Heartburn of the Day

Let him eat it. Maybe he'll learn the truth before its too late.

And amoral, they were brought up that way.

I'm sorry for your troubles. I meant above that by my taking care of myself, this frees resources for you and your difficulties.

FWIW I also eat 1,800 calories a day, I'm healthy, and I exercise. (For example, I'll normally run 3 or 4 miles several times a week.) If I eat more than 1,800 calories I start gaining fat. I'm 5-10 and

Orange juice isn't something I'd drink often--drinking instantly- available sugars (like juice) raises one's blood sugar faster than it can be handled. That's damaging. Eating an orange is much better-- the juice is encapsulated by the fruit, released over time by digestion--which is slow--so the sugars are assimilated much more gradually.

Don't believe me? Measure it yourself. That's what I did.[1] (I'm not diabetic, just curious.)

If you're getting bad or conflicting advice, I'd suggest you look into it personally. Engineers are _much_ better at figuring things out (troubleshooting) than doctors are. MEDLINE is a great place to start.

Best Wishes, James Arthur

~~~~~~~~~~ [1] not OJ specifically, but enough items to divine the principles.

Hey, Little Dog, here's a clue. You're just a Bolshevik with a few bits flipped. You share the same mechanistic 19th century model of human nature (with a few inversions in the axioms) that made the Soviet Union such a success.

It's a pity the Libertarian Paradise of Somalia has fallen to the Islamic Courts Union, and then to the Ethiopian (and US) backed Provisional Government. That was the sort of society you get with "big L Libertarianism". Clans and Militias. No safety except for family.

Utopia means nowhere.

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net:

That's not getting off the green. That is squatting on the green. Pack up. Move. I remember during the Vietnam war, there was a group promoting the slogan "America -- Love it or Leave it."

Shut up and choose your option.

No, I'm not the SiCKO!

On Jul 7, 9:39 pm, James Arthur wrote: [.....]

This is incorrect. If I take an orange off my tree and eat it vs squeezing the orange and drinking the juice doesn't make the slightest difference.

I don't.

I did.

I'm both.

The real difference between dringing orange juice and eating an orange is that a lot more juice goes in a glass than comes from one orange.

I know that you didn't really mean that. I have read enough of what you have written to know that you would not wish harm on him, or me for that matter when I disagreed with you.

Right now we have an FDA etc that is less the fully effective for the money it gets. This is largely because those who got put in the upper offices we not selected on the basis of competency.

Those who say that government never works have been put in charge of government and seem to be trying to prove themselves right. Proving intent vs stupidity is hard but if it was intent then "Browny you are doing a heck of a job" would have been the truth.

Not all of it will be radioactive, it won't be radioactive forever and "the radiation won't hurt the oil one bit".

No. The fact that they suspended him has nothing to do with the definition of perjury. He did make false statements under oath and other things that it was agreed was not things lawyers should do so they yanked his licence. This is quite a different matter than the question of whether there was perjury involved. Perjury is a very serious crime.

So someone managed to get a biased item into the wiki. The charge was that the folks he pardoned were terrorists. They were never tried on a charge of being such or even doing those things that we generally think of as terrorism. They did attack military targets. They were insurectionists for sure but not terrorists.

That doesn't prove the "arranged" charge. It is also more from the same wiki. If what you claim really happened, it would be a crime and since the prosecutor are all republicans, we know they wouldn't be shy about making the charge if it could.

He is a bit of an exception. At least one republican argued forcefully that he was not guilty.

Yet.

We can expect it at the end of the term. For now just keeping him out of jail is all that had to be done.

Patrick Fitzgerald characterized it as throwing sand in the face of the umpire. He couldn't find out who did the leak so he couldn't charge. He has also said that the office of the VP is still under a cloud. This guy is a republican BTW.

This is simply false. It is the sort of smoke republicans are blowing around to try to hide the fact that a CIA asset ws destroyed for political gain.

He did. He also tried to shift the blame around and cloud the issue. He took the fall.

