Good Eats = Good Deeds
How often can you indulge in something like a blue cheese encrusted filet mignon and tell yourself, in good conscience, ‘it’s for charity?’ That’s why I love Dining Out For Life‘s annual fundraiser. Sure, I could eat every day like I’m striving for my first heart attack, but this is special. BorgHealth be damned, this is for the public good. Every tasty little bite was helping someone living with HIV/AIDS. Even the baked provolone appetizer was making someone’s life better, just as certainly as it was making mine shorter.
This Little Piggy’s Going For Seconds
How often do the paths of gluttony and charity intersect? Well, tomorrow, for starters. That’s Thursday, April 26, 2007, for those of you not reading along as I type.
Dining Out For Life. The concept is simple: eat out, pay your bill, and then the restaurant or bar gives 25% of the check to HIV/AIDS programs. So why not take the opportunity to buy another round and know it’s for a good cause? As a new resident of San Diego’s northern burbs, I’m a bit disappointed that most of the participating restaurants are downtown (no HIV here in the burbs, dontcha know?), but what are a few more carbon emissions when karma is at stake?
Death odds on a Monday morning
Nine out of 10 men don’t need treatment but the rest will die, and there’s no good way to tell them apart. It also kills at a higher rate than breast cancer. Nearly 32 men out of 100,000 will die of prostate cancer; 27 women out of 100,000 die of breast cancer.
Yeah, just the kind of analysis I want to wake up to on a Monday morning. Especially as I still wait for BorgHealth to tell me why I was under the weather last week [lab results pending]. Read the article; it’s a good one.
But while news of the Orlando symposium being reported was interesting, the comparisons of prostate cancer funding and advocacy to that for breast cancer in the article put me off a bit. Earlier this year I left a fundraiser for another cancer after the organizer made an off-the-cuff remark that his fundraiser was necessary because HIV/AIDS was getting all the government funding. True or not, advocating for one disease’s programs by running down other disease’s research programs just seems a bit untoward. On top of that, while I have a vested interest in massive research and funding into the causes and treatment of prostate cancer, I’m also still the guy looking for the medical research clause in the Consitution as he wonders why the federal government is in that business in the first place.
