I didn't do medicine so I can't be certain, but a fair amount of my syllabus seemed to be a useful foundation for medicine. I didn't dissect any frogs, we did pigs hearts and rats mind. I also learned a lot of practical things from biology, in fact it was one of the more practical and "relevant to everyday life" subjects I took.

Oh, and I still think there is value to the purely academic stuff. I learned an awful lot of things which I have had no practical use for but are nonetheless precious to me. Truly I pity those who have no appetite for it. Perhaps I was always this way, I don't know, but I'm still a firm in my belief that all that inconsequential arcana has enriched my life and that school had a large part in nurturing it.

If you did high school bio, think about what you covered that has any sort of influence on medicine... =)

Frog or rat dissection? Covered that in Bio 101 in the first year of my Applied Chemistry degree (and yes, you can give a rat a Columbian necktie... . Photosynthesis? Mating?

Yeah, Bio was pretty much introducing you to broad concepts and it's nothing that doesn't get rehashed in the first 6 months of Uni via intro subjects. I think of it more as a way to dip the toe in the pool and see if the subject matter excites you enough to try and turn it in to a career.

eg. At 40 now (and having forgotten my chem degree and gone in to IT as a sys admin after working as a chef, bouncer etc), I could go back to uni barely remembering anything about chemistry and start from scratch and be none the worse for it. The keystones you talk about are literacy and numeracy, that's about it. And they are learned in primary school.

Oh sure, it helps if you can do some higher math, but English lit? Physics? Drama? Almost nothing you do at high school has any real defining affect on most of what you do as an adult. It's more like a sampler platter, and of course a way of grading students (on a curve of course, we can't have people's scores based on their own merit) to distinguish what tertiary studies they should be eligible for.

School should be about igniting curiousity as much as practical skills for life. I did "Home Economics" (ie. cooking/sewing/budgets etc) and typing (on real mechanical typewriters no less) as opposed to wood/metal shop ( I was awful at shop). My home ec teacher was always interested in making different food, so we tried some pretty out there things in grade 8 (~13 years old), and I've always been interested in cooking since. Similarly, learning to touch type has made my life radically simpler, particularly in IT (try writing a 40 page instruction manual hunting and pecking).

Most of the high school grads we see as cadets or trainees are essentially useless and have to be taught from scratch anyway. Most of the codified BS we have these days doesn't prepare kids for life, doesn't encourage critical thinking or creativity, it a self justification to keep schools open.

The concept that you can go to university and learn how to cut people open and fix their heart = you do not need abstract concepts in high school... Dissecting a frog doesn't prepare you for putting it all back in working order.

The things I've learned since I left school 22 years ago dwarf the knowledge I learned at high school and have since discarded.

Core skills like literacy and numeracy, of course, but you shouldn't be doing complex maths when there are many more practical things you could be doing.

eg. The local high schools now offer MSCE and Cisco certified courses in high school as an elective. So you can study in year 11/12 and come out of high school fully papered up for a career in IT rather than doing it once you leave.

I also fully support the right for kids to drop out of school to start apprenticeships at 14-15 so that they have established a trade by the time they are at the same age as graduates. Why waste the extra 3 years doing classes that will almost certainly not assist you in any way, shape or form, when you can be working full time learning a trade and earning a wage (albeit not a great one, but you don't get paid to sit in class either ; ).

Um, you’re still overthinking it. I don’t think comedy and jokes are worth dissecting, like we’re at some seminar with Powerpoint slides showing intersecting circles and flowcharts and phylogenetic trees showing comedy lineage, trying to extract the "why".

I don’t think men are “threatened” by her comedy (as someone here wrote) any more than I’m threatened by seeing a video of Miley Cyrus shouting “eat my pu**y” into the mic and then gyrating against a blow up doll. I’m sure somebody out there must find that very shocking and sexy.

Didn’t mean to hit Pause on the laugh track, I just don’t find her funny for no other reason than she doesn't make me laugh. To each his own.

That's not dissection, it's vivisection! AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!
@ant, how could you post this? To you, isn't this snuff?

@lantern53
and you are an apologist,and a tool.

i am not going to even waste my time dissecting your factually challenged and logically twisted comment because it would serve no purpose.

there is no chance of changing your mind,inspiring you to see events with a different perspective,which could lead to new vistas of understanding.

you hold the fundamentalist mindset.
you are convinced of your righteousness.
you are a true believer and any information contrary to your worldview will be deemed "heretical" and shall be automatically deemed "wrong" and dismissed on those grounds.

as evidenced by your commentary.
such a small,and narrow place to reside.
i feel sorry for you lantern.
you have my pity.

