
serve in such a position.
Yet, over the past few weeks I have become more troubled by the amount and
length of certain advertisements that are distributed on the HEDIR. To
remind
everybody, because the HEDIR is a public list, anybody can send a message via
the HEDIR listserv. That person can't receive memos on the HEDIR, but they
can
send memos. It has come to my attention that I can block non-subscribers from
distributing memos on the HEDIR. As you may remember, this summer I
indicated that I was a little hesitant to do that because there are some
legitimate memos sent from non-subscribers. From the hundred plus messages
I received from subscribers regarding their opinion, responses supported
me nearly 10-1 to keep the system open so that non-subscribers can
send messages.
Yet, that was before this deluge of magazine ads. I am resentful
from a number of reasons (also because the Journal of Health Education,
Journal of Health Values, and Wellness Perspectives were not listed)....
one, it has been sent so many times;
two, it is so long; three,
the sender is always a "busy" college student trying to earn a buck.
Well, I've had enough.
Starting soon (whenever my computer guru can rig it), all
HEDIR messages will go through me first and then I'll distribute them. All
messages will still be sent via the HEDIR listserv, but before they are
distributed to everybody on the list I'll need to preview them. I'm
becoming what I did not want to be. However, you should be aware of my
protocol:
1.) If the message is sent from a non-subscriber and it is a relevant
message, I will distribute it. Granted, not everybody will think the
message is important, but if in my mind some might find it beneficial,
I'll release it. A recent example was the memo promoting a conference
on problem solving in education...I would release that memo.
2.) If a message is sent from a non-subscriber and it is an advertisement,
I will
send a memo to the "sender" indicating that for $1,000 I'll forward the
message. After I receive the $1,000 in a cashier's check or money
order I'll
distribute it to you. That money will go to the smooth operation of the
HEDIR listserv. It may sound like I'm selling myself out, but let's
get real folks, nobody will send me a $1,000 check. But, hey,
just in case....
3.) It is my understanding that any message sent by subscribers will also
come
to me before being distributed to the listserv. If a message has
been sent by a subscriber to the HEDIR listserv, I'll forward the
message regardless of its relevance. As indicated before, I refuse
to get involved in the censoring of
messages. What this means is that the message may take a few hours
longer
to be distributed.
I'm doing this to stop the endless glut of advertisements on this system.
I'm not sure when this will be incorporated but it should be done sometime
in the next few days.
As always, comments and/or suggestions are always welcomed.
Mark Kittleson
=========================================================================
#868
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 16:54:40 -0500
From: "Steven R. Furney 245-2561"
Subject: Re: A Change!!
In- <01HWA68IZWAQ8Y6V90@swt.edu>
A good decision Mark. Keep up the good work.
=========================================================================
#869
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 17:08:28 -0500
From: Grit Youngquist 612-266-2407
Subject: Re: A Change!!
In- <01HWA5J2P8ZQ9KRLAS@RCDP.GOV>
Mark, I support your decision! It seems a thoughtful, reasoned
response. Thanks! And as the previous responder said, keep up
the good work!
Grit Youngquist
Ramsey County Dep't of Public Health
Saint Paul, MN
=========================================================================
#870
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 04:29:46 -0500
From: "You will get a quick reply via email within 1 business day of
receipt of the info request form below."
Subject: *new* reply info: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide-
300+ Popular USA Titles
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#871872
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 08:54:57 -0600
From: THIS IS IT!!!
Subject: WORLD'S EASIEST MONEY MAKER!!!!!
WORLD'S EASIEST MONEY MAKER!!!!!
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#873
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 12:32:58 -0600
From: "clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca"
Subject: I AM THE TRUE KING OF SPAM I AM. FOR THE BEST Commercial Spam
RATES ON THE INTERNET,
E-MAIL YOUR RESPONSE TO clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#874
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 13:09:17 -0700
From: Holly Lenz
Subject: funny bones
Fellow HEDIRites:
Have any of you utilized humor as a major
component to a health promotion/health education
campaign? How successful were you in its application?
Is there an acknowledged "expert" in the area of
humor as it is applied to health promotion and health
education?
Holly Lenz
=========================================================================
#875
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:04:34 -0400
From: "Michael J. Ludwig"
Subject: Health Science Education: Chair Position
DEPARTMENT CHAIR
HEALTH SCIENCE EDUCATION
GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
(Please Post)
QUALIFICATIONS
The College of Health and Professional Studies is seeking applicants and
nominees for the position of Department Chair of Health Science Education.
Dynamic and energetic leaders are invited to apply for this 12-month, tenure-
track position. Qualifications: (1) Earned doctorate in health education,
community health, or public health, (2) experience and qualifications for
appointment to full professor rank and graduate faculty status, (3) strong
organizational, leadership, and interpersonal skills to work effectively with
colleagues from other academic departments, as well as public/community
agencies, (4) evidence of successful academic administrative ability and
effectiveness, (5) a commitment to teaching, service, and scholarship that
is consistent with the college's priorities for the department and the mission
of the university, (6) demonstrated professional leadership in
discipline-related
organizations, (7) knowledge of accreditation, certification, and
credentialing
within the discipline, and (8) ability and vision for leading the department
into the 21st century.
THE DEPARTMENT
The Department of Health Science Education is one of five academic
units within the College of Health & Professional Studies which
include Nursing, Family & Consumer Sciences, Recreation & Leisure
Services, and Sport Science & Physical Education. In addition, the College
houses the Center for Rural Health and Research.
The Department of Health Science Education has approximately 12 faculty
and staff, and over 100 majors enrolled in programs of study in the areas of
health promotion and community health. Proposed graduate programs in the
areas of public health and health services administration are in the
discussion stage.
Curriculum development plans include consideration of graduate programs
in public health and health services administration. The department,
culminating
a period of redirection, restructuring, program development, and faculty
recruitment, seeks to recruit a national leader for the position of
department chair.
THE UNIVERSITY
Georgia Southern University, a unit of the University System of Georgia, was
founded in 1906 and became a regional university on July 1, 1990. The
601-acre
campus is located in Statesboro, a community of approximately 30,000
residents,
50 miles northwest of historic Savannah and 200 miles southeast of Atlanta.
Anticipated
fall quarter 1995 headcount of approximately 14,000 reflects a 115%
enrollment growth
since the fall of 1984, resulting in the addition of over 200 faculty
positions. The university
offers 25 undergraduate degrees in 75 major fields of study, thirteen
master's degrees in 49 fields, the Education Specialist degree with 16
majors, and Ed.D. degree in Educational Administration.
APPLICATIONS
Applications must be postmarked by November 1, 1995, to ensure consideration
for the
position. Send letter of application, accompanied by detailed resume
addressing job
description, unofficial transcripts of all college work, names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of at least three references to:
Dr. Lynn Wolfe, Search Committee Chair,
Georgia Southern University, Landrum Box 8073, Statesboro, Georgia, 30460.
