i mostly agree with you, but i would say there are some pretty important difference between the typical lifestyle in the us and the typical lifestyle in other western nations.

for example, people in other western nations tend to walk more and depend on their cars less. even if it's walking to the nearest train or bus station, they still walked 200 steps farther than their american counterparts. this becomes more apparent when you look at the fattest cities in the US and at their public transportation method. houston used to be at the top of the list (it might still be, it's been a while since i've checked).. i grew up in houston, my husband still lives there. public transportation is a BAD. it's weird too because it's such a massive, populous city and every time they've planned a rail system, it gets shelved. it's super hot and super humid and super unsafe, so noone walks. houstonians. drive. everywhere. and. they. are. fat.

i can think of a lot more slight lifestyle difference that i think add up, but i just go too tired to elaborate on all of them. here's the bullet points.
-cultural attitude towards meals (europeans tend to spend more time and eat slower, which is proven to help you eat less)
-other western nations outrank the us in education (use your imagination to come up with the benefits of that)
-social safety net (an american with a $4/day food stamp budget is destined to be a bargain shopper-which means cheap, fatty, unhealthy foods)
blah blah blah >> ^packo:

>> ^spoco2:
Yeah, he may be schooled, but he didn't believe it did he? That's the problem with so many of these incorrect beliefs... you can't change their mind because they just don't believe what you're saying because it happens to be in line with the government.
Therefore must be wrong somehow.
Frustrating as hell to watch

i wouldn't call this schooling, because FRIST could barely string together a coherent point (partly due to Bill)...
what I find frustrating is Frist trying to say FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE isn't the problem... and he goes on to describe lifestyle and diet as the main cause of all the poor rankings the US receives in regards to healthcare
what it completely ignores is how the lifestyle/diet he's pointing out... isn't singular to the US... but is QUITE common in WESTERN NATIONS... the point of difference is the availability/cost of healthcare... because all it takes is quick glance at those 20 WESTERN NATIONS, that outperform the US at a much cheaper cost.... and you realize, while they ALL have similar lifestyles/diets... the US is the only nation without universal healthcare
that's not to say WESTERN MEDICINE as a whole doesn't fail at emphasizing prevention as opposed to treating conditions after they occur....
just pointing out the fact that the US diet/lifestyle... isn't exactly EXOTIC in WESTERN NATIONS
while UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE is EXOTIC ("scary") in the US

>> ^marinara:

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.
Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.
When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.
A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.
Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.
As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.
Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.
The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.
Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.
Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other side.


**I need to give attribution, this blog was posted on reddit by a so called street medic attached to occupy oakland

First of all, I was privileged to be out there with a lot of brave and beautiful people. I'd like to give my own account of what happened on Saturday, because the mainstream coverage I've seen has been universally laughable, not that that's any surprise.

Folks were mostly gathered up in Oscar Grant Plaza by about noon, and the march started around 1 or 1:30. There were probably between one and two thousand marchers. There was a sound truck playing music, and the mood was festive and happy. Parents brought their children along, and the whole thing felt a bit like a roving dance party in the streets. There was also a bus following along which the police detained about halfway through the first part of the march on some minor infraction like people weren't all wearing their seat belts or something.

When the demonstrators reached the first target building, it was already heavily surrounded by riot cops, and people didn't even try to get near it. I don't think anyone was actually expecting the "secret" target to stay secret, given the open nature of the movement and the heavy infiltration. By this point police had begun targeted arrests against certain individuals which were evidently on their list of organizers or repeat "troublemakers". Nonetheless, the marchers were being quite peaceful and were prepared to just continue the march around the city. The police weren't having that though, and they fired a number of smoke grenades into the crowd, which caused a bit of a panic since many people initially thought it was teargas. Minor injuries were incurred amongst the marchers.

A number of older demonstrators as well as people with children decided that this was a good time to call it a day and headed away from the main police line and crowd. Police then rushed in and attempted to arrest some of the parents for endangering their children. I'm not sure exactly how this turned out, but I was told that a number of parents were able to get away with their children.

Police began to close on the demonstrators who decided to continue the march through the city. Soon after police began to deploy actual tear gas along with beanbag rounds and paint balls apparently intended to mark people for later arrest. Police claim that people were throwing things at them after this. I didn't witness demonstrators throwing anything, but it is possible. I don't find it to be a constructive activity, but I also can't blame people for being angry after a peaceful march was attacked. Medics responded to high numbers of chemical contamination and blunt force trauma cases.

