Slavik44

And that is the group we are talking about, US evangelicals correct? ----------------------------- Anyways I think one of the major problems we encounter is that we are dealing with a large group of people with a lot of prominent lunatics amongst them who over sell what they do to support there over inflated ego. A conversation with a political aide, becomes advising the white house, praise from some government crackpot, becomes endorsement from the government. Compliments from bureaucratic hacks becomes the amazement of high level officials. This situation has only been inflamed by Bush's apparent public incompetence. Almost as if there is a widespread conspiracy to make it look like we are being led by high level idiots and lunatics. However, we must also recognize that some of these individuals do hold views that border on fanaticism. I notice the left behind series was mentioned on here...I recall as a child being made to watch a movie titled "left behind" (I don't know if there is a relation) by my Sunday school teacher. But it was something I was raised to believe...the gloom and doom that god is coming to punish the world and destroy all the un-believers. I guess I wonder how common it is in the general public, but with the people I was raised around, that was the belief, that was the truth. To an extent where when my mother was talking about Global Warming...her response was well maybe thats just the tribulation comming...why should we tell God no, and try to stop it. Now, I don't want to introduce a global warming debate here...we would be getting off topic. But imagine for a second if the worst case scenario were fully true...perhaps you can understand why it might be disconcerting for someone to just decide oh thats God acting up again, he is going to destroy the world, bring it on. Obviously it would be to much of a generalization to say that this is true of all evangelical Christians...it is tough to tell. But as a child I was always concerned that rapture could happen at any second, particularly Sunday night, after being subjected to an hour long doom and gloom story about how the earth was an immoral dirty place, humans were completely evil, and deserved to go to hell...because they could do no good in the sight of god (trust me that fucks up your self image). Likewise in America 25% of people believe the rapture will happen this year, hang on to your hats...a good 4 billion of us are going to hell by Christmas. This does present some problems...If you seriously and whole heartedly believe the world is going to end in less then 365 days...you ain't going to be planing for the future. That does pose a problem, because inactivity on important issues can be pushed aside...why care...the world will be over soon enough. So while it cannot be proven that they are actively pursuing the end of the world. Their beliefs might lead to inactivity on important issues, and that most certainly does raise questions and pose problems. Obviously it is impossible to make the widespread statement that this is true of all Christians, or even all evangelicals...but the 25% that believe the rapture will happen this year is a big number of Americans. It is also tough to claim that they all have bad intentions. Who knows even Fred Phelps has good intentions. but to borrow that old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

It is kind of strange that we are talking about an Individual experiencing moral panic, when by definition that isn't possible really possible, it is a poor proposition. A moral panic consists of widespread fear or concern over a particular issue that is seen as a threat to public interests/values. If only one person is hysterical about an issue...then by definition it is not widespread. However, we could see that individual as a part or by-product of a moral panic. In other words take one of these hysterical people, that we are talking about. What do their posts consist of....Usually a piece of highly sensationalized text, that has a kernel of truth to it. Are these people hysterical...probably, on an individual level. As a whole could they be a part of the moral panic? Absolutely, they may be the public that is concerned...maybe they are acting like a mini media outlet, or moral entrepreneur and focusing attention to the issue or trying to bring it to light, maybe even give us a "solution". Anyways trying to define moral panic as being individual is just wrong. It would be like describing me as Vancouver. I might be a Vancouverite, I might be apart of Vancouver, but I sure as hell am not Vancouver. Just a small little piece of it. August also raised an interesting point when he talked about framed...however, I would argue that the issue is dependent on how you define Social problems to begin with. Are they entirely real? Objective? A violation of norms? Or would you instead see them as being constructed an issue is defined collectively as a problem. Obviously in wikipedia, they editors took an entirely constructive view when describing moral panics. But that is wikipedia, it gives a nice little summary that is usually on target, but I wouldn't condemn something, just because the wikipedia article had some holes in it. We can sort of see this when we look at the theories surrounding the creation of moral panics.... 1. Grass roots Takes a more objective view, argues that Moral Panics originate within the general public. Involves the attitudes and beliefs of a large and broad sector of society. A real and present threat exists. The concern is wide spread and genuinely felt. This may be expanded upon by the media and the police. The issue may be stirred up by politicians, but it had to be in existence in the first place. 2. Elite Engineered Model Has moral panics being created by small powerful groups, create a campaign to generate and sustain public fear. The problem identified not extremely harmful to society, but it is not benign either. These issues then focus attention away from other bigger problems in society. 3. Interest Group Theory This theory argues that Moral Entrepreneurs launch Moral crusades and sometimes these crusades turn into moral panics...this is done to ensure that laws are implemented and/or remain. Such people genuinely believe that what they are doing is a noble cause.