Position available July 1, 1996.
Affirmative action equal opportunity institution. Please know that the
names of
applicants and nominees, resumes, and other general non-evaluative information
will be open to public inspection under Georgia Law. Individuals who
need reasonable accommodations under the ADA in order to participate
in the application process should notify the search chair.
J. Lynn Wolfe
Assistant Dean, College of Health and Professional Studies
Georgia Southern University
L. B. 8073
Statesboro, GA 30460
Voice Mail (912) 681-5322 GIST 364-5322
E-Mail: Wolfe_ly@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael J. Ludwig | mjludwig@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu
Georgia Southern University | mjludwig@gsaix2.cc.gasou.edu
Landrum Box 8075 | (912)764-1552 (voice)
Statesboro, GA 30460-8075 | (912)681-5266 (secretary)
(912) 681-0721 (FAX) |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Choice is illusory to the degree it represents the
expectations of others." -Paulo Freire
=========================================================================
#876
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 14:59:45 -0700
From: Susan Bisaillon
Subject: Re: funny bones
In- <9510112012.AA14078@csupomona.edu>
I think the Univ. of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) had a humor
project going a while back. Not sure if they still do. You can try
contacting their Health Center to see if it's still operating. They had
materials and (I think) a video available for purchase. Good luck.
Similar programming is on my (someday) to-do list. Please forward any
resources you may find. Thanks.
************************************************************************
* Susan Bisaillon, MS Health Promotion *
* email: sbisaillon@csupomona.edu Student Health Services *
* Phone: (909) 869-2753 Cal Poly Pomona *
* Fax: (909) 869-4561 3801 W. Temple Avenue *
* Pomona, CA 91768 *
************************************************************************
On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Holly Lenz wrote:
> Fellow HEDIRites:
>
> Have any of you utilized humor as a major
> component to a health promotion/health education
> campaign? How successful were you in its application?
>
> Is there an acknowledged "expert" in the area of
> humor as it is applied to health promotion and health
> education?
>
> Holly Lenz
>
=========================================================================
#877
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 15:43:59 -0800
From: Elaine Tencati
Subject: Re: funny bones
In- Your message <199510112202.PAA25373@scrdp.Stanford.EDU> of Wed,
11 Oct 1995 14:59:45 -0700
I would also love to hear of any resources found concerning the use of humor.
Elaine Tencati, MPH
tencati@scrdp.stanford.edu
Phone (415) 725-4899
Fax (415) 7256906
1000 Welch Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
=========================================================================
#878
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 18:50:10 -0400
From: Andrea Frank
Subject: Re: Stan Glantz grant
Several people have asked me to clarify my position and the issues involved
in the Stan Glantz grant, so I would like to take this opportunity to address
these issues in one single posting.
>>> Though I would not want to suggest that your arguments are somehow unfair
or biased, the substance could very well pass for those used by the tobacco
industry. Put another, less subtle, way, you excel at cloaking crapola in
honey. ... Do you now, or have you ever, received funding, directly or
indirectly, from the tobacco industry?>>>
ANSWER: No. Nor do I ever intend to. Nor am I friends or colleagues with
anyone who has. And no, I'm not a smoker or ex-smoker either. I do,
however, have 2 uncles who died from lung cancer, and another who had a heart
attack after many years of smoking.
>>> Are you suggesting that NCI and NIH supported research should not deal
with community interventions or community approaches to solving health
problems?>>>
ANSWER: No, what I'm suggesting is that the decision context behind the
Glantz case appears to be a legal-legislative one. The House Appropriations
committee was commissioned to address whether the NCI and NIH existing
legislative mandate permits financial support of research projects such as
Glantz's. The Appropriations committee could find no specific language in
the original mandate to support Glantz-type research, and Glantz supporters
didn't provide any specifics either. In the absence of a clear mandate,
Glantz-type problems can come up, and again, and again. Perhaps a new law
needs to be passed to enlarge the NCI/NIH charter, or a new venue outside
NIH/NCI needs to be created for funding and conducting public policy research
(including tobacco policy). This may be a more appropriate cause for health
educators and others in public health to take up. Tobacco industry plots,
afterall, are only possible when there are grounds for them to plot on.
>>>This is clearly not the first attempt by NCI to research more
social/population based interventions. Why pick on this one that appears to
be particularly threatening to the tobacco industry?>>>
Glantz supporters said Glantz's work fell under the hubris of tobacco policy
research rather than a social/population based intervention. While tobacco
policy research and social/ population interventions may be related, they
aren't necessarily the same thing. Since Glantz supporters cited no specific
prior tobacco policy research grants, it's not clear in my mind that there
actually was any NCI/NIH precedent for Glantz's research endeavor. Second,
even if Glantz's research is not the first such grant, precedent isn't law.
Nor is a decision automatically correct simply because similar courses of
action were taken in the past. Faulty precedents can be set. The
Appropriations committee ruled that NCI/NIH's legislative mandate should
determine which grants get funded and which don't, not past funding
precedent.
>>>I do not believe that funding should be discontinued until after that
debate has ended - otherwise the elimination of funding seems designed more
to shut someone up (which is probably the intent with regard to Dr.
Glantz).>>>
COMMENT: What proof (other than assertion) is there that the tobacco
industry is indeed responsible for trying to shut Glantz up? Decisions should
be based on documented facts, not appearances. Tobacco companies surely
aren't angels, but public health people too often automatically and shrilly
attribute every negative turn of events to some sort of nefarious plot
conducted by the tobacco industry. Even if the tobacco lobby is involved,
the limitations of the NCI/NIH mandate is still a valid issue. This incessant
good guy public health - bad guy tobacco industry approach deflects attention
from the multi-dimensional nature of most social and public health problems
and short-circuits genuine dialogue and any attempts to critically examine
tobacco problems and issues.
>>>Shouldn't we be encouraging NCI & NIH to get away from the bench scientist
mentality?>>>
RESPONSE: Possibly, but how is this aim furthered by giving grant money to an
apparent "bench scientist" for purposes of conducting social science research
rather giving the money to a social scientist to conduct a similar
investigation?
>>> Part of the review process is to evaluate and judge the qualifications of
the applicant to complete the research as proposed - this is taken very
seriously and surely was a part of Dr. Glantz' review. Many of the questions
raised, such as composition of the review committee, are in the public
domain. Typically the committee includes members who have expertise in the
areas to be reviewed - did you check this out before you wrote your piece?>>>
ANSWER: The public domain is a big area, especially when one is given only 24
hours to decide whether or not splash one's name on the pages of the New York
Times and to meet an op-ed ad deadline. When someone wants me to support
their cause, I believe it is their responsibility (not mine) to do the
legwork and prove rather than assert their case and to substantiate rather
than assert answers to the valid questions and concerns that are raised. I'm
not willing to accept unsubstantiated assurances that everything was done
according to Hoyle simply because someone who once served on another
scientific peer review committees says this was undoubtedly the case. Glantz
supporters have to be more specific about who exactly was on Glantz's peer
review committee and what their degrees and credentials were if they expect
others to join their cause. Will this list be part of their NYT op ed ad?