I find it hilarious that, now that we've had a professional dissect this video and clearly explain the law in Texas, we still have numerous people arguing the over various points.
I'm also surprised how much of a hot button issue this seems to be.

Well, Syriza is an acronym for Coalition of the Radical Left (roughly), and everything left of the Berlin Consensus is considered to be radical left. So they are going to call Syriza a radical leftist party until the political landscape itelf has been pulled back towards more leftist positions. But you're right, if they were judged by their positions, they'd be centre-left in theory, if centre-left hadn't turned into corporatism by taking up the Third Way of Schröder/Blair/Clinton.

They are, without a doubt, radically democratic though. As your Grauniad article points out, they haven't turned on their election promises yet, which is quite unheard of for a major European party. Francois Hollande in particular was a major letdown in this regard. Few people expected him to bow down to German demands so quickly. Aside from his 75% special tax for the rich, he dropped just about every single part of his program that could be considered socialism.

Grexit... that's a tough one.

Syriza cannot enforce any troika demands that relate to the programmes of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman ain't welcome anymore. No cuts to wages or pensions, to privatisation of infrastructure, no cuts to the healthcare system, nor any other form of financial oppression of the lower class. That is non-negotiable. In fact, even increases in welfare programs and the healthcare system are pretty much non-negotiable. Even if Syriza wanted to put any of this on the table, and they sure as hell don't, they couldn't make it part of any deal without further damages to an already devasted democratic system in Greece.

So with that in mind, what's the point of all the negotiations?

Varoufakis' suggestions are very reasonable. The growth-linked bonds, for instance, are used very successfully all over the world in debt negotiations, as just about any bankrupty expert would testify. Like Krugman wrote today, Syriza is merely asking to "recognize the reality everyone supposedly already understands". His caveat about the German electorate is on point as well, we haven't had it explained to us yet – and we chose to ignore what little was explained to us.

Yet the troika insists on something Syriza cannot and will not provide, as just outlined above. Some of the officials still expect Syriza to acknowledge reality, to come to their senses and to accept a deal provided to them. Good luck with that, but don't hold your breath. Similarly, Varoufakis is aware that Berlin is almost guaranteed to play hardball all the way.

Of course, nothing is certain and they might strike a deal during their meeting in Wednesday that offers Greece a way out of misery. Or maybe the ECB decides that to stabilize to Euro, as is their sole purpose, they need to keep Greece within the EZ and away from default. That would allow them to back Greece, to provide them with financial support, at least until they present their program in June/July. Everything is possible. However, I see very little evidence in support of it.

Therefore Grexit might actually be just a question of who to blame it on. Syriza is not going to exit the EZ willy nilly, they need clear pressure from outside, so the record will unequivocally show that it wasn't them who made the call. No country can be thrown out, they have to leave of their own. Additionally, Merkel will not be the person to initiate the unravelling of the EU, as might be the consequence of a Grexit. That's leverage for Greece, the only leverage they have. But it has to be played right or else the blame will be put squarely on Greece, even more so than it already is.

-------
Edit #1: What cannot be overstated is the ability of the EZ to muddle through one crises after another, always on the brink of collapse, yet never actually collapsing. They are determined to hold this thing together, whatever the cost.
-------

Speaking of blame, Yves Smith linked a fantastic article the other day: Syriza and the French Indemnity of 1871-73.

The author makes a convincing case why the suppression of wages in Germany led to disaster in Spain, why it was not a choice on the part of Spain to engage in irresponsible borrowing and how it is a conflict between workers and the financial elite rather than nations. He also offers historical precedent, with Germany being the recipient of a massive cash influx, ending in a catastrophe similar to Spain's nowadays.

It strikes me as a very objective dissection of what happend, what's going on, and what needs to happen to get things back in shape. Then again, it agrees with many points I made on that BBC videos last week, so it's right within my bubble.