I wasn't forming a hypothesis, I was commenting on some problems I noticted that were contained in the great Global Warming Swindle...I guess my only hypothesis was that if we blindly accept what anyone says we are swindiling ourselves. I said the same thing in my original post, but you get the points for elagence. Again were in agreement, but I give you the points for elagence I never said they didn't, just that the claim made in the movie...that the Earths tempature is directly caused by the number of sunspots...has a major problem when look at sunspot activity and the earths tempature over the past 30 years. That the movie itself made a claim that is to the best of scientific knowledge incompatible with the last 30 years of data. And I don't disagree with you, but that does not mean that I cannot point out some of the problems with the video, especially when I can back up what I say with scientific data and studies. Very much so....Junk in, Junk out..a model is only as good as the data. But I was not making a post arguing that Global warming was Caused solely by CO2 or that it was entirely a man made phenomenon...instead just that there were a number of problems with the above video. Which I outlined, and have since provided studies and data to back up. sure

Yes I never claimed to be an expert. So continuing to bring it up is pointless and in bad taste...This forum would have no one posting on it...if every one had to be an expert. Instead I have since provided data with my claims, in order to lend more credibility to them. I would certainly hope people would not believe something just because I said so....that would be in direct contradiction to wha tI said in my Original conclusion. "When it comes down to it, we all need to be careful not to be duped, but I think in some people's effort not to be duped by Al Gore...they got duped by someone else. Either way, no matter how you feel, you might be getting duped, particularly if you go around believing in a video with out even trying to hold it up to any sort of review. " Maybe video was interpreted as the one I posted, but it was intended to be a general and all encompassing reference. I feel however, that it was presented in bad taste and out of context. The data on the troposphere was out dated, the did not discuss data on sunspot from the last 30 years, Carl Wunsch's discussion of CO2 and oceans was edited in a manner that he claism borders on fraud. Other bits of data like Aresoles were conviently ignored. a full or balanced picture was not provided on the issue of clouds and heat/CO2 relationship. I don't recall making any claims in concern to that. Again, you are being somewhat rude...I backed up every statement I made with evidence. If you are going to say my statements are composed of bad information then prove it...I am only asking what this forum requires, if you make a claim provide supporting evidence. If you claim that what I said was incorrect, then prove it. The movie discussed CO2, so did...do you disagree with any of my claims That it melts when it is warm? Or that there is CO2 below it? (notice this was in discussion about CO2 and Temperature...so I wouldn't need to mention other thing such as methane) Yes but the existance of substance B does not mean that substance A does not exist...my point is correct...is it not? That there is CO2 below the permafrost? And that when/if the perma-frost melts CO2 will be released? Is that not correct? Never made a claim in concerns to that...I only claimed that what is frozen can melt So it does melt, were on the same page. I never claimed to know how much will melt, or have an opinion on that. Kind of not on the original topic Go to my original post, and tell me where I said, we should put duct tape on the mouths of global warming deniers. Go to my original post and tell me where I said Global Warming was enitirely caused by humans Go to my posts and tell me where I blamed CO2 for all the warming that has occured on the earth. The best you will find is that I said it could work as an amplifier.

You are actually not incorrect... If you look through most of my previous posts, on this subject, you will notice I have never explicitly said that Global warming is definitely and entirely a man-made phenomenon. My post instead was to encourage people to debate the topic, to look at information, to analyze what they read and see. So you are correct, I do believe that we need to look at these claims. You are somewhat incorrect however, in that my position was that as the earth rises, CO2 is released from natural stores (Ice and Ocean) and this has an amplification effect...which is the actual position of Carl Wunsch, who felt he was misrepresented by the individuals who made this movie.

I am going to be very honest here, this is irratating..... What you are doing with this current post is a blatant straw man and it is not one I will be drawn into. Suffice to say in this thread I am not interested in debating whether or not Global Warming is man made. What I was looking at was The information found in the great global warming swindle, and showing why it is wrong. That does not mean I was trying to prove global warming is man-made, only that the movie itself is junk. And you can continue to sit back and make rude remarks about my level of education, but until you are willing to debate the information, you should leave this thread. I have posted the info...can I assume by your lack of willingness to address it that you know I am correct? Yes, I have heard of Milankovitch Cycles... Now I want you to do this for me... First I want you to recognize that my post was not intended to prove man-made global warming... Second I want you to recognize that my post was in concerns with the validity/fairness of the claims made in the Great Global Warming Swindle Third I want you to tell me and every one on this forum which one of my points is wrong.... Is it 1. That Sunspot Activity is cyclical in nature? 2. That The movie only showed us sunspot activity to the 1970's 3. That past the 1970's sunspot activity has gone up and down...while as the movie itself said, temperature has been increasing. 4. That evidence in the past few years has proven that the troposphere is in fact warming at a rate that would be expected by GHG/global warming models 5. Particle Pollution/Aerosols can have a cooling effect 6. That the emission of such things was limited a couple decades after WW2 (in the 70's I think) 7. CO2 is stored under the arctic permafrost 8. Ice melts as temperatures increase. 9. That Oceans store CO2 10. That as oceans warm, they release CO2 11. That Carl Wunsch was upset with how his claims, about the Ocean, were taken out of context in the movie and misrepresented. 12. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing These are my claims. I have provided evidence for each and every one of them. I am now asking you to debate my claims. To debate my information. Are you able to do this? If those 12 claims are so ridiculous then prove them wrong. You are making me out to be an ignorant fool. If that is the case, that I am ignorant, and my 12 claims are ignorant, then you should have no trouble responding to them and addressing them. I don't want any other claims introduced, I don't want any other positions ascribed to myself...other then the 12 I placed in this post. I encourage any and all debate on those 12 claims... The attitude you have shown...suggest that this should be easy for you. After all I am in desperate need of an education, so doit. Give me one, tell me why those 12 things are wrong AND JUST THOSE 12 NOTHING ELSE. If not maybe you should apologize.

