@bobknight33,
What color is the sky in your universe?
I ask you because your angry statements are actually diametrically opposed to reality.
The republicans are grasping control with both hands and a net, while the democrats are failing miserably at their attempts to stop the power grab....

Examples from just this week, the republicans just added to the budget (which, BTW, is simply not how they system works, and is simply a way to blackmail the government into capitulating to their plans or they'll just 'shut down the government' again, wasting billions more...again)....
1)an increase in the amount corporations can donate to them by 10 times, because republicans think corporations don't have enough say in our government and want to give them 10 times more voice (but not citizens)
2)a removal of the protections against wall street frauds and cheating that were hard won in the last few years, apparently attempting to ensure we have another avoidable 'recession' as soon as possible, and ensure that those responsible are not ever prosecuted for their frauds, but are 'bailed out' instead...again...
3)removal of minimum standards for public school lunches, because they believe poor children don't need vegetables, vitamins, protein, or micro nutrients, carbs and sugars are just fine for them.
EDIT: 4) and just to prove they don't really want smaller, localized government and don't want more power for the states and less for the fed, the republicans have also 'countermanded' the local people's vote in DC on legalized marijuana, making it illegal again there (contrary to the actual vote that was over 60% PRO legalized recreational marijuana).
If only Obama would use the line item veto, it wouldn't be an issue, but he won't (because he's not a power hungry dictator, contrary to Faux News 'reporting').

America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism. At least socialism is designed to benefit the populace, what we are getting from the republicans is designed to benefit their pocket books and corporate America, not the people.

As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy.

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

Because restricting your diet unnecessarily is silly, and can make eating healthy a more difficult proposition. For most people without food allergies or sensitivities, it does not make sense to restrict something like gluten for no reason. Rather it is better to choose what you eat based off of what is healthy, provides the nutrients you need, and doesn't have an excessive amount of calories.

My children haven't eaten a single piece of candy, cookies, or cake, since birth - except entirely by accident. When it does happen, we declare them to be defiled, and set about making another child. (true story)

But seriously, a no sugar diet really opens up your world to tasting food on a whole new level. Food is amazing. Refined sugar (white sugar, brown sugar, cane juice, fructose, sucrose, whatever-you-want-to-call-it) is a poor substitute taste wise, and is an absolute anti-nutrient (poison) health wise.

However, I prefer individual, personal commitments to change rather than sweeping public reform...

Interesting. Removing bark from trees rarely kills the tree directly, by the way, since nutrient to the tree travels up the actual tree, while the tree actually provide fixated carbon to the soil downwards through the bark, and drives soil respiration. So, when you remove the bark, you are not actually damaging the tree directly, you are damaging the below-ground ecosystem, which in turn damages the trees.

EDIT: The above is true for trees in general and may or may not apply to the trees in the video.

It's best to peel your potatoes, that way you can be sure you're getting rid of most of the good nutrients~ Sarcasm aside, nifty trick, you can get machine peelers as well, if you don't feel like doing it yourself and you want to cook them already peeled.

there was no option for me to vote on /sad face
panspermia comes closest but considering i am a man of faith this reflects only a part of how i view things,not the whole.
i could check theistic evolution but that too would be an incomplete and inaccurate choice for me.
i am not a theist.

viewing the universe as creation,then panspermia and abiogenesis fit quite well into my view.
evolution is the poetry of creation and far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any creation myth.
the problem many theists and fundamentalists have with that view is that it removes them from the "special" list and puts them exactly where they should be:a part of the natural cycle of things.

no anthropomorphized big daddy in the sky judging your every thought,action and word.
just life.
pushing,striving,fighting and marching forward.
on this planet we attained self-awareness first.
are their other species on other distant planets that may have done the same?
the odds are in their favor.
why?
because thats what life does.

theists may retort:
but the bible (and other religious texts) state that we were made in the image of GOD.
we are...
but so is the weed in your back yard and the ant crawling up its stem and the soil in which that weed derives its nutrients.

theists may stomp their feet:
but that means we are not special!what about gods plan!?!
you are here yes?
you have self awareness and consciousness yes?
you are part of the natural cycle and are aware of that cycle yes?
then you are not only part of the plan but aware of it.
that makes you special.

the human race may live on for a millenia in one form or another,
we may travel to the stars and spread far and wide,traversing the galaxy and spreading life wherever we may go.(gods plan)
or we may end in a violent (or not so violent) way just another failed experiment.
but life?
life will go on.
and another species will attain self awareness and ask the question:
why am i here?
what is my purpose?

and the cycle continues.......

>> ^raverman:

I would have thought such waste could be processed and used to add fertilizer and nutrients in such a desert region?


I was doing some paving at a landfill a couple years back. They had an uncovered truck that would show up with this jello pudding like substance (human waste) visible when it got on an incline at a distance. They were dumping that stuff in the landfill. Someone there said that while they do reuse it, they can only use so much of it and the extra has to be disposed since storing it for use later is a losing battle.

But if we have some sort of massive epidemic run through the country, it will probably be due to using near straight solid waste on our crops....having them develop some kind of infection that can transfer to us and it being too late to stop by the time it's hit us. I always wondered where the first zombie came from.

I would have thought such waste could be processed and used to add fertilizer and nutrients in such a desert region?

ps, i came .. matrixstyle-coma-nutrient-bulb-HID, here i come again baby

>> ^TheGenk:

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.
Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.
Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television )


Yes I think common sense is a good idea when it comes to food, if a food is more nutritious when cooked, then eat the cooked version. There are many chemicals in raw food that inhibit absorption (phytates, chelating agents to name a couple), so cooking is certainly not always bad, as it can make nutrients more bioavailable.

The most important thing is just to make sure that the food you eat is nutrient dense, so fruit and vegetables should make up a large proportion of the diet, because they are the best nutrient dense foods available for our bodies.

Good for them that it helped them, but they should not stay on a 100% raw food diet for long amounts of time. The weight loss they all experienced is due to the fact that a huge amount of raw food would be needed to satisfy their daily calorie needs, so the body uses it's fat reserves.
As for the insulin requirements, the tend to get less with decreased body mass, so nothing special here.
Sadly, they never mention the risks to your health of this kind of diet.

Don't get me wrong, I got nothing against raw food, I got something against going to extremes with it(and other things) and claiming only benefits when there are severe risks involved too.

Cooking unlocks lots of nutrients, therefore providing more energy as the same amount of uncooked food.
I remember a BBC documentary were they tried raw food diets and they stopped the experiments due to severe health problems of the participants. They concluded that the human digestive system needs processed/cooked food in order to get enough energy for your body. (BBC documentaries are no scientific studies, but they are the closest thing to em you can get on television

>> ^daxgaz:

i saw a documentary where they showed hippos trying to poo and these weird catfish swimming literally up their ass trying to eat it, because the waters were so nutrient poor that was the only thing to eat. Given that, it would make sense to use the little tail thing to try and get the fish out of there.


There's a metaphor in there somewhere for the middle class.

>> ^daxgaz:

i saw a documentary where they showed hippos trying to poo and these weird catfish swimming literally up their ass trying to eat it, because the waters were so nutrient poor that was the only thing to eat. Given that, it would make sense to use the little tail thing to try and get the fish out of there.


Informative and disturbing in equal measure.

i saw a documentary where they showed hippos trying to poo and these weird catfish swimming literally up their ass trying to eat it, because the waters were so nutrient poor that was the only thing to eat. Given that, it would make sense to use the little tail thing to try and get the fish out of there.