>>>I am especially troubled by your use of the term "elite groups of
scientists". ... I can think of nothing more frightening than to radically
change the scientific review process.... Would we rather that science
proposals be reviewed by "elite groups of politicians", or "elite groups of
tobacco industry executives", or "elite groups of lobbyists"? In fact,
scientists are not really an elite group at all - they just happen to know
something about a particular topic. And when they review grant applications,
they do not make the decision about what gets funded - they simply provide a
score that is considered when funding decisions are made.>>>
RESPONSE: Oh please... and the pope and his entourage at the Vatican aren't
really an elite group at all, they just happen to know something about God
and Catholicism, right? Webster's defines "elite" as: "the choice or most
carefully selected part of a group, as in society or a profession."
Scientists are an elite group of society (not just anyone can become a
scientist), and peer review committees represent the elite of the elite (not
just any scientist can be appointed to a peer review committee). The "score"
they give to grant proposals carries a great deal of weight. I'm not
recommending that any single group of elites determine anything, nor am I
advocating a radical change to anything. Public funding of scientific
research is and has always been subject to the input of scientific,
political, business, military, religious and other groups. Like it or not,
that's how the democratic process works.
My concern is that as the Internet grows exponentially, we all can expect to
see more and more of these Glantz-style requests for support, most demanding
an URGENT! response. Some of these causes surely are worthy, but I'm not
personally willing to blindly endorse any cause on someone else's good
authority, particularly when pressing questions and concerns remain
unanswered. The attitude presented by at least SOME of the Glantz supporters
comes across to me as, "Hey, we're anti-smoking research scientists, trust
us. Everything we say and do is objective, true, and beyond reproach.
Therefore, we don't even need to prove our assertions to non-scientists or
the public at large, let alone to a committee of know-nothing politicians who
have obviously been corrupted by the sleazy tobacco industry. As a higher
form of life, we scientists are the only ones who are capable of reviewing
scientific decisions. Just give us the money. We'll decide the best way to
spend it. Don't worry though, this doesn't make us an elite group or
anything. Oh, and by the way, you're all invited to join with us in casting
aspersions on anyone who dares to disagree with or question our opinions
about tobacco research and policy, or who advocates that scientists be held
publicly accountable for the way tax-supported research dollars are used.
Such individuals are obvious minions of the tobacco industry and ethically
corrupt." (I can already see flames lapping at my computer, and I haven't
even pressed the "send" button yet.)
Here's the botton line. Do we as health educators truly want to be accepted
and respected as professionals in society? If so, we can't blindly rely on
the intellectual authority of other professions (physicians, bioscientists,
Stan Glantz supporters, et al.) and automatically take on their opinions and
viewpoints as our own. Health education won't become a profession until we do
more critical reflection, ask probing questions, and challenge other
professions and professionals when they attempt to assert their exclusive
monopolies on the "truth." We need to continually ask ourselves and others:
"The truth according to who? What's behind the truth? What other truths
exist?" Let's avoid knee-jerk decision-making by valuing doubt and the
posing of critical questions. Perhaps as a profession, health education can
lead the way.
Andrea Frank
=========================================================================
#879
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 22:31:35 PST
From: Dawn Graff-Haight
Organization: Urban and Public Affairs
Subject: second pregnancy prevention in teen moms
Please respond to the following request through Dawn Graff-Haight at the
email address above. I will forward these messages on to Alison, who
does not have access to internet. If you are also interested in any
information I obtain from this request, please respond to me, and I will
forward a collection of the responses to you.
Thanks,
Dawn Graff-Haight
Portland State University
My name is Alison Hayes and I will be developing a curriculum for
Multnomah Co. Health Dept. in conjuction with Portland Public Schools
that deals with Teen mothers and Preventing second pregnancy. If anyone
has information on curricula, programs, research articles, or other
resources it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Alison Hayes
Multnomah Co. Health Dept
Portland OR, 97207
(503) 335-0653
=========================================================================
#880
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 01:20:00 EDT
From: Rick Petosa
HEDIR FOLKS,
I appreciate Andrea Frank's thoughtful response regarding the
Glantz controversy. I also have been concerned about the demands
of "instant response" implied when some technologies are used. When
I am FAXED a reply is often expected the same day. Internet requests
often carry the same immediacy. The rush to reply can undermine careful
consideration.
Regarding the Glantz controvery, I am very concerned about "ambush
politics" which change the rules of the game after the game has begun.
Research takes time, proposal writing and review are the time to
scrutinize the appropriateness of a grant proposal. If researchers are
fearful of political attack/loss of funding after projects are running,
there will be tremendous pressure to ensure that results are
politically acceptable, always a guessing game.
rick petosa
=========================================================================
#881
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:05:22 -0700
From: Holly Lenz
Subject: Re: second pregnancy prevention in teen moms
In- <9510120516.AA12748@ucs.orst.edu>
Dawn:
Sage Publications put out a book in 1992
called Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy, Model
Programs and Evaluations. Frankly...I don't
believe that any of the programs were
very successful and so I would not have called
them "model" at all. However, I do feel that the
text is very important in that it is a clear indication
of what does NOT work.
I believe it was Bernard Shaw who said, "You can't
break the rules until you know what they are!"
Good luck on the project to all concerned!
Holly Lenz
=========================================================================
#882
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:32:21 -0700
From: Holly Avey
Subject: Job Posting - Health Educator (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:35:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Cathleen Connell
To: Holly Avey
Subject: Job Posting - Health Educator
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT - Immediate Opening for a Health Educator
*****
The Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center will begin a
continuation of 1 3-year community-based outreach education
project to disseminate information about the diagnosis, assessment,
management, and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The target
audience for the dissemination effort includes health care
professionals, service providers, staff of volunteer and
community organizations and family members. Educational
programs are planned for the Grand Rapids, Saginaw/Bay City,
and Kalamazoo areas. Community advisory boards will be
established at each site to guide the development, implementation,
and evaluation of the onsite programs.
*****
HEALTH EDUCATOR
*****
We are seeking a master's trained Health Educator to serve as
Project Director and coordinate the day-to-day operation of the
project. The Health Educator will initiate interactions with
community and voluntary groups, health and social service
organizations, and local physicians; establish community-based
advisory groups; conduct a community assessment related to the
existing dementia service delivery network; and collaborate
with advisory board members to develop, implement, and evaluate
an educational program. Additionally, the Health Educator will
conduct key informant and focus group interviews; develop curriculum for
the onsite educational programs in collaboration with the advisory boards;
hire and supervise work-study students to assist with the
project; prepare project reports and participate in writing articles
for publication; design evaluation instruments based on the unique
curriculum developed for each site; coordinate data collection
and data analysis activities; and carry out all tasks and activities
as required for the successful completion of the project.