Well my scientists beat your second hand smoke causes cancer deniers any day of the week...and you have yet to counter any one of my points.

That is why I provided you with information. I didn;t just say look at me I have some education...I am right they are wrong. If that were the case, you would have a point. Instead I presented information that prooves them wrong. I am not reallying on my education to do anything. I am relying on the information. Until you want to take a stab at disproving my information, all you are doing is taking part in lame attempt at charachter assassination. I can proove provide you with links that prooves the troposphere is warming 1. Troposphere http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/threat/threat6.htm Please note that at one time this information was not known, so they were correct, but no longer are, now they are just lieing and misleading the public. 2. Sunspots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png Here is a graph...where you can see sunspots going up and down...in a cyclical manner over the past 30 years. You can see how they have decreased from 2000-2005 during some of our warmest years on record. 3. Post War cooling If you are un-aware of the information about particle pollution and aerosols, then you are in great need of a little knowledge. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-last-frontier/ 4. CO2 storage in the Ocean http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sab.../sabi2683.shtml 5. CO2 storage below the Permafrost http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Dec/20-801705.html 6. Ice Melts as temperatures rise You got me, that was complete bullshit.... 7. This is an add on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...o2-in-ice-cores This talks about the relationship between CO2 and heat...it also talks about the possibility of CO2 being released fromt eh Ocean as the climate warms...so now we have the ocean and the ice. 7. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2261.htm 8. Cosmic Radiation Already gave you a link --------------------------- Finally I would like to indulge you in this scientific credential dick measuring constest you seem so eager to start, by flaunting the scientists found in the great global warming swindle. This is what I found.... Martin Durkin Carl Wunsch Fred Singer Patrick Michaels Peirs Corbyn Tim Ball

On the otherhand if Quebec seperated from Canada in the next nine months, our emmissions would drop substantially....there is always a solution.

A while back a user posted a video title The Great Global Warming Swindle, at the time I only watched a few minutes of it. I recently noticed an article in the paper discussing this video and thought I would sit down and watch the whole thing. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=449...warming+swindle Whether or not you agree with global warming or disagree with global warming have no idea about it or just don't care...you should find this video disgusting. Because nearly every single claim it makes is a lie, a distortion of the truth, and or extremely misleading. Lets look at its claims.... The two biggest claims they make, their scientific holy grail, are both false. They claim is made that if global warming were occurring we would see this in the troposphere, its highly scientific and we wouldn't understand why, but as they tell us just trust them. Now so far they are correct. Then they tell us that there is no Warming in the troposphere. This is wrong, we have know this to be wrong for a couple years. For a recent video that is trying to scientifically debunk global warming, you would think they should be more up-to-date on the "facts" they are presenting. They say that if Global warming were true we would see the troposphere warming, we do, does that mean they would like to change their position? Another big thing they point to is sun spots, it is interesting. Because the number of Sunspots work in a short cyclical manner, going up and down many times in our own life time. In the video, they show us the number of sunspots up to the 1970's and say hey look it matches. why? don't they show us the next 30 years? Well because as they say, the earth has been continually heating since the 1970's, but the number of sunspots have gone up and down a number of times. In fact in our hottest year on record, we were near the bottom or the low end of the sunspot cycle...They are wrong, they have lied. In the past 30 years the sunspots and the Earth temperature have not matched. They also look at some other claims. One they really like to focus on is the post war cooling period where CO2 would have been high, in an economic boom, and the temperature should have gone up but it didn't...in fact it dropped for a couple of decades. Interestingly, there is another side to the story. It is called particle pollution...certain chemicals when released into the atmosphere have been proved to have a profound cooling effect. It wasn't until a few decades after WW2, when we started to regulate such emissions...as they are extremely un-healthy. After this we see temperatures rise. None, of that is mentioned is this video, it is ignored, completely and utterly ignored. It is a bad attempt at misleading the public. The video also likes to talk about stores of CO2....great, wonderfull...They should mention that the Ocean stores more CO2 than it emits. Maybe they should explain how the natural stores of CO2 are increasing, if we were to expect global warming to be caused naturally, you might think to look for a decrease in the natural storage of CO2. Instead we see an increase in the natural storage of CO2 at the same time we see an increase in the atmosphere. They also went on to make a interesting point about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. On the surface it looks great. Until you realize where one of the worlds greatest natural stores of CO2 is.....it is under the arctic permafrost....When that melts, more CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. This is something scientists have been telling us for a while now. I would like to ask you when that CO2 would be released...take a guess...I am no scientists, but I have this theory that ice melts as temperature rises. Finally they talk about Cosmic rays. As I said I am not a scientist...so I will just refer you to a real scientist When it comes down to it, we all need to be careful not to be duped, but I think in some people's effort not to be duped by Al Gore...they got duped by someone else. Either way, no matter how you feel, you might be getting duped, particularly if you go around believing in a video with out even trying to hold it up to any sort of review. I am not talking about rigorous scientific anylisation...Instead it is Slavik has taken introductory courses in Earth Science and Physical Geography...the same type of knowledge you could get reading a book or two in the Library. If you truly don't want to be duped, swindled, or mislead. Inform yourself. All to often we look for information that proves our beliefs correct and ignore all else. Challenge these beliefs instead of sheltering them...or you are just swindling yourself.