@newtboy
thats why i love you brother!
it is your optimism that i absolutely adore,sincerely.

notice my wording:ideology vs reality.

in the first part of my argument i actually agree with you,though we may use different terms.

i think we may be crossing lines due to verbiage.
when i say "power" i am referring to what is my opinion,a plutocracy,so my argument flows from that perspective.

sheldon wolin makes an excellent example but uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" in his book "democracy incorporated".

you are making an ideological argument that is based on rights SHOULD be protected..in theory,but i do not see play out in reality.if you look at the history of how rights have been obtained over the past 100 years alone you will see that not ONE was ever just offered by our government.each and every one has been hard fought (and died) for.

now moving on to your texas reference,well...i totally agree with you but that is revisionism not indoctrination,at least in the manner in which i am referencing that term.

when i say this video makes a case for indoctrination i say so with my subjective AND objective understandings.
subjectively:i believe that the onus is on the very person,institution or government to prove they have a right to said authority.
objectively:this video...although extremely over-simplified..makes its case that there is a concerted effort to get very young children to tacitly submit to a centralized authority.

now when we consider what education actually IS,and this is not the thread to truly dissect such a complicated and multi-faceted subject but suffice to say,as succinct as i can:
education is the teaching of abilities,to consume data and information in order to come to informed and well-thought out conclusions,to better understand our:world,society and the reality we reside.

to be taught the skills the dissect and disseminate complex problems and the ability to formulate questions which can push boundaries and challenge pre-conceived ideologies.

so with that definition in mind.
how can we be expected to view this than anything other than a ploy to get that young mind to tacitly submit to a central authority?

and this is for 2nd graders? these kids are 8 yrs old!

education should be giving kids the tools to challenge and question not blindly submit.we might as well call the government jesus the way this thing is being taught.

so if you look at a religious family and find how they "indoctrinate" their young children into the ways of the church,then you should have the exact same problem with this tactic.

because the tactics being used are identical.

Sorry, but no, this is complete bullshit.

Some of the most powerful politicians in the US are devotee's of Ayn Rand, including the last vice presidential candidate and several front runners for the upcoming presidential elections.

Dissecting and criticizing her work is not some sort of straw man argument. It is perfectly legitimate criticism of the core values of those politicians.

We've been on a bunch of dates
I weigh debates that this creates
And hate that state of forced introspection
We traded wit, we swapped some spit,
You fingered me a little bit
But we never really had a connection

You did nothing wrong, I have no excuse
Just my intuition telling me we shouldn't reproduce

I know I have to end it
But pretend to just suspend it
By contending that I'm busy all week
I let the foregone linger on
Text back with an emoticon
Withdraw from you by being oblique

Inside I know my tactics just delay it
But I'd do anything so I don't have to say it

I'll draw this out forever like it's Vietnam
Then one day I'll be gone like Bambi's mom Awww

Cause there's the right thing to do
Then there's what I'm gonna do
There's so much I should say
But instead... I do the fade away

Now I'm fading like chalk on a sidewalk
Or the polio virus after Jonas Salk
Like a Jewish guy at Sizzler on Yom Kippur
The Whig party post Millard Fillmore

The erection of a man on antidepressants
The cast of Diff'rent Strokes after adolescence
Reproductive rights below the Mason Dixon
Native Americans after the barter systems
Your thyroid gland after Hashimoto
The family in the Back to the Future photo
Yeah I fade away

We say that men are asshole who don't communicate
We revel in our victimhood and amplify our hate
We find ways to be indignant like it's a sport
Then dissect their malignance with the views we distort

The way men break up may be sloppy and terse
What they do is bad, but what we do is worse

We pretend to ourselves it's the nice thing to do
To let you down gently by just not ever telling you
And deep down we know it's the worst way to play it
But we are what we have... huge pussies

And women are hypocrites
Especially ones in comedy bands
We see your faults but not our own
Then we wonder why we're all alone

We fill you up with maybe's, excuses and stalls
But like a baby in China... it's better to have balls

Not the Good Wife type like Christine Baranski
So I'll pull out and leave like I'm Roman Polanski

Cause there's the right thing to do
Then there's what I'm gonna do
There's so much I should say
But instead... I do the fade away

Like Verbal Kint fading into Kaiser Soze
The rights in Arizona for a guy named Jose
Opportunities for a college grad
The love between your mom and dad
Gonna Peter out like a gay Cetera
Iranian relations since the Regan era
Black Nike sales after Heaven's Gate
Summer Camp attendance at Penn State
The name Adolph after World War Two
Like Debbie Gibson's pop career, Out of the Blue
Yeah I fade away

Cause I don't wanna get to know you
I just want to blow you... off

"If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion"

"That doesn't make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide."

Correct. My point was only that a shorter route might not be beneficial, even though the right inferior laryngeal nerve goes directly to the larynx. After rethinking that statement, I retract [or redact] it. Either way would work.