*****
NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS
*****
The position requires a Master's level health related/educational
degree, or equivalent combination of education and experience;
demonstrated ability to be self-directed; experience in health
education and/or community outreach; strong interpersonal and
communication skills; familiarity with community-based
approaches to educational research and evaluation; and willingness
to travel to each of the three intervention sites.
*****
DESIRED EXPERIENCE
*****
Familiarity with health issues of older adults, particularly
Alzheimer's disease and related disorders; community-based research
experience, including the use of qualitative analytic approaches;
experience with designing, implementing and evaluating educational
programs for health professionals; experience with curriculum
design and development of educational materials and programs; and
familiarity with Macintosh computeter environment, including the
use of Microsoft Word and statistical packages for the social sciences.
Salary will be commensurate with experience and education. To apply,
send a resume and cover letter describing your interest in and
qualifications for the position to:
Cathleen M Connell, Ph.D.
Principal Investigator
Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center
300 North Ingalls Building, Room 3D03
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0489
***********************************************************************
=========================================================================
#883
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:47:13 -0700
From: "Andrew Jenkins (Central Washington University)"
Subject: Friday inspiration
In-
Friends and fellows,
I seems to me... That in our struggle for rank and tenure, for standing
and prestige, for advancement in career and community, we often confront
a sort of "working inertia" created by those around us who have
established the "union pace" of doing things. Free thinking, even in
universities, is not always encouraged or fostered.
To "up the pace" or to break away from the pack often leaves one well
enough alone to make the struggle. Still, it's the individual traits of
courage to try new things, to change the pace, to put one's own feet to
the fire that advances ourselves and our profession. In that light, I
offer this encouragement from an American Industrialist:
"Behind every advance of the human race is a germ of creation growing in
the mind of some lone individual, an individual whose dreams awaken him
in the night while others lie contently asleep"
Crawford Greenwalt
President Dupont Corp.
Good Health!
Andrew P Jenkins, PhD, CHES
=========================================================================
#884
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 22:25:37 -0700
From: aln
Subject: ALN is providing FREE auto-responders ... find out how!
**This was an advertisement unrelated to health education. To save space, it
has been removed from this file. MJKittleson**
=========================================================================
#885886
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:19:12 -0400
From: Ho Chi Minh
Subject: Re: funny bones
In- <199510112202.AA18683@unf6.cis.unf.edu>
Our program coordinator at the St. Vincent's Wellness Center does talks
to various groups about "Exercising Your Funny Bone."
Her name is Missy Durante at 904-387-9355 if anyone would like to contact
her.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% % %
% CoraLynn N. Torio % 904-778-0533 %
% 5921 Broken Arrow Dr. W. % or %
% Jacksonville, FL 32244 % 904-393-3376 %
% % %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
=========================================================================
#887
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 16:49:50 -0400
From: Andrea Frank
Subject: reuters news article
I downloaded this off of the October 12 Reuters news service. Thought it
might be of interest to some folks on the HEDIR.
By Gail Appleson, Law Correspondent
NEW YORK (Reuter) - Tobacco executives considered entering the nicotine
patch business three years ago, but were concerned it might suggest they were
admitting nicotine is addictive, according to documents made public Thursday.
The memos, written by executives at B.A.T Industries PLC, were made
available to the public as part of the comment period in the Food and Drug
Administration's efforts to regulate cigarettes.
The tobacco industry maintains that nicotine is not addictive and has
filed suit to block the FDA's efforts to control the sale and marketing of
cigarettes.
A source told Reuters the papers were sent to the FDA anonymously. An FDA
spokesman said he could not comment.
The papers relate to B.A.T's consideration of a proposal to market a
nicotine patch developed by Stowic Resources Ltd. Patches were developed to
deliver nicotine in decreasing doses to wean smokers off cigarettes.
In one memo dated April 24, 1992, Mick McGraw, chief attorney at B.A.T's
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. subsidiary, warns about regulatory and
product liability issues the company and its parent could face if they
entered the patch business.
``Our adversaries argue that cigarette manufacturers are nothing more
than 'drug pushers' and that we are in the 'nicotine delivery' business.
``We point out that people smoke for a number of reasons including taste,
pleasure, enjoyment, sociability, etc. If we did anything which suggested we
were simply in the nicotine delivery business, we would run a serious risk of
facing FDA jurisdiction.''
McGraw said that if B.A.T was associated with the patch business, it
would face arguments that the company was ''admitting that the real reason
people smoke is for the nicotine.''
Another document dated March 27, 1992, expressed the company's concern
about the negative impact the patch could have on the tobacco business.
The memo, written by Jean-Louis Mercier, then chairman of B.A.T's
Canadian unit, states ``...Given the large proportion of smokers wanting to
quit, any device which helps even a small fraction to achieve this goal has
the potential to have a negative impact on our business.''
Reut19:05 10-12-95
=========================================================================
#888
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 17:56:17 -0400
From: Carolyn Fisher
Subject: Health Graduation Requirement Citations
Dear Colleagues,
I would like to ask for your assistance in compiling a list of all the
reports and documents that recommend comprehensive health education as a high
school graduation requirement. If you happen to have the report or document
in your personal library, I would appreciate receiving the title, author(s),
date of publication, publisher and page number(s) and the actual citation. I
am also interested in any reports or documents that specify comprehensive
health education be taught as a separate course or recommend a specific
amount of time and/or grade levels. When this project is completed I would
be happy to share the information with anyone who is interested. Thank you in
advance for willingness to assist with locating citations!
Carolyn Fisher, M.Ed., C.H.E.S.
Coordinator, Comprehensive Health Programs
San Joaquin County Office of Education
P.O. Box 213030
Stockton, California 952213
(209) 468-4960
=========================================================================
#889
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 19:19:00 -0400
From: "Michael J. Ludwig"
Subject: 10 RULES FOR BEING HUMAN
Being as though there has been some interest recently
on the use of humor (although these may fall under the
"insight" category), I thought I'd pass these on. A virtual
friend of mine forwarded them to me. Enjoy.
> author, unknown
>
> TEN RULES FOR BEING HUMAN
>
>1. YOU WILL RECEIVE A BODY.
>You may like it or hate it, but it's yours to keep for the entire period.
>
>2. YOU WILL LEARN LESSONS.
>You are enrolled in a full time informal school called "life".
>
>3. THERE ARE NO MISTAKES, ONLY LESSONS.
>Growth is a process of trial, error, and experimentation. The "failed"
>experiments are as much a part of the process as the experiments that
>ultimately "work".
>
>4. LESSONS ARE REPEATED UNTIL THEY ARE LEARNED.
>A lesson will be presented to you in various forms until you have learned it.
>When you have learned it, you can go on to the next lesson.
>
>5. LEARNING LESSONS DOES NOT END.
>There's no part of life that doesn't contain it's lessons. If you are alive,
>that means there are still lessons to be learned.