well apparently I am going to die a few days short of my 97th birthday, so I guess I am going to increase my retirement savings.

I would agree that some professionals can become stale. On the other hand if I ever need open heart surgery...the best person for the job, is probabley also going to be the person with the most expirence. Not to say that old doctors are always the best, some might get stale with age, but it is not a universal rule or law...that things get worse with age or time, something get better. Case in point, when I look bakc at my highschool years the best teache rI ever had, was also the oldest, but he was an amazing teacher. I had him in grade 8 and I did very well in all my classes that year, I remember his class specifically, because he was a great teacher, but he also demanded alot from his students. I didn;t have him in grade nine or ten, and those were two years that got flushed down the toilet, I spent more time skipping class then I did attending. Literally I nearly failed right out of school. I had him again as a teacher in grade 11 and 12 and I did very well during those years, I ended up graduating with honours. Now I am not going to say that it was all because of him, but he was a great teacher, he demanded alot (he wasn't joking when he told us University history courses would be easier) in the same sense having pushed myself in his class to succeed, and getting the best mark in his class I did come to realise what I was capable of. I think at that point I decided on a future change, from just getting out of school as fast as possible to wanting to go to law school. After taking his class I knew I could do it, every one else thought I was joking, but I knew what I was capable of...and now within a couple months I will be sending the applications out. I realise now your probabley hate the guy already, but literally the best teacher I have ever encountered. some people love what they are doing, and they continue to keep that passion. Some people are incredibley skilled at what they do, and they get even better with time. Some get stay the same, some get worse, and some just suck from the begining. So what is at stake is not an issue of age or time in the field, what is at stake is seperating the good from the bad. What is neccessary is finding ways to keep the good and cut the bad, or if it is a matter of skills, making the bad better. Now there are different ways to do this. I am not certain that elections are one of them or at the bery least the best method, if George Bush can get elected twice, then I am hoping that in the case of lawyers, judges, teachers, and doctors we can find a better way. One that rewards the good and punishes the bad. Perhaps a more open process for complaints and dealing with such things is neccessary. There is another angle to look at, you posted a couple of links about people who have been mistreated by the CJS, but when we stop and ask ourselves why, there is an interesting phenomenon that might be playing a part. Now a days we cook instant rice, instant noodles, and apparently maple leaf now offers us insant beef. We have super fast internet access that can download information from a web page faster then the server can give it to us. At my ATM I can get instant cash, fast cash, and well just plain cash at the push of a button. When Anna Nicole smith died every one was shocked that an autopsy took weeks even months...rather than the 15 seconds it took on CSI. People want fast cash, fast cars, fast food, and they want fast justice. Whenever a crime is committed they want a criminal and they want one now. Like little children they cry, sream, and pout if they don't get a criminal in 2.4 seconds, just flip on Nancy Grace to see what I mean...I personally can't stand her...and I think this is a serious problem...the pressure should not be on or in favour of fast justice. Because Fast justice like Fast food is rarely genuine.

The ugly truth is that Lawyers are just like everyone else, they are people, some are good some are bad.... What about Mechanics? I think they like to jerk customers around and misdiagnose what is wrong with their car. Last time I checked the construction industry left B.C residents high and uhh...well wet with a bunch of leaky condo's. My bank just placed a 13 dollar service charge on my no fee student account, and they won't tell me why. Every month I get to phone my families extended health insurance company, because they keep refusing to cover costs they are obligated to cover, and every month they tell me it won't happen again, the issue has been rectified. My university professor gave me an A-, after I finished with 84.9%, even though I have a written outline for the course saying he rounds marks up. I paid $1.20 for gas this afternoon, and ten minutes later saw two cop cruisers, reving their engines and launching when the light turned green, in a street race. I was just comming back from the gym, and some dumb ***** in her mini van apparently has never heard of shoulder checking before changing lanes, and I got run off the road...no worries she had a baby on baord sign...whatever that means. Lets cut the tunnel vision, its not hard to find jerks and losers in this world, they exists, and they exist in all fields, construction, technology, mechanics, Law, Law enforcement, accountants, banks, you name it...pick any field and you will find decietfull individuals. You will also find good hard working and caring individuals. Pick any field, open your eyes and you will also find them. It is somewhat annoying how people continue to have this tunnel vision, as if all bad in the world comes from lawyers. Lets face it, we are dealing with people, some do bad things, some do good things, and some sit on their ass and collect welfare. But sitting back and throwing insults is only a temporary high, it is only a temporary stress relief, can we move past the insults and come up with something constructive? Seriously, I challange you in your next post, to come up with a solution, or just an idea for a solution with out having to run down tens of thousands of people across Canada. Just try it, because when you can do that, we can actually have a proper discussion.