Stress relief, however, is in place due to nerve bundling. I haven't done any dissections myself [yet], but from the video, it is apparent that the RLN in the giraffe's neck was well secured in its pathway to the larynx, requiring scalpel separation, rather than hanging loose, and thus well protected from damage due to shock.

I have read where descending aortal repairs in the upper section [arch] can cause damage to the RLN, resulting in subsequent hoarseness to the patient, and I can see why. This is just something that surgeons have to deal with.

But the argument that "no designer would ever make a mistake like that" makes an unfounded assumption, that IF there was a designer involved, that it could/would have been done differently. Dawkins' view of design implementation assumes a bottom up, de novo approach, which is not what ID proposes, at least from my perspective. I view ID as incremental gene tweaking to modify existent physiologies, at least subsequent to the Cambrian era.

"Imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me."

Complex integrated designs like mammalian anatomy will always be subject to imperfections, failures, and can be improved upon. As far as how designs were implemented, the evidence is that they were incremental, and may have varied as to the source, and the methodologies.

Earlier complex designs may have been 'de novo', compound eyes for example, but in later eras, modifications appear to be modifications of what's there. Thus, it's entirely possible that design implementations may have been from various sources, and using various techniques.

But back to the question of 'bad design' as a refutation of design, I do not see the RLN as an indication of that, just a progression from earlier mammalian forms, as well as a necessary result of the descent of a functional heart as the embryo develops. Same for the male vas deferens.

If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion

That doesn;t make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide. In humans the course of the left recurrent nerve is a minor curiosity but when you make the vertebra that much taller and add another 6 feet of nerves going back up the neck then it supports the idea that giraffes and ourselves are from a common mammalian or even more distant species. Clearly the existence of the recurrent laryngeal nerve doesn't seem to cause a discernible weakness that's susceptible to being selected against, however it is ODD because if there are any arguments for supporting the course of the nerve for structural reasons then you would have to ask why are none of the other important structure of the neck supplied recurrently.

As someone who has done plenty of human dissection. I've seen enormous variation in structure. The anatomy books are a general map but by no means applicable to individuals. The coronary arteries of the heart and the cerebral arterial flow of the circle of willis are examples of anatomy that's well illustrated in idealised form but seldom matches up to the textbook on an angiogram.

imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me.

Thanks Dolbs, that's good to know even if I will almost certainly never encounter a tornado. So, windows rolled up then. After further thought, I think the truck probably is the best idea in this scenario. Belted in and covered with a heavy blanket to protect you from flying glass should the windows break (and it's safety glass anyways) or other small debris, would be the way to go, or just curled up in a ball against the firewall if that's the only option. In the truck, you're insulated from lighting strikes or downed high tension lines, and it would provide reasonable protection from small whirling debris. You also have the mobility option should that need arise.

Granted, the truck could get hit by large missiles such as tree trunks, other cars, fat old ladies, cranes or other heavy machinery, or indeed itself be lofted hundreds of feet into the air. If any of that sort of thing happens, though, you were screwed anyways.

So, when it comes to this, I'm not really sure this is EIA in the truest sense. Given the (apparently) 30 seconds they had to plan, I think they made a reasonable choice among the options available to them. After all, it's definitely a situation where an okay plan now is better than a brilliant plan in five minutes. And yes, they probably should have come up with a plan as soon as they realized they were moving to a trailer park in ND, so a bit of EIA there. At least they kept on top of their priorities and realized the very first item of business was to film it happening, and I commend their presence of mind to hold the phone properly even in such a life-and-death situation.

Of course, since we're betting on the tornado not scoring a direct hit anyways. It could be that under a bed or in a closet in the trailer might have been just as well (losing the mobility, of course). Maybe having a trailer collapse on you is bad.

I dont' know why I find this scenario so fascintating to dissect.

i voted for this video if only to see it dissected for the hack piece it is.

do we really need to point out the infantile logic of using michelle obamas comment of "knuckleheads" and conflate it with a 300$ bottle of water?

come on..seriously? thats pretty dumb.

but obamacare is not a failure.it is performing exactly as it was designed.
written by the heritage foundation.
it is basically a gimme bailout for big pharma and the health insurance industry.
and it is functioning perfectly.

if obama truly wanted a universal health care.we already had a system in place that,as @Yogi already pointed out,would have saved money and the infrastructure was already in place.
single payer would have been an easy implementation.
covered everybody.
and saved money.

but that was never the goal.

socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.