As the march continued, police started to use a new tactic which recklessly endangered lives and led to many injuries. They would form up in a line behind the marchers and then on some signal charge towards the back of the march with their batons at the ready. Although attempts were made among the demonstrators to keep everyone calm, inevitably many people started running as a natural reaction to seeing a line of angry club-wielding police charging at them. Lots of people got knocked down in the press of bodies. People helped up whoever they could, but I have no idea how many people were injured during this or how badly. The police continued to use this tactic all the way back to Oscar Grant Plaza, charging forward for a block before stopping for a minute or two and then charging again. This charging tactic served absolutely no crowd control purpose, as they were pushing people in the direction the march was already going, and they could have just marched behind the demonstrators keeping pace, since nobody wanted to get within arm's reach of them anyways.

Anyways, people regrouped at OGP to rest, wash up, seek medical attention, and eat. After some time, a decision was made to march around downtown Oakland again. The march was somewhat smaller this time, but probably still around 1,000 people. Oaklanders don't give into police intimidation easily. The march eventually became a bit of a cat-and-mouse game as lines of police tried to surround the marchers and "kettle" them in for mass arrests. At one point fairly early on the police nearly succeeded, but a temporary chain link fence was pulled down allowing most or all of the marchers an escape route. Later on, a group of ~50-100 demonstrators did get blocked in on a section of Broadway without any side streets. Police then rushed in, jabbing, pushing, and beating people with batons until they were forced back into a corner near a YMCA building. Some people may have escaped through the YMCA building, and police used this to claim that the protesters were trying to take over the building, although I'm fairly certain this was never the plan since the YMCA was open and operational, not abandoned. Once the group of demonstrators was blocked in and completely surrounded, police announced that this was an unlawful assembly and ordered them to disperse. A few people tried to leave with their hands raised and were promptly thrown on the ground, beaten, and arrested. The police undoubtedly thought that they were quite clever with the Catch-22 situation they had constructed, but I doubt any of the subsequent arrest charges are going to stick as a result. Getting the charges to stick was probably not the point though.

The demonstrators were pinned into the corner like this for probably 40-60 minutes before enough police buses and vans showed up for mass arrests to begin. As the time approached, the police suddenly singled out on of the demonstrators and yanked him out of the crowd, threw him down and cuffed him. It is likely this was one of the people on their special list. A small bag of powder (possibly meth) was planted on him as he was dragged away. Given the fact that everyone knew they were going to be arrested for the past half hour or so, it is utterly illogical that this person wouldn't have ditched the drugs if they really were his. He was overheard to say that they weren't his, that he didn't do drugs, and was willing to take a drug test right then and there to prove it.

Police later arrested a large number of demonstrators near OGP using similar tactics. Apparently some demonstrators got into City Hall, although I'm not sure if any arrests were made in the building. Some people were taken to jail in Oakland, others to Santa Rita (a much nastier place) in Dublin. Some were cited and released the next day, others are still in police custody.

Given my impending court appearance, I don't want to discuss the exact involvement I may or may not have had in any of the above. I think, however, this provides a much more accurate picture of what went down than has been presented in the mainstream media, and I thank you for taking the time to hear the other sid

Heathclif, Heathclif, noone shooouuulld
ter-ri-fy the neighborhood....!

I don't take recitation of those statistics as being racist in itself. Again, I'm using context. I know people who actually work in poor and ethnic communities that use such stats as a benchmark or as a reason to call folks to positive action.

If he has good at heart, when has Newt actually worked for positive change in this community that he so soundly criticizes? Obama was a community organizer in poor areas of Chicago. As a legislator he sponsored bills that directly helped people in poor areas and people in the black community. So, when he uses such stats--and he actually does have a history of telling all types of crowds to stick to a work ethic--Obama doesn't come off as a ne'er-do-well.

I know people who work at youth outreach centers and soup kitchens in DC. Noone has ever seen ol' Newt drop in to help. I've never heard of him sponsoring a bill to help the poor of DC, though he can rattle off all the problems those people have. As a longtime legislator and one-time speaker of the house and someone who lived in the DC area at least part time, he's had plenty of opportunity to lend a hand, but hasn't chosen to do so.