Well I am almost positive I said I was going to simplify it as much as possible, and as such it would be easy to point out, hey thats to simple, because even I acknowledge that. But at as a principle it remains sound and highly effective when properly implemented. There are a plethora of factors we could be taking into consideration, but it leads to a convoluted mess. And I would challange anyone who is over weight to give it a try. Spend a week and write out EXACTLY what you eat, every little thing, and the time you eat it. Do this at a point where you know your weight will remain stable, where you are maintaining your current weight. From there every week make 1 change. One week add a day of cardio, another remove one food item, another substitute a low calorie item for a high calorie item. I would be willing to almost gurantee that if you can proove that your current lifestyle maintains your weight level, that by changing this lifestyle to produce a deficit you will also produce changes. Obviously there are so many factors that can go into these equations, Muscle increases your BMR, your physical activity increases your BMR, different nutrients require different amounts of energy to be digested, some foods requir emore energy to digest than they actually contain, water requires energy to heat up. Yes their is a shit load of factors that need to be considered. BUT as a basic principle I would rate it far superior to any of this bullshit where we label an entire macronutrient group as an enemy, or any of these bullshit diets where we attempt to deprive individuals. As I said simplified, we could expand it and make it more complicated, but the principle remains, and is effective, and I have had no true problems implementing it, it does require tweaking and personalization and it does require you to be on the ball and honest. But it is a sound principle, that people should implement before trying to fight some god forsaken war against an enemy that should really be your ally.

Wow, I am almost a little shocked; I can't believe some of the stuff people are saying... I am going to start simplifying this as much as possible... Weight gain, Weight loss, and even weight maintenance is a factor of calories in, calories out. It is about as simple as you can make it, Calories in and calories out. A surplus leads to weight gain, a deficit to weight loss, and a balance to weight maintenance. It is that simple. From this point we can expand on the first principle by introducing a second, that one pound roughly equals 3,500 calories. So to gain or loose one pound is a function of creating a caloric imbalance of 3,500 calories. Third principle involves your metabolism, it is always fluctuating it is not always operating at a constant level. It slows down when you go long periods of time in a day with out food, and speeds up when your food intake increase. In order to maximize your weight loss potential eating meals spread through out the day has a knock on effect of keeping your metabolism at a higher rate. Fourth principle is that cardio causes a higher proportion of fat loss to muscle loss when compared to just cutting calories alone. All of these steps can be done with out picking any enemies, or eliminating any food groups, in fact it is probably best if you didn't. It is one of the greatest myths of the diet industry that, depravation leads to a healthier lifestyle. A healthier body is achieved through changes that can be maintained in the long term, unhealthy depravation rarely works in the long-term, and it rarely works for in the short term either. Cutting out an entire macronutrient group is just not advisable; they all play important roles in the health of your body. Instead the issue of weight shouldn't even be seen as one that involves enemies, wars, or battles. It involves management and decision making. Not some sort of culture of war and destruction propagated by the diet industry. We could add a fifth principle if you like and that is that foods differ in relation to the calorie density, and it may be easier to create a caloric deficit by eating foods that are less calorie dense, usually liquids like Juices or soft drinks are packed full of calories. But calories are not the enemy, and you can still lose weight, consuming such things, if you practice proper management. Your health and your weight are not some sort of battle or ongoing epic war, and the enemy is not calories, it is not carbohydrates, it is not protein, they are your employees in this management issue, it is not advisable to fire any of them, only to utilize them properly. Carbohydrates form your bodies primary energy source, in absence of carbohydrates your body turns on itself and basically eats away at your muscle, your glycogen stores, and your primary loss of weight is water, not fat. Usually this will result in an individual being in a very fatigued state after a while. Likewise fat is not necessarily the enemy, crazy right? Wrong, most people have a number of misconceptions about fat. Often times the right kind can have health benefits. Take ALA it is a type of EFA and is associated with leading to a low/lower risk of cardio vascular disease. Omega-3 fatty acids can lower your bad cholesterol and raise your good cholesterol; there is some evidence although not conclusive that it can have an anti-inflammatory affect. Now that doesn't exactly sound like an enemy, it just sounds like maybe we need to be looking at what type of fats we are actually consuming, before we decide to write them off entirely. Fat intake is very important when it comes to issues of hormone regulation Protein is the building blocks of your body, usually not something that needs to be explained. However, 70% protein is a bit excessive and unnecessary. (Although 70-30-30 is not 100%, so I am a little confused there). After all your body usually can only deal with about 30-40 grams of protein at once. If we assumed a 2,500 calorie diet, we are talking about 1,700 calories of protein or roughly 430 grams. Needless to say, to ensure that protein didn't go to waste and its utilizations was maximized, you would be consuming protein non-stop, your average male theoretically would not be able to fully utilize all that protein in a day. ---------------------------------- As for the OP, Obviously it is very hard to truly quantify whether or not there is an obesity epidemic, and for that matter what it means to be obese and what it means for there to be an epidemic. Your points on BMI are well noted, and they do need to be taken into consideration. However, as you yourself have said, average weight has increased by 10 pounds. That is actually a fair amount of weight, 10 pounds on an adult is no laughing matter. As well we would also need to recognize that this is not spread evenly through out the population, it might be that a fair sized group of people are seriously over weight. And a quick walk through the mall, the park, and just about anywhere else there is people seems to indicate that a number of individuals are far from their ideal bodyweight. I would also agree with your point that the yo-yo diets of today’s teenagers can and do have negative and adverse effects. However, that does not mean that we should give a carte blanche out to children and teens to do and eat however and whatever they feel. You have railed against diets as ineffective, and I couldn’t agree more. Weight is a dynamic factor, that is constantly changing and to manage it requires constant attention and change. Permanent weightless, is permanent, it is long term. Diets are not long term, they are short term changes and once reversed and abandoned the changes they brought about will also be reversed and abandoned. Diet is a short term solution to a long term issue, and by definition, by their own virtue they cannot work and cannot be the answer in the long term. Technically diets are incredibly successful; they do result in weight loss, but keeping that weight off requires a permanent effort. If we want to make a war analogy, we only need to remember that WW1 (the war to end all wars) was followed by WW2, and it was followed by…..etc. The whole notion that you can lose weight once and not have to worry about it ever again is disgustingly false. As you have pointed out, people’s calorie intake over the years has remained relatively stable. And while I do not view foods as the enemy when it comes specifically to weight, I wonder if the nutritional value of the calories we do consume has remained the same, are we still getting enough of the foods we need to keep our bodies operating properly and at their capacity. Likewise a drop in activity level is a problem, and it should be something that people are encouraged to address. Directly physical activity leads to a number of health benefits, and indirectly it is strongly correlated to a healthier bodyweight.

