Don't forget limes. They make a good marinade too, and they tenderize well. They're acidic enough to slightly preserve raw meat...and yummy.

WTF, seriously?!

Dude, Trump was warned by Obama and Yates multiple times not to trust Flynn.

Remember, Trump had the "best people".

Big whoop? And you're talking about this in isolation. His former campaign manager is in deep crap as well for Russian connections. There are lower level people as well connected to the Trump campaign.

This isn't a liberal witch hunt at this point. A special prosecutor independent of the executive must be appointed now. I can't think of a single good reason why there shouldn't be one at this point now that Trump fired the head of the FBI.

This isn't about party. This is about preserving our democracy now.

They should have less risk. They don't have carcinogenic chemicals added to make them stay lit or preserve them, and they aren't inhaled (by those who know how to smoke them).
That doesn't mean they're safe, as you mentioned. I think oral and throat cancers, while still a risk, are more likely with cigarettes because of the extra chemicals.
You are right, there's very little data about cigar risks. It would be silly to pretend they don't have risks, though.

I would note that I've seen people publicly harass cigarette smokers, then come tell me how good my cigar smells. I've also never had someone complain about my cigar smoke, but heard it often back when I smoked cigarettes.

Maybe a good way to preserve progressive values is to practice them.

We need some long term studies to see how these fast growth corals survive long term, if they still spawn properly, and if their offspring are viable. Too bad we don't have long to get it done.

This is a good thing, and a great guy, but 1000000 corals planted is only about 22 football fields at 1 per sq. ft., not that much. We need around 10000000 of him with 10000000 coral nurseries to make a serious difference. Sadly, there's no way in hell this will make a noticeable difference. It's too little too late. At best, this might save a few small preserves.

I am constantly flummoxed by folks' lack of understanding as to the 'why' of the electoral college. Its meant to prevent what's called the 'tyranny of the majority'. Has to become so lop sided that it should be recalibrated? Certainly. Population count increases and decreases should be reflected in the number of electoral college votes, while preserving the initial intent; making sure smaller states have at least some influence and power.

This isn't one of those things you can discuss in isolation. There does exist the problem of violent criminals that refuse to listen to any and all authority. When you have free citizen that murders somebody, if you are lucky enough to catch and convict them they go to jail. Some of these folks continue to violently attack other inmates. Some even continue to violent attack the prison guards when they come in to try and stop that. There comes a point where the question is what to we do? Just how many resources do we expend working with individuals hell bent on abusing the rights and bodies of everyone else around them? Western legal systems have already ruled any form of punishment through physical force as out of the question, so self preservation isn't a motivation. There exist scenarios where the only option left for protecting people from an individual is isolation.

It's good to do our best to treat even the worst elements of society with the highest standard possible. The trouble is in practice failing to punish certain actions with imprisonment or isolation leads to predictable abuse of otherwise innocent bystanders.

Speaking only to Assad's motivation or provocation, Assad like his father needs none save preservation of his power.

I had a friend formerly of the Syrian special forces in the 80's who informed me that no SF units were allow within 250 miles of the capital at that time owing to the wiping out of the population of a small city with nerve gas. Assad is well and western educated but of the same cloth as his father.

It is easily referenced on the Net.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

For the same reasons they do it with meat, fruit, vegetables and other foods: control, consistency, easier to mix with other ingredients like sweeteners, stabilizers and preservatives.
Most food companies don't treat food the way households do, but as raw material for creating a product.

Yes....that.

If I were black, I would certainly feel that the police are people to fear and avoid at all costs, not there to protect or serve me. It's incontrovertible that there is NOTHING a black man can do to be safe. There is no level of surrender, clear lack of arms, absolute lack of movement, or ANYTHING they can do to ensure they won't be 'mistaken' for a perpetrator and shot....usually shot dead. It's also clear and incontrovertible that, even when they've done absolutely nothing wrong, and the police agree they've done nothing wrong and they are in no way threatening, the police will still shoot them...and then not give them medical attention, in fact they will handcuff them and try to think of a charge they can make up to excuse their inexcusable deadly actions.
When it's a life or death situation, civilized behavior and respect for authority hardly outweigh a drive for self preservation....it does one no good to have been civilized if that causes one's death. It's for that reason that I say that I would never convict a black man of murdering a police officer...it's reasonable to think it would be self defense under any circumstance just because it was a black man and a police man, just as much as if it was an armed Klansman. They should not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves, they don't have equipment or training to withstand an attack and respond, their only option is to shoot first if they want a chance to live, unlike police.
Clearly, that's not the situation in every instance, and not all cops are killers, but enough are that it's reasonable for a black man to assume any random officer may well act murderously, and so reasonable to protect one's self from them pre-emptively. That is a horrendous situation, but one I put squarely on the doorstep of the police, and it's up to them to change that perception with actions, not excuses and deflections. They have failed miserably thus far, which is why I have little sympathy for their recent losses. If you pick a fist fight and lose a tooth in the fight, that's YOUR fault....the same reasoning goes for gunfights, IMO.

Well-known Tofflerisms:
- Change is the only constant.
-Technology feeds on itself. technology makes more technology possible.
-the Law of Raspberry Jam: the wider any culture is spread, the thinner it gets.
-It is better to err on the side of daring than the side of caution.
-Parenthood remains the greatest single preserve of the amateur.

"Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)"

Well, it's now off topic, but still equally detached from the statement that followed.


I could say "because kids sports helps child development, the government shall not infringe on the right of the people to bear sports equipment".

So, would it then be that only sports teams can have sports equipment? Only children? Only young children?
Or how about people (i.e. multiple persons) can bare sports equipment, just so if/when they want to teach their kids to play and put them on a team, they have that ability?

Honestly, it sounds more like a rule that is in place to preserve a specific capacity, and less like a rule in place to assign a restricted use.
Otherwise, it would make more sense to replace 'the people' with 'kids sports teams' and make it particular to a restricted use. There's no need to even mention the people.




Ok, I think we read around each other.

I though that earlier you had said that Hamilton was in opposition to the idea of the lesser "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education" - which confused me because I thought that Hamilton was in favor of a "1-2x a year assembly instead of military style education".
And now I see you actually meant the same thing I wrote.

-scheherazade

That, or they simply wanted to be clear about why the rule is of utmost importance - to preserve a public capacity.

In any case, in the end it made it into the constitution - most supreme law we have. "[Because reasons ...] right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They could have put in the bi-yearly training requirements right there. But they decided not to. They just left it at that. That description given by Hamilton is close to what eventually got to paper. Whether he was for or against it, ok (I searched for a quote that was along those lines, I could be thinking of a different guy). My understanding was that he didn't like any ideas. Military can be abused to impose tyranny, militia can be unmotivated and misbehaved (unless hyperbole).


I thought it was that paper, but I can't find it as I scan through, I thought he (or someone else?) wanted a subset of individuals trained in military arts, that could organize and direct militias should conflict arise, to take the burden of military-level training off of citizens.

-scheherazade