The guy's a professional speaker, but I've never heard of him browbeating poor whites. Hell, he's in South Carolina; he has plenty of chances to tell white people to get off welfare and food stamps. He could have used the stage in the video to do so. But, no, he has to pick on blacks to play to a white crowd.

Newt has such a well known public, political and legislative history that you don't have to troll youtube to see where he's coming from. The people who gave him a standing ovation certainly know.

>> ^Diogenes:

@longde
you may be right, though i do try my best to see the 'big picture' re looking at things in a broader perspective... you could even say that that's one of my hobbies
forgive me if i don't (probably can't) take up your challenge on providing the asked-for video... though i'll happily buy the rounds myself
i think the media (including youtube, et al) is inherently sensationalist, and as such, gravitates to coverage of what's wrong with the message rather than the basis of the message itself
perhaps this seeming focus on the plight of minorities stems from the basic statistics we have: iirc, there are more whites at or under the poverty level than all minorities combined... yet as a % of total population, they are outnumbered by both hispanics and and african-americans - more sadly (yet perhaps more indicative of newt's focus), is the fact that african-americans outnumber hispanic citizens, yet as a % of total population, the former has more people at or under the poverty line
now, you could take my recitation of those statistics as being 'racist' even though i don't think i am and also don't have a dog in this race
so perhaps newt's message is figuratively loudest where he believes the most help is needed (nation-wise)... but this focus can be skewed to seem a blatant criticism of the race of those affected
here's an 8-year-old quote from gingrich: "It is impossible to maintain civilization with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds getting diplomas they can't even read. Yet that is precisely where three generations of Washington-dominated, centralized-government, welfare-state policies have carried us."
taken broadly, many would agree and likely take no offense... but applied to a specific audience of specific ethnicity, would likely seem insensitive
i think newt's been fairly consistent in his views on poverty, which we can trace back to his seminal 'contract with america' in the '80s
but again, i could be wrong...

Oh that's an easy one how bout his lame signing statement on the NDAA.

>> ^longde:

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:
Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

I see what you are saying, but do you have a more consequential example? I mean, who cares about a speech that noone was going to watch anyway? On Obama's list of priorities that day, that one should rightly have been under #500. I doubt he made that decision at all; it would probably have fallen to his chief of staff.>> ^Auger8:

Here's my problem with Obama and don't get me wrong I voted for the guy. But everytime he say "I'm gonna change this "Insert Policy Here"" he makes a great case for it and then someone on his staff or the Speaker or Joint Chiefs tell him "No you can't do that because it will piss off "Insert party here"". He folds without any fight whatsoever.
Example:
He pulled what I thought was a daring and awesome move by planning a Presidential speech the night of the first GOP debate. Effective pulling away potential competition for upcoming votes against him. Then the Speaker of the House got pissed and whined about it to him to change the date. And he did. No argument, nothing he just folded up like an worn out lawnchair for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean give me a break how can you pretend to make bold moves like and not follow through with it. Your the freakin President it's your decision not the Speaker's who isn't even in your Party. WTF man grow a pair already. I'm tired of president who won't their guns and not let partisan politics dictate what they can and can't do for the better of the nation.
Partisan politics in the U.S. are slowly killing this nation we need someone who won't be influenced by that and will make decisions based on what's right for the country not what's right for the party who voted them in.
>> ^longde:
I don't want someone who makes hard bad decisions and then stubbornly stands by them. I had enough of that with Bush.
Also, if you think Obama has not made hard decisions, you have not been paying attention. I don't agree with alot of what he has done, and sometimes I want him to fight more, but the man has an effective, if not subtle, style.>> ^Auger8:
Every election boils down to the lesser of two evils and here's the important question here.
Do you want another Obama in the White House who will fold up under the slightest pressure from the Senate or the House, or do you want a man who will actually be a President and make the hard decisions and stand by them for good or bad?
No one candidate is perfect period but in my opinion he's better by far than a complete Religious crackpot like Santorum or a Romney who's only goal is to reverse everything his predecessor has accomplished. Or worse still a Gingrich who thinks the corporations should run this country for us.

Paul has every right not to answer the question, and to sanction the press for pressing him on it; but it's a legitimate question and Paul's answers have been inconsistent and full of holes.