See, I think we run into some major problems with these long term predictions and then trying to make implications on current society based off of this suggested future world. I think on the surface it sounds scary but when we look at the situation a bit more, we realise that under the surface, the prediction are either wrong or not as big of deal as we make them out to be. The first thing we have to come to grips with is that the housing Market, is a Market, and as such is subject to the forces of supply and demand. We must also recognize that Demand is not perfectly inelastic. What I want to say is that, If you have a yearly income of 120,000 before taxes the calculators seem to indicate you can get a 400-500K mortgage. Unless Canadian financial institutions overhaul their mortgage calculation schemes, this will continue to be true. Meaning that if housing prices were to double in twenty years, their would have to be people capable of making such purchases, people eligable for mortgages in the multi-million dollar range. Obviously, we have some people capable of qualifying, but not a whole lot. The implication is this: 1) People's salaries will continue to increase allowing them to continue to chase up the value of property or 2) The DYNAMIC housing Market will not continue to increase at a flat and static rate for the next twenty years. It will probabley be a combination of both. But we must understand that the market in most major metropolitan cities could not support houses doubling in prices and so if it could in the future, then obviously the issue would overblown because salaries will also have gone up. That isn't to say that the future is going to be rosy, and not to worry about a thing, we may very well encounter problems, and issues of affordibility in the lower middle class. But, we can not simply sit back and say "oh my god" housing prices are going to double, no one will be able to buy a house...the obvious answer is that if house prices doubled...they doubled for a reason...because people and a large number of people were able to buy houses. Because houses that nobody buys or nobody can buy, sit on the market...and the price is eventually cut to attract customers. Its kinda like when Grandma talks about the candies that cost her a cent to buy...The cost of liquorish has jumped over 100% in the past 60-70 years, but not to worry judging by the obesity rates children are geting their fair share.

...

Canucks move up 3-1 in the series coming back home for a game on thursday

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/ I think this qualifies as absolutely disgusting...

Well I don't know about that entirely, all too often we like to sit back and talk about how society is degrading and falling to pieces, it seems like a hobby...the left has these immenent malthusian disasters flying at us every ten seconds and the right has us locked in a moral crisis, of extreme degradation of societal values...where the past was some kind of utopian holy land, I swear I want to know what drugs these guys are taking and get some for myself...it must be fun. Lets face it, the largest mass killing on school grounds, in america, occured in 1927. These whole illussions of lost morality are somewhat misplaced, wether we blame the jews and kill 6 million of them or our girlfriend and kill 30 people is irrelavent. People have never been so great at dealing with emotions, and generally find very destructive outlets for the relief of such problems. Our society is full of people, nothing more, nothing less, and this has always been the case. People can be hysterical, irrational, emotionally un-sound, and down right ignorant and this is true of all generations and at all times. They also have the capacity to do great things, amazing things and this is also true of all generations and all times. I mean you want to talk about a blaze of glory, lets ride back on out to the wild west. Please give me a break, lets call it like it is, humans have never truly been very responsible or emotionally sound creatures, we have had and do have some pretty f'ed up ideas and we have done and still do some prett f'ed up things. This desire to blame the present and white wash the past is a fruitless time consuming effort, that does little but provide past generations with a false security blanket to hide under. Fifty Years ago a man walked on to school property as a suicide bomber and killed himself, his son, and several other students and staff present at the time. Just get off your high horse and come to grips with the fact that the issue of human emotional instability is not relegated to this specific era, unless the era you are refering to is the Cenozoic.