>
>6. "THERE" IS NO BETTER PLACE THAN "HERE".
>When your "there" has become a "here", you will simply obtain another "there"
>that will again look better than "there".
>
>7.OTHER PEOPLE ARE MERELY MIRRORS OF YOU.
>You cannot love or hate something about another person unless it reflects to
>you something you love or hate about yourself.
>
>8. WHAT YO MAKE OF YOUR LIFE IS UP TO YOU.
>You have all the tools and resources you need. What you do with them is up to
>you. The choice is yours.
>
>9. YOUR ANSWERS LIE WITHIN YOU.
>The answers to life's questions lie within you. All you need to do is look,
>listen and trust.
>
>10. YOU WILL FORGET ALL THIS.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Michael J. Ludwig | mjludwig@gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu
Georgia Southern University | mjludwig@gsaix2.cc.gasou.edu
Landrum Box 8075 | (912)764-1552 (voice)
Statesboro, GA 30460-8075 | (912)681-5266 (secretary)
(912) 681-0721 (FAX) |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Choice is illusory to the degree it represents the
expectations of others." -Paulo Freire
=========================================================================
#890
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:22:21 -0700
From: Holly Avey
Subject: Re: Stan Glantz grant (fwd)
Another forwarded message from TOBACTALK regarding Andrea Frank's messages.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:33:16 -0500
From: Gene Borio
To: Multiple recipients of list TOBACTALK
Subject: Re: Stan Glantz grant
Most of Frank's arguments will not be new to those who read the National
Smokers Journal, etc.--but the main point I'd like to make is:
This is the kind of argument--a wily combination of the extremely
knowledgeable and the selectively ignorant--that is being developed in PR
offices and focus groups across the country, and is being honed to
perfection in online fora like alt.smokers.
These arguments can be extremely powerful to the layman, and I see no
corresponding development on the tobacco control side--or even much
awareness that this is going on.
Laws are vailidated and empowered in the minds of the people. "Thou shalt
not kill," can actually mean "Thou shalt not kill--unless we have to go to
war, of course" if everyone agrees on it. "All men are created equal" can
mean "All men are created equal--except for black people, of course" if
everyone says, "Yeah, that makes sense."
The battle now is for hearts and minds, and in one way Frank's "elite" slur
is correct--tobacco control advocates have succeeded in getting the
information out to various levels of local and national government, but
they have been woefully remiss in letting ordinary people in on this
knowledge.
If tobacco control efforts are undercut by these faux "pressing questions
and concerns," then tobacco control by default will wind up in the hands of
the tobacco industry and the Burson-Marstellers of the world.
Knowledge (which Ms. Frank so selectively eschews) is what will defeat
massive propaganda, Jesuitical turns of phrase, and even the attempt to
undermine years of scientific investigation through psuedo-democratic
appeals, or smears referring to [pick-your-scientific-error from the past].
Even the philosophical attacks on the very nature of truth--dovetailing
neatly into framings like "the controversy over the health effects of
smoking"--can, with a little knowledge, be seen for what they are.
The development of web pages to present ongoing information with more depth
and resonance than brochures is an important step; but it galls me that so
much daily news and information that ScarcNet, for example, has had
available for years, has been sat on, with no attempt to make it available
to the public.
It is that very knowledge which will build and maintain public support, and
allow people to immediately see beyond Ms. Frank's sophistries--which are
placed for pro-tobacco interests' regurgitation in numerous magazines and
newsletters.
The ongoing evolution of these arguments, and their avenues of
dissemination, are ignored at our peril.
As "noisy" as it is, alt.smokers is an excellent place to keep an eye on
these developments; those interested should also head over to Compuserve's
National Issues, MedSig or Journalism fora to see the massive and highly
sophisticated battles Dave Cundiff wages with Pete Petraski.
That no one is charged with tracking and responding in these arenas--on
AOL, CIS, FidoNet and the Internet--is astonishing to me. I'm willing to
bet the other side has such people.
A few final notes:
With a bit of research, Ms. Frank would see her arguments' own rebuttals.
That a truly disinterested professional should post such a detailed
critique based on sheer ignorance is hard to swallow.
Glantz's qualifications and expertise are unquestioned because even the
tobacco industry seems unable to attack his studies, as exemplified during
the New York City smokefree Air Act hearings. Through four hearings, no
evidence was ever presented to refute his studies debunking the "30% Myth."
And all the players were there. The Tobacco Institute had even indicated at
the first hearing that they would rebut it next time, but never did. That's
one tough and rigorous study, if you ask me.
One especially clever development in Frank's message I haven't noticed
before is the use of the term "Glantz supporters." I admit to a perverse
admiration in the way it's developed here. As you read Frank's argument,
the term when introduced seems innocuous enough, then begins to reverberate
in the context and tone of the message, and by the end has taken on the
nasty resonance of Marc Antony's "honorable men."
=========================================================================
#891
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 22:57:50 +0700
From: Danny Ballard
Subject: Humor & Health
I am also most interested in resources found related to Humor and Health -
would you please share those with me? Thanks!
Danny J. Ballard, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4243
(409) 845-7649
Dr. Danny J. Ballard
Associate Professor-Health
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-4243
phone (409) 845-7649
Fax (409) 847-8987
=========================================================================
#892
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:15:03 -0700
From: "Andrew Jenkins (Central Washington University)"
Subject: Re: Humor & Health
In- <01HWI39OXR5U000UA1@AURORA.CWU.EDU>
Danny, Holly, and others,
I've been working on an article (in my abundant
sparetime) on humor and health promotion and have uncovered at least a
hundred research and editorial articles on humor and it's role in stress
manegement, longevity, child health, and a variety of other ailments and
conditions on the MEDLINE (no, the conditions weren't on the Medline, the
citations were!). Check out your local library or see if you can access it
thru the net. (it's possible but I don't know how to pull it off)
The citations and abstracts found are far too numerous to list here but I
can tell you that Health Ed. journals are waaaay behind the nursing ed.
journals in terms of accepting humor as a viable means to lower stress
and increase teaching effectiveness.
It seems to me that just about everyone in health promotion uses at least
*some* humor but since it's a difficult construct to measure, graph, or
chart, few authors (and fewer peer reviewers) are willing to acknowledge
it's efficacy in health promo.
Lastly, I can give you one teeny lead: I did a little piece on using
limericks to teach and learn health ed. content way back in the Nov. '91
issue of J of School Health. Basically, kids write limericks based on
the class material and come up with some outragous, very pointed, funny/sad,
creative ditties about health behaviors and the outcomes of those choices.
Good luck on your search.
Andy J :{)
*******************************************
On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Danny Ballard wrote:
> I am also most interested in resources found related to Humor and Health -
> would you please share those with me? Thanks!
>
> Danny J. Ballard, Ed.D.
