Gareth: An Antipodean perspective ... They sit around on some kind of benefit instead. Make of that what you will.
Ugh. Just so as to represent the Antipodes a bit more clearly: what I make of that (your comment, I mean; also your comment about Paris Hilton's host organism being only her family) is that you really believe that the poor get and stay that way by choice and/or through some fault of their own. What I make of the "welfare class", both in the US and in Australia, has been pretty much said by Stefanie, Ulrika, Mitch and (thanks Jaquandor) George Carlin.
for every Bush hater, there are probably 4 or 5 other people who vote that don't hate him. In fact, 2 or 3 of them probably think he's pretty nifty.
That doesn't make any sense. Bush got just under half of the popular vote in 2000 and his current approval rating is hovering around 50%; from where do you get this 5-to-1 idea? I think you're listening too closely to the Republican Spin Machine. (Either that, or you're part of it; I still think "Trogdor" is a very trollish name, and a number of commentators saw the "Bush hater" rhetoric coming some time ago.)
Got called away; on preview, Jon and adamsj beat me to it, and the more you talk about "looney-left" the more I like my troll theory.
The subjunctive is passing out of English, like the High Elves from Middle Earth.
A loss greatly to be mourned, and no reason to allow the proliferation of nasty little orcs like "if I would have/of". (IMO. YMM, as always in matters grammatical, V.)
Jeremy: nope, I dislike "if I would of", which I see written in far too many places, on its merits (or rather, its lack thereof). I dislike "if I would have", too, mainly on the basis that it is ugly. I also think it confusing, since it mixes two conditionalities: if X then Y, where X is also a conditional. Or, if you prefer, it mixes future-conditional (would) with past-conditional (have).
railing about changes in language and usage is silly and futile
Language is certainly a changeable thing, and will grow stale if not allowed to change, but there are some uses that offend against both aesthetic sense and grammatical reason. "Carb" for "carbohydrate", while I find it a bit ugly, is not one of these, but I do think it worth continuing to try to exterminate such abominations as (a personal favourite) "if I would of" for "if I had". This is not so much a matter of trying to command the tide as of warning dabblers in descriptivist shallows that, should they stray too deep, a great rip-tide of widespread disregard for the power and precision of language is waiting to drag them out to sea. And, you know, all like that.
Hmmm, had a feeling something wasn't right there. A quick google (link, link) indicates that early species of Homo may have left Africa as long as 1-2 million years ago; H. sapiens probably began to show up around 0.1-0.2 million years ago. Depending on whether you choose the multiregional model or diaspora-and-replacement, that may leave significant time for changes in metabolism. I think molecular evidence favours the latter and even indicates a pretty severe bottleneck early in the history of the current genepool (link, link, link), but even between early and modern H. sapiens, there is time for adaptation towards a more protein-heavy diet. I wonder what the composition of modern hunter-gatherer diets is, and whether extreme examples (like traditional Inuit) are accompanied by significant differences in metabolism.
I am convinced that we are adapted by evolution to go hungry part of the year and to eat a diet primarily of meat and fish suplemented with low carb fruits and vegetables.
What evolution has given us was probably in place well before we left Africa, since that was relatively recent in evolutionary terms. African hominid diets are typically very low in fat and protein, AFAIK -- probably because hunting is not easy. There is some evidence that human metabolism is adapted to deal with privation: dieting (making temporary changes in food intake in order to lose weight) is a great way to increase body fat storage. Eating fewer calories than you expend can trigger all sorts of energy storage mechanisms -- hence the familiar phenomenon of gaining it all back, and then some. To decrease fat stores, it is necessary to avoid triggering these mechanisms, which seems to require (at least): 1. don't go too far under caloric requirements; 2. don't go under caloric requirements every single day for extended periods; 3. give your body something anabolic to do besides laying up fat stores -- i.e., exercise.
It's also important to remember that the bodies that evolution has designed for us are not perfect machines. For instance, nutrition science seems to be coming around to the idea of vitamin supplements. Received wisdom used to hold that one should only take supplements in the case of a deficiency, but in many cases it now seems that keeping the body thoroughly well- (even over-) supplied is a good idea (care must be taken with fat-soluble vitamins that intake does not exceed excretion rates). It is becoming clear that extra cofactors and antioxidants lying around the body are generally a good thing, even at levels no natural foods could readily supply. Similarly, tweaking one's diet (that is, "overall food intake", not "program for weight loss") to find what works is probably also a good idea.
Obdisclaimer: I'm a biologist but not a nutritionist, so take my ideas with the requisite grain of salt (but not too much, mind, it can be bad for your blood pressure).
Single best thing y'all could do is take civil rights away from corporations.
YES! Damn straight, right on, amen; preach on, brother!
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 7 |
Total: 9 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by sennoma:
Show all comments by sennoma.