When I originally heard about this, I was on another forum reading a thread, it started with one person dead, and as I kept reading the number continued to progress up to 22, I stopped to check CNN.com and it read 30 dead. In such a short time I went from thinking, thank god it wasn't worse...to over 30 dead, it is worse...very sad situation. I hesitate to launch into a post on gun control, when first and foremost our thought should be on the many people whose lives have been affected by this tragic event, but this is a political forum. I think there are two sides to every coin or every issue, usually more and I think in this case both extremes are really two sides of the same coin. One extreme would have us believe that if every student at VTU was packing heat this never would have happened (probably because there wouldn't be 30 students left at the school by now) Lets face it University Campus+Drinking+Guns....not a good mix. But on the other side the complete removal of all guns is a lofty, idealized goal, plagued with logistical problems that make it impractical and harmful to the law abiding population. I don't think the issue is Legal guns, but rather the ease at which guns can be acquired both legal and illegal. I noticed August brought up Assault weapons, and he said he didn’t understand why the U.S allowed people to own assault weapons. I think the obvious piece of pertinent information here, is that you can own assault weapons in Canada, depending on the region you live in, you often have access to a greater variety of assault weapons due to fewer import bans. I would suggest the difference is the ease at which they may be acquired, in Canada you have to jump through a number of hoops. Likewise once you have these guns, there are certain laws in place about storage, Legally your guns need to be locked away, I believe with trigger locks. I think this important, because it results in legal guns being protected and hidden away from criminals, who might otherwise break into houses and have easy access to a large cache of weapons. In the states you can leave your guns lying around wherever you damn well please, in the seat of your car, next to your bible, or on the kitchen table. Statistics indicate that more that half a million guns are stolen in the U.S and that is only reported thefts from residential places. I think this is where we can start to outline the Issue, there needs to be laws regarding proper ownership and VERY strong laws and punishments regarding the illegal sale of weapons. How guns are sold and pass hands, is not an issue to be played lightly with, it is not an issue to try one of those hug a thug strategy or attempt any form of rehabilitation, there must be strict laws surrounding how guns are sold and pass hands

If the legal profession in Canada is strictly a money grab profession, then we have a serious problem, Lawyers really suck at their profession, because the average un-educated Albertan oil field worker could pull just as much cash if not more, for a starting salary, as almost any recent law school graduate. Sure lawyers are well paid, 7 years of school and a professional degree usually gets you that and it should, But Lawyers are far from being in any sort of class of their own when it comes to salaries, I think maybe you are confusing Top U.S Law salaries with Canadian Salaries, which are decent and allow for a good living, but not spectacular in any sense of the word. Likewise your Canada-wide universal lawyer dirtbag conspiracy theory is kind of undermined by the fact that about half of lawyers in Canada are self employed. Sure making fun of lawyers is great fun, but a representation of a new sodom and gamorah, or crack addicted gutter whore, makes your sensationalist analogies about as valuable as what is on the toilet paper after I use it. Maybe canadian legal salaries are so, realtively, low because they are doing what you say, robbing from the poor. What kind of idiot robs from the poor? What are you going to steal? A box of macaroni? Do they still have those hockey cards on the back of the box? See your post wouldn't be so bad, if it was to focus on arguing for an outside investigative ethics body. It reminds me of those posts about police officers who eat babies, and thats why we need independant bodies and boards of the police profession. Its tough because I might in part agree with the conclusion, but it is completely childish in the treatment of the profession and the many good people who do work in the profession.

..