> Associate Professor
> Texas A&M University
> College Station, TX 77843-4243
> (409) 845-7649
>
>
>
> Dr. Danny J. Ballard
> Associate Professor-Health
> Texas A&M University
> College Station, TX 77843-4243
> phone (409) 845-7649
> Fax (409) 847-8987
>
=========================================================================
#893
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 19:54:16 CST
From: "Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
Subject: ASHA and APHA
Fellow Health Educators:
Many of you are planning to attend either the American School Health
Association's national conference in Milwaukee or the American Public
Health Association's national conference in San Diego (I'm sure many
of you are planning to attend both). Since the purpose of the HEDIR list-
serv is to provide resources to all health educators I would like to
request that those individuals who attend either (or both) conferences
to please share their insight from the conference with the entire HEDIR
list. If you attended a good presentation or so, please feel free to
share it with fellow HEDIRs. I'm sure that many of the people who are
not able to attend either of these conferences would find it interesting
and professionally helpful.
For those that are attending the APHA, I hope to see you out there.
I'm sure I'll recognize the names, and it will be nice to see the faces
attached to the names. There's quite a few presentations on the electronic
technologies available in public health and health education. I'll be
speaking of the HEDIR on Wednesday night.
=========================================================================
#894
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:37:08 CST
From: "Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:04:05 -0700 (MST)
From: Holly Avey
To: hedir@siucvmb.siu.edu
Subject: Glantz request (fwd)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:59:26 -0700
From: Scott Leischow
To: Multiple recipients of list TOBACTALK
Subject: Glantz request
Regarding your recent reply to my and apparently others'
comments to your Glantz memo, I was glad to hear that
you are not a mouthpiece for the tobacco or
any other industry. However, you continue to "talk"
without saying anything substantive. Arguing a "non point"
is no argument - just listening to oneself talk.
Indeed, your focus on this straw man issue would be
a good reason not to accept health education as a
highly regarded profession - if your views were representative
of most health educators (I can only hope not). Do you
really consider your points critical? Or even
well thought out?
Finally, your continued disdain for and ignorance of the grant
review process, and those who do the reviewing, are
unfortunate. I really do not understand the "higher form
of life" terminology. This is going to improve the lot
of health educators?
Scott Leischow, Ph.D.
Health Education Program
Department of Family nad Community Medicine
The University of Arizona
=========================================================================
#895
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:39:40 CST
From: "Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:52:59 -0400
From: Andyfrank@aol.com
Message-ID: <951017135258_126104880@emout06.mail.aol.com>
To: hedir@siucvmb.siu.edu
cc: Andyfrank@aol.com
Subject: Reply to Borio
People on the HEDIR are probably getting pretty sick and tired of hearing
about Stan Glantz's grant. I was content to stand back and let others
continue or drop the discourse at this point until Borio's sharp, public
attack on my personal and professional integrity was forwarded to me. Some
things you can let go ... some things you can't. I would like to publicly
thank Holly Avey for forwarding tobactalk postings which mentioned me by name
(I'm not on that listserv) and bringing the full nature of the discussion
into the open for all to see. What follows is a copy of the reply I
publicly posted to Borio on tobactalk. Please feel free to press delete at
any time.
Andrea Frank
>>>Mr. Borio tries to discredit my points (and even my right to ask questions
and raise legitimate issues) by 1 - disparaging my personal integrity,
motives, intellect and professional competence though he has no personal
knowledge of me or my professional credentials, experience or background; and
2 - by asserting that my arguments are fallacious. The use of such evasive
tactics merely serve to divert attention from legitimate issues, leading
listserv readers on a wild goose chase.
I am choosing to disregard Mr. Borio's personal assaults on my character,
etc. as I have no desire to get involved in unproductive name calling or
mutual character assassinations. I think if you carefully read the previous
messages I've posted you'll see that while I've raised questions about
scientific group process, I never attacked the personal or professional
integrity of Stan Glantz or any other individual. If the facts in his case
can be corroborated, indeed, he has suffered a grave injustice. In the
meantime, however, I've formed absolutely no opinion at all of Stan Glantz or
his case, because so little substantiated information has been forthcoming
from his supporters.
I've repeatedly raised a number of legitimate, critical questions and issues
and asked others to provide evidence to support their assertions. Those
questions remain unaswered, not least among them: 1) What EXACT, verbatim
language in the NIH/NCI charter can be cited to justify using NIH $ to
support Glantz's or ANYONE ELSE'S tobacco POLICY research? 2) In what way do
bioscience credentials qualify ANY bioscientist to conduct social science
policy research? and 3) What were the exact credentials of the peer review
committee who reviewed Stan Glantz's grant?
Mr. Borio ignored the first question completely and begged the second and
third when he said:
>>>Glantz's qualifications and expertise are unquestioned because even the
tobacco industry seems unable to attack his studies, as exemplified during
the New York City smokefree Air Act hearings."Through four hearings, no
evidence was ever presented to refute his studies debunking the "30% Myth."
... That's one tough and rigorous study, if you ask me.">>>
No, Mr. Borio, I didn't ask you if PREVIOUS Glantz studies (which you also
fail to identify as POLICY vs. bioscience studies) were tough and rigorous.
What I asked is how the NIH/NCI can justify giving money for social science
policy research to ANYONE based solely on their credentials as a professor of
medicine and bioengineering, their reputation as a bioscientist or their past
bioscience research? No one has yet denied that Stan Glantz is a
bioscientist, or demonstrated that he has any academic social science
credentials. No one has yet denied that POLICY research falls in the social
science, not bioscience domain. And no one has yet demonstrated that anyone
with social science credentials had equal oversight and input into this
particular POLICY research project. If that doesn't trouble Mr. Borio and
others, it should, because if the NCI/NIH can justify giving grant money to
bioscientists for social science research purposes, then isn't it perfectly
appropriate for the NCI/NIH to give political scientists grant money for
bioscience research purposes e.g. why not put a political scientist in charge
of a clinical trial to test the efficacy of nicotine patches or to study the
carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke residues? If that possibility turns
the stomach of bioscientists, then they need to carefully rethink the
converse but parallel issues apparently involved in the Glantz grant. (By
the way, that's not sophistry, just pure unadulterated logic). Unless, of
course, the hidden assumption behind Mr. Borio's argument is that "real"
scientists can do ANY kind of research, and that social scientists by
comparison aren't "real" scientists anyway, so they don't count when it comes
time to distribute NIH/NCI grant money.
I find Mr. Borio's charge that my "arguments" (as he calls them) are
fallacious, puzzling, since most of what I posted addressed questions that
need answering and have been continually ignored or dodged. Instead of
answering the questions and concerns I raised, Mr. Borio uses the specious
argument that in deigning to bring up these issues I am either a clever and
obvious mole for the tobacco industry or as sheerly ignorant as the
non-elite, lay public Mr. Borio also scorns. In the spirit of civil
discourse, I invite Mr. Borio to back up his assertions about my "Jesuitical
turns of phrases" by clearly delineating the nature of these supposed
sophistries and illuminating us all as to the precise errors of reasoning
which he ASSERTS exist.