I've never had a newsletter named after me; but if I did, I'd be damn sure noone was posting bigoted shit in my name.

I am free all day Wednesday and Friday.

7:30 is 5:30 for me -- so any day also works. I can take my laptop into my warm cozy bed and watch comfortably.

I am blessed with the ability to sleep anywhere, anytime, so waking up early is not a big deal.

This is exciting!

Wesley James is turning out to be one rather unattractive baby -- long, skinny, looks like a grumpy old man. Luckily, he looks exactly like his grandfather did at the same age. And granddad grew up to be normal looking.

But I really liked your first rendition -- this isn't a portrait, it's an idea. If we tried to get long skinny actual Wesley James on his feet, he'd look like gollum. I don't think his parents would enjoy that.

Cool!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
Ok! I think I'm ready now : Sorry for the delay. I'm around weekdays after work 7:30am until latest noon (CST) Or I can try to get up early for the evenings if you prefer then. I can stream while drawing and you can tell me if/when I'm on the right track!

let me know what day(s) might be good for you!

the argument to prove or disprove god is unattainable.
cant do it and to even attempt to concretely prove either side is an exercise in futility.
and is BORING.
now...religious texts are tangible things.
we can touch them,read them and interpret them.
the bible,torah and quran are the WRITTEN word which much doctrine and dogma are based on and henceforth CAN be argued and debated...and should be.
and is NOT boring (to me anyways).

but that is not what i am getting to here.
the point,or question more accurately,that i am driving at and noone has asked.
why would a scientist be a person of faith?
nevermind HOW...but why?

my older sister holds dual doctorates and is a scientist AND a devout lutheran.
does this mean she is incapable of using the scientific method to perform her job due to her belief in jesus?
this is not only ridiculous but patently false.

so..why?
if science is such an amazing dynamic to explain the physical universe we all reside in (which it is btw),then WHY would a scientist also hold on to faith?
i do not have the answer to that but i suspect it may be due to the fact that while science has revealed so much,it has raised more questions than it has answered.
not really a bad thing actually and science has proven an adept system to answer those questions but it has not been able to answer them all.including the biggest of them all.

science has failed to answer one of the most primal questions.now it may in the future but as of now this question has remained unanswered:
who am i?
the fundamental question of consciousness is still unresolved and maybe somebody being told they are just a meatsack may not be enough for them.
maybe they sense/feel they are.."more".

ah.my favorite question to ponder.like a tongue that keeps going back to that chipped tooth.
who am i? what is reality?
http://videosift.com/video/the-primacy-of-consciousness

if there's a joint, it'll crack.

i guess the weirdest places i can crack would be clavicles (mostly the right one) right posterior ribs .. probably the 7th, 8th and 9th ribs, sacrum (often, mostly right side) right side of my jaw, right elbow... oh and my wrists tend to crack hugely at about noon every work day.

i think my sternum cracked the other day for the fist time. i don't think that's supposed to happen. and it stinkin hurt.

>> ^chtierna:

Lucky for the beagles they are cute or noone would have bothered picking them up.


Not much fuss was made about the experimental tuna

Lucky for the beagles they are cute or noone would have bothered picking them up.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to explain. Much appreciated. Rock on, srd. :-)


In reply to this comment by srd:
Well, this explanation is what happens on the hardware level, i.e. in the wiring inside the CPU. On the software side you can emulate the carry-over by allocating several pieces of memory and checking bounds and doing carry-over manually. So you're manually programming around the hardware constraints.

Trouble here is, the programmer has to anticipate that the given constraint isn't sufficient for the use case and needs to be worked around. For scores this was obviously the case. For the levels, I'm pretty sure that noone ever really anticipated that someone would go through 255 levels of pacman.

It's basically the same expectation management on a human level that brought us the fear of the Y2K problem.

Well, this explanation is what happens on the hardware level, i.e. in the wiring inside the CPU. On the software side you can emulate the carry-over by allocating several pieces of memory and checking bounds and doing carry-over manually. So you're manually programming around the hardware constraints.

Trouble here is, the programmer has to anticipate that the given constraint isn't sufficient for the use case and needs to be worked around. For scores this was obviously the case. For the levels, I'm pretty sure that noone ever really anticipated that someone would go through 255 levels of pacman.

It's basically the same expectation management on a human level that brought us the fear of the Y2K problem.