I agree with all of your above statements, it's difficult, if not impossible, to find an appropriate standard. But we already see private companies doing this to a large extend, you pay more if your a smoker, you pay more if you have a history of high cholesterol, ect. ect.. Is TV a cause of obesity? Should it be taxed like cigarettes? Perhaps not. The problem with TV is that you can watch at much as you want without paying more. I'm not comfortable with the social engineering that would be behind a move to limit TV watching. On very inclement days I watch TV while riding on the indoor trainer. Just another case of trouble with specific solutions. Or tax junk food like we tax tobacco and alcohol. I don't see why we haven't yet. A $10 bag of chips is going to stop people from eatting things that are unhealthy no matter how you spin it. Tobacco I think is killing far less people in Canada now than obesity through things like preventable heart disease and diabeties. Not punishing them is equally expensive in the long run in my opinion. Some stats show more than half of Canadian kids now have a weight problem of some type. I certainly don't want to pay that health care bill 50 years from now. If any of them live past 40. A heart attack takes someone out of the workforce for anywhere between 1 and 6 months generally... that's a huge cost to society... on top of the medicial costs. I still have some problems with the idea of insurance premiums...we put in smokers, we put in fat people...although I think we have soem classification problems, you said people who have high cholesterol...okay...what about people with a family history of high cholesterol? A family history of heart disease? Should we include these genetic factors? People in wheel chairs? The Mentally handicapped? All of these are issues that need to be consider when we decide to start down a path of preiums. On the otherhand I wouldn't have that many problems with taxing junk food, however I do not view this as punishment...so much as it is a form of prevention, and as I said we should look to preventative measures. This would have a double benifiet, it would discourage people from eating un-healthy food and it would provide important revenue for healthcare...if it was set up in such a way that it was a healthcare tax. Of course there may be some issues on defining "junk food".... I know it is argued that junk food is cheap and therefore consumed by poor people, which may have some merrits to it. However, there are cheap healthy foods available, so there are healthy cost effective alternatives. I think that may be another possible pillar for the obesity solution, but I don't see it as punishment so much as prevention...i simply am not sold on the idea of premiums...

BMI isn't the best indicator, and this the problem with setting up a objective method of determining someone's health... at a reasonable cost anyways. I'm only an inch shorter than you but a good 70 pounds lighter... my activity is xc ski (plus alpine) in the winters and cycling in the summers. Both likely health as a horse, but completely different dynamics. My aerobic capacity is likely many times yours, but your muscle mass (good at burning calories while just doing nothing) is undisputably many times mine. Both of us are much less likely than the average to have a heart attack or type 2 diabeties or a bazillion other costly problems. And I selfishly think we should both be rewarded for our completely different but equally benefical steps to reducing our burden on the health care system. Obviously people can't be trusted to provide accurate reports of their physical activity or eatting, but we can certainly provide incentives from a tax basis (which is our insurance premiums) in Canada to those that lower their risk to the system. Having fitness equipment GST exempt would be step one in my opinion... fitness equipment isn't a luxury item, it's a living essiential like food. Your going to die early if you don't have it. I think there is a fairly large difference between tax breaks on health related items and activities (which I would support) and forcing people to pay premiums based on their BMI or even other measures of Bodyfat percentage. I know that if using the 25 BMI measure I would be forced to pay a premium. I am a bit of a gym rat, I have bulked up to as high as 225 and am currently cut down to around 175. Both numbers put me over a BMI of 25, one of them in state of almost morbid obesity, which is not and has never been the case. At all times I have attempted to get atleast 1-2 days a week of cardio in, on top of 4-5 days of weightlifting. This helps to highlight the problem of classifying obesity and fatness for such strict purposes. It is easy to do subjectively but an entirely different thing objectively, the same is true for measures of body fat percentage... Using Calipers is highly dependant on the person who tests you and their skill, you could literally get ten people to test you and get ten different results. Beyond that the results have a moderate margin of error. Hydrostatic testing, although theoreticaly very accurate is greatly dependant on oxygen levels in your body, and how well you can force yourself to go with out oxygen. There is also an X-ray form of measurement, perhaps more reliable but also bloody expensive. No matter what, the money spent trying to test 30 million Canadians would be astronomical. It would also not be a one time thing, it would have to be done atleast on a yearly basis. So thats like a gun registry a year...not good. somehow it sounds less likely to save money and more likely to create yet another government cash dump. What about court costs? Are You telling me people wouldn't fight decisions. What if you set the standard at 15% and someone measures 17%...they could rightfully claim to be possibley within the guidlines, because no test can be that accurate. What if they measure 18.1%, 18.5%, what about 19%...not only are we dealing with a bloody expensive undertaking, that we don't yet have the infrastructure for, but we are opening a can of worms because it is absolutely impossible to objectively and universally quantify a fat person. Subjectively it is a piece of cake, Objectively it is impossible. It would be an comedy of errors and charges that would leave no one laughing and everyone groaning. I do not see such a solution as being at all feasible or cost effective. I agree however, that there is some potential in tax breaks to health related items and activities. However, that might not be a solution so much as a reward. Every January people shell out huge amounts of money to get in shape, and by febuary there are sitting on their ass eating potatoe chips and watching T.V, complaining that they couldn't loose weight. I think that not only should we provide tax breaks, but I think it is time we considered expanding Physical Education to include a nutrition component. We have a multi-billion dollar industry that stands as a testament to peoples nutritional ignorance. I think if we want to reform and improve healthcare pro-active preventative measures should be looked into and it should include not only providing people with a cheap answer but also the knowledge to make good decisions. Unfortunately punishing people for being fat is not objectively feasible, it would be expensive, time consuming, create more government bueracracy (I think the government is in need of a healthy diet almost as much as Canadians), it is simply a can of worms...really big and fat worms.