In truth, there is really only one "argument" I'm trying to make: THAT IT IS
INCUMBENT UPON PEOPLE ADVOCATING A CAUSE TO JUSTIFY THEIR CLAIMS AND
ASSERTIONS. When public charges are made, the burden of proof is on those
who levy the charge -- at least that's what libel and slander laws require.
This is a crucial point. The posting to support Stan Glantz was sent out
over various listservs on the Internet and asked a variety of public health
professionals (not just those directly involved in tobacco control strategies
or tobacco research!) to lend their names to a national ad in which the
integrity of specific individuals or groups would be assailed, and illegal
lobbying activity might even be alleged. (Actually, since the proposed text
of the NYT ad wasn't stated, no one could actually be sure what claims were
going to be made in the ad and how his or her name might be used in
connection with them).
When someone wants the right to use my name to support this type of cause and
gives me a 24 hour deadline to reply, I certainly reserve the right to ask
questions and get prompt, straight answers from them in return. Under these
circumstances, to suggest that those of us in public health (many who are
academics with advanced degrees and who are not necessarily disinterested or
ignorant but nonetheless who have never heard of Stan Glantz) should drop
everything and conduct an extensive review of his literature, etc. or else
forfeit our right to ask questions is not only presumptuous but--well--
ABSURD!!!!! Furthermore,to shrilly assault the personal integrity of those
who raise valid issues or questions certainly negates the goal of
establishing a "disputatious community of truthseekers" -- a goal to which
both social and bioscientists supposedly aspire.
The attempts to crush critical thinking and the resistance that I've
encountered in trying to get straightforward answers to questions in this
matter, along with some people's lack of willingness to rationally and
publicly debate important issues, should be obvious and troubling to all. In
every way this public discourse as it has evolved seems contrary to the
argument put forth that Stan Glantz's grant deserves support because the
conduct of science is a totally apolitical,objective, decontextualized
process that it is somehow "above" it all. If the "objective" scientific peer
review process that occurs at the NIH/NCI is anything like that reflected by
Mr. Borio and Mr. Leitschow's previous tirades, science and our society are
indeed in serious trouble, and it's not only the tobacco industry who's
guilty of subverting the scientific process! In my opinion, tobacco wars are
best won by keeping to the high ground, not by stooping to "the enemy's"
tactics. When that happens, both sides lose their credibility.
By the way, since I'm not on the tobactalk listserv and someone else
forwarded my original message there (the Glantz appeal was originally routed
to me through the HEDIR and my reply was posted on the HEDIR) I haven't been
privy to the tobactalk reactions to my postings. Fortunately, in two cases
where messages posted on tobactalk listed me by name (e.g. Borio and
Leitschow), another person was good enough to forward said comments to me.
If anyone else posts on tobactalk or elsewhere and happens to mention me by
name, I would appreciate it if the sender(s) would have the courtesy to "cc"
me at andyfrank@aol.com -- Let's not say anything behind the scenes that
we're not willing to say to someone's face. Speaking of which, since I don't
have Stan's email address, perhaps someone on this listserv could see that he
gets a copy of this. Thanks.>>>
=========================================================================
#896
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:40:10 CDT
From: Joyce Morris
Subject: Needs Assessment Text
Last spring several people suggested possible texts for a course on
needs assessment. Unfortunately they got lost in my summer move.
Any suggestions of texts and/or readings for such a course would be
appreciated.
Joyce Morris
Health Services Organization and Policy
Wichita State University
morris@islchp.uc.twsu.edu
=========================================================================
#897
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:59:00 EST
From: RWEILER@HHP.UFL.EDU
Subject: POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
Department Chair: The Department of Health Science
Education, College of Health and Human Performance, UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA, invites nominations and applications for the position of
Chairperson. Candidates should possess a doctoral degree in health
education, a strong record in scholarly production, proven success in
securing external funding, a commitment to development of activities and
promotion of relationships with alumni, the ability to develop
interdepartmental research and teaching linkages, and successful
administrative experience. Responsibilities include administration of the
department (which includes the Florida Center for Health Promotion),
research, teaching, and supervision of doctoral candidates. This is a tenure
track position at the full professor level; salary will be commensurate with
experience and qualifications. Candidates should send a letter with their
curriculum vitae and names and addresses of three references to: Search
Committee Chair, Department of Health Science Education, P.O. Box
118210, FLG 5, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-8210.
Application received by February 16, 1996 are assured consideration. The
University of Florida is an equal employment opportunity/affirmative action
employer. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.
=========================================================================
#898
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:36:00 EST
From: Isabel Burk
Subject: Key Committees Vote to Abolish Health Pr
>To: Dick Donahue
>From: Children Now (by way of lindac@westnet.com
(Linda Conte))
>Subject: Key Committees Vote to Abolish Health Programs for Poor Children
>
>*******************
>CHILDREN NOW UPDATE
>October 17, 1995
>*******************
>
>KEY COMMITTEES VOTE TO ABOLISH HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR POOR CHILDREN
>
>
>The Federal Medicaid program, which provides essential health services to
>America's most vulnerable children, as well as the elderly and disabled
>persons, would be abolished under current legislative proposals.
>Committees of both the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed
>legislation that would repeal Title XIX of the Social Security Act, which
>established the Medicaid program 30 years ago, and replace it with
>"Medigrant" block grants with almost no protections for children
>
>The proposals also would eliminate the federal Vaccines for Children
>program, which makes immunizations available to children whose families
>otherwise would not be able to afford them.
>
>
>Action Needed:
>
>Please write, call or e-mail the President and your Senators and Members of
>Congress and urge them to veto/vote against these proposals.
>
>President Clinton Representative_______
Senator_______
>The White House US House of Representatives US Senator
>1600 Pennslyvania Avenue Washington, DC Washington,
DC
>Washington, D.C. 20500 20515 20515
>(202) 456-1111 (202) 224-3121 (202)
224-3121
>president@whitehouse.gov
>
>
>Key Points to Make:
>
>* . Current Medicaid eligibility and standards of care for children must
>be maintained. The Medicaid program provides essential and cost-effective
>preventive health services as well as primary care and hospitalization for
>our country's poorest children
>
>* The $187 billion in cuts ($182 billion in the House version) would have
>a devastating effect on states' ability to provide services to the 22
>million children now insured through Medicaid.
>
>* Protect the Vaccines for Children Program. Cutting this program would
>result in preventable illness and suffering for our nation's children.
>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
>
>CHILDREN NOW:
> A nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization for children.
>
>CHILDREN NOW WEB SITE:
> Learn about children's issues and how to take action.
> Includes extensive links to other online resources on children's
issues.
> URL:
>
>CHILDREN NOW INTERNET MAILING LIST
> Receive regular updates on children's issues.
