JWerner

Science is starting to prove that a lot of these illnesses are physical conditions. In other words, if you have chronic depression or OCD, you will actually see the structure of the brain change. It makes sense that medicine (a physical product) could help with these physical diseases. In essence, they are just as real as any other physical problems.

The news has become more negative and gruesome in the past few years, to the point where it seems the press has given up on everything positive. Look at the Lisa Montgomery situation, a story that no news station would have touched with a 50 foot pole a decade ago, but today the whole ordeal is explained in grotestue detial. Why does everyone(including me) all of a sudden show a sadistic side and listen to these terrible stories. Why the change?

Do you have proof that the news has become more negative and gruesome? One anecdote is not very compelling.

There is always truth in rumours.

No, there isn't.

This has been debunked. The 8 glasses myth has been popular for a while. Someone researched the the idea and there is no real basis for it. Google for eight glasses water myth and you'll see news stories that reported the findings.

Conventional wisdom is that if you are in normal circumstances, drink as much as you feel like. Shocking huh? If you are in a position where you won't notice dehydration, then make sure to drink enough.

I think animals have emotions. Emotions are chemical processes. Other chemicals can be used to control and trigger emotions (like euphoria). These emotional processes evolved before we were humans (look at great apes who exhibit anger and fear for example). It seems like they are widespread in most mammals. I don't think anyone who's ever had a pet mammal would dispute that they have emotions.

The problem is that people confound emotion and thought in humans and then think it's not possible for animals to have emotions because they don't think at the level we do. Thoughts can cause emotion but they aren't the same thing.

I believe the idea of primitive and advanced evolution is outmoded. Evolution isn't trying to create advanced organisms. Very basic life is just as evolved as we humans are. That said, it seems emotion is only present with more "complex" life.

Why not? We support a democratic Turkey.

 

Rev Prez

Turkey's democracy isn't very sturdy. The US supported Turkey long before it showed any real interest in democracy because of its strategic location and because of Turkey's secular, western aspects. The US supported Turkey during the cold war and still today to the extent Turkey's interests were in line with US interests and it did as the US said. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

Israel needs to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the US needs to avoid intervention in the middle east except when called upon in joint, UN-approved cases.

Fair enough, but that is not US foreign policy (and I don't care what the official line is, the US is pro-Israel all the way no matter what) and I don't think that's what Friedman's getting at. I think Friedman thinks that terror will decrease if the middle-east is democratic and that Iraq is a good way to start the spread of democracy. Both prongs are problematic and naive.

First of all, someone's ideas aren't right or wrong based on a degree they do or don't have.

Your problem is that you haven't shared any evidence or arguments about this girl's condition.

Come to find out later she was protesting in her own way

What does this mean exactly?

Just because you were right about your son, doesn't mean you are right about this girl's condition. If you are going to claim something, you need to back it up with evidence.

You need to see what the colleges you want to go to think of it and how much credit you'll get for it. I'd go for what is going to get you most credit at the school. I wouldn't care too much about prestige. It's prestegious, but it's not going to make or break your career.

As Friedman puts it, "I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital U.S. interest to find out."

If you consider US interests to be pro-Israel and pro-intervention in the middle east, a democratic Iraq is not going to be much of a help to our policy. A democratic Iraq would almost certainly oppose US support for Israel and oppose US foreign policy in the middle east generally.

This poll is a little America-centric... but for all you foreigners:

 

If you commented that you were against the right to bear arms' date=' do not vote republican or libertarian.

 

If you believed Saddam had WMD, but were still against the war, you should vote green or democrat.

 

If you're for abortion but against the death penality, democrat is the way to go.

 

.. see http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

 

The other parties are self-evident

 

and there is no "none" option, because if you think you're not in line with most of the beliefs of a party, you probably haven't seen the site I linked to. Try to pick the closest match, and if you're really out there choose 'Other'.[/quote']

 

Nothing wrong with the poll (though it's not great) but your first post is pretty sad. You can be for gun control and be a Republican and you can be for the war in Iraq and be a Democrat. If you recognize this, you shouldn't be suggesting people vote based on these specific issues.

I once read that humans haven't adapted to the agricultural revolution because it's only been about 10,000 years and it takes 200,000 years for humans to evolve traits in response to environment. Is this 200,000 year number nonsense? Is it roughly correct? I believed it until I considered catastrophic events like the plague. Theoretically, if a disease killed off all people without gene X, evolution could have occurred over one generation.