> Send an E-Mail message to:
> majordomo@dnai.com
> with the message:
> SUBSCRIBE CHILDNOW
>
>Children Now
>1212 Broadway, Suite 530
>Oakland, CA 94610
>http://www.dnai.com/~children
>
=========================================================================
#899
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:47:28 -0600
From: Rodney Bowden
Subject: Re: Key Committees Vote to Abolish Health Pr
>>Key Points to Make:
>>
>>* The $187 billion in cuts ($182 billion in the House version) would have
>>a devastating effect on states' ability to provide services to the 22
>>million children now insured through Medicaid.
Is cuts the right term? What actually is happening is a reduction in
growth. The government works on what is called baseline budgeting. They
make projections as to what will be spent in a certain year (i.e. fiscal
year 1996 we will spend $...). These projections are usually very
subjective based on data collection. The cuts you mention are actually a
slow down in growth. So yes there will be $187 billion less in 2006, but
the program over the next seven to ten years will GROW and MORE money will
be spent. The argument is not that there will less money, because MORE
will be spent with this next 7-10 year plan, but not as much as was
projected. To have devistating effect on children assumes that the problem
will only escalate and that argument of escalation must force us to shift
paradigms and find out how to help or nations children, and that throwing
money at the problem may not be the final answer.
I'm sure some of you will have the wrong impression of the questions I have
proposed. I DO believe that children have to be a high priorty, and their
health is of importance as it can "cloud" other aspects of their life (i.e.
learning abilities). But we got to stop this fatalistic scream for more
money, take our heads out the sand, and come to the table with new ideas,
new cost-effective approaches, because the need for more money is putting a
band-aid on a severe wound. How do we save our children?
******************************************************************************
Rodney Bowden, Ph.D. Assistant Professor
office x 409-468-1614 Stephen F. Austin State University
f_BowdenRG@titan.sfasu.edu Health Science
****************************************************************************
**
=========================================================================
#900
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:28:00 CST
From: "Mark J. Kittleson (GA3748@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU)"
Subject: Frustrations!!!
Fellow HEDIRs....I have been frustrated to the nth degree...without
boring you to tears the system here at SIU cannot handle the editor
mode...yet. We will within a short time period, but as of now we
can't. It is doubly troubling because I do not have my computer
"hard-wired" into our computing system...I'm doing all of this via
phone modem...and over the past few months the system is becoming more
difficult to phone into.
What this means is that I am not going to be able to screen
out advertisements...at least not yet. I apologize and I can
only encourage you to be patient. I should tell you that I
did receive an apology from one of the "advertisers"...I'm surprise
that he responded. He indicated to me that somebody was advertising
their product without their authorization...
Finally, to show you how frustrated I've been, I mentioned that
I'll be presenting about the HEDIR at APHA and I indicated
that the presentation was on Wednesday....thanks to Bob Anderson's
reminder, it is scheduled for Tuesday. I've been so frustrated
with trying to work out this editor thing that I couldn't even read
the APHA program accurately.
I am appreciative of all the kind comments that I have received
and am working on continuing fast,easy, and unobstructive electronic
communication for the profession. Thanks for your understanding, support,
and patience.
Mark Kittleson
=========================================================================
#901
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:23:21 -0700
From: Holly Lenz
Subject: Re: Frustrations!!!
In- <9510191652.AA29508@ucs.orst.edu>
Mark:
It's okay! You have undertaken a homeric
task and I appreciate your hard work.
What time are you presenting on Tuesday?
I'd like to come hear you.
By the way...stress can lead to illness and you don't want
to get sick right before you take off for San Diego...take a few deep
breaths...have a beer after work...and I'll see you next week!
Holly Lenz
=========================================================================
#902
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:28:00 EST
From: "Poehler, David L."
Subject: Re: Frustrations!!!
Hi Mark,
As someone who has not actively participated in the network but has read
most of what is on the HEDIR I would like to say thanks for the work that
you do.
Good people are good because they've come to wisdom through failure. We get
very little wisdom from success, you know (William Saroyan).
To err is human. But to have a word processor that allows you to correct
things without an eraser is divine.
Somebody did a golden deed;
Somebody proved a friend in need;
Somebody sang a beautiful song;
Somebody smiled the whole day long;
Somebody thought, "Tis sweet to live";
Somebody said, "I'm glad to give";
Somebody fought a valiant fight;
Somebody lived to shield the right;
Was that "somebody" you (Anonymous)?
Health to you, Dave Poehler, SIU Grad.
=========================================================================
#903
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:56:41 -0700
From: "Andrew Jenkins (Central Washington University)"
Subject: Friday Inspiration
In-
Friends and fellow HE's,
Lately, I've been engaged in some remarkable and inspiring discussions
with my fellow health educators and dads about balancing career
expectations and family.
It seems to me:
As so often it happens, our answers are not found in Wash. DC but
found in the not-so-distant past. I came across this Yiddish lullaby
written in 1887 and sung to babies by their labor-house fathers.
My Little One
I have a son, a little son,
A boy completely fine.
Whenever I see him, it seems to me
That all the world is mine.
But seldom do I see
My child awake and bright.
I only see him when he sleeps:
I'm only home at night.
It's early when I leave for work"
When I return it's late.
Unknown to me is my own flesh,
Unknown to me is my child's face.
When I come home so wearily
In the darkness after day,
My pale wife exlaims to me:
"You should have seen our child play."
I stand beside his little bed:
I look and try to hear.
In his dream he moves his lips:
"Why isn't Papa here?"
'Nuff said.
Andrew P Jenkins, Phd, CHES :{
=========================================================================
#904
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:27:19 PST
From: Dawn Graff-Haight
Organization: Urban and Public Affairs
Subject: Legislative Activity
I would like to share an activity that I just finished with my students
in a course called Health Promotion Programs for Children and Youth.
(It is a modified version of the more traditional School Health Programs
course as the majority of students are either community health or
children and family studies majors. I only mention this because this
activity might also be appropriate for School Health Programs majors as
well.
Today in class, I shared two current federal legislative issues with my
students.
1. Using the e-mail messages from Isabel Burk and Rodney Bowden
received this a.m., we discussed current proposals related to medicaid
funding with regard to potential impact on children.
2. Using Volume 1 and 2 or the FDA Action Alert published by the
SmokeLess States Program, c/o American Heart Association, Oregon
Affiliate, 1425 NE Irving #100, Portland, OR 97232 (503)238-7706, and
local editorials and tobacco company advertising, we discussed the FDA
proposal to regulate cigarettes and spit tobacco as drug delivery
devices.
Following discussion, students were assigned to write letters to the
FDA, our state representative Mark Hatfield, President Clinton, and
others. Students were asked to write letters that reflected THEIR views
regarding the issuethey selected. As part of the assignment, students
needed to obtain additional support to substantiate their views and
include these as citations within their letters. I provided mailing and
e-mail addresses for students to use. Students will either turn in a
print-out of their e-mail message or the actual letter they write.
Students are not graded on their point of view, but more on the case
they make for their position as it relates to promoting children's
health.
Since advo