Huh? Lieing under oath *IS* perjury.

From:

perjury

Main Entry: per·ju·ry Listen to the pronunciation of perjury Pronunciation: \\?p?r-j?-re-, ?p?rj-re-\\ Function: noun Date: 14th century

:the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath

:false swearing

I don't count calories, I just servo my food intake, proportional control loop with setpoint at 155 and gain that scales food intake to zero at 160.

On the other hand, Peet's coffee nearly saturated with sugar produces a nonlinear-upward rush effect.

John

And we can move on from lying under oath, in court, to more weighty issues, like what the meaning of "is" is.

I see. You exclude exceptions to come up with the total of "Not one." That logic could be handy in all sorts of situations.

The issue is a political one, not really a criminal one. Wilson started the whole mess by accepting a research assignment form the CIA (nominated by his own wife) and later going public with it in the NYT.

It's politics. Voters should ajudicate political issues.

John

Amusing that in your world un-state means state.

All that says is that people in Somalia and Ethiopia would be better off without governments.

Strawman nonsense. "Paradise" -- strawman nonsense.

The truth? You mean all those people falling down around us dying of fruit poisoning? C'mon guys, eat your veggies, or you'll get your just deserts.

It's an electronics forum, so I can't expect you to know this stuff like I do, but surely you realize that obesity and inactivity are major problems? It's estimated that 4/10ths of US prescription costs result from them:

And with the medicines prescribed--all that money spent--life is better, but the condition isn't fixed, nor the sequelae avoided. Is isn't that a shame? Isn't *that* a high price?

You can avoid it just by exercising and staying slim. So let's stop being silly, shall we?

Best, James Arthur

A few salient snippets for the time-challenged:

"A recent study showed that Americans with metabolic syndrome account for $4 of every $10 spent on prescription drugs for adults."

"At least half of patients who have metabolic syndrome and who make no lifestyle changes to counteract it will likely develop diabetes-a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease."

"Lifestyle modification leading to weight reduction and increased physical activity represent the first-line clinical therapy for metabolic syndrome. Lifestyle intervention appears to have a positive impact on all aspects of metabolic syndrome except possibly HDL cholesterol. 'Turn off the TV or the computer, get moving with a daily fitness strategy-just finding some time in the day to take a walk can be very helpful.'"

"Nearly half of heart attack patients have metabolic syndrome. They are also more likely to have worse outcomes and heart failure."

"A recent study based on a survey of 153,000 American adults showed only three percent follow widely available health advice to keep weight off, exercise regularly, eat five or more servings of fruit and vegetables a day, and avoid smoking."

No, he just understands the real situation. You can't have a situation of no government. As soon as you have a population greater than one, you will get some sort of government. He understands that, you don't.

No it says that when you take away government you get a new one. Big L libertarians think that there is some sort of magic pixy dust that makes this not happen.

The experiment has been done, the results are in and you have been proven wrong.

On Jul 8, 10:35 am, John Larkin wrote: [....]

The man is a lawyer who was fooling around on his wife. He cleverly lawyered his way out of having to admit it for a while.

We already knew he was a lawyer.

Like I said even a thief can tell you the sky is blue. What he said about Bush was right.

No, I have not remembered the case. When you reminded me about if I saw that you were correct in what you stated. I freely admit the error, but I also pointed out that there were other facts in that case.

No the issue was a criminal one. The questions were: "Did someone out a CIA asset?" and "Who?". We know the answer to the first. We think we know the answer to the second but new information may be brought out. The first question is about a crime. The second is about who did that crime. Libby attempted to prevent the discovery of who did it. This was obstruction of justice which is also a crime.

Wilson did not expose any secret information. He wrote an article that pointed out that things that were said by the president were wrong. This is all that he did.

No, it is a crime. Obstruction of justice and outing folks at the CIA are both crimes.

It's now known who "outed" Plame, and no criminal charges have been filed, so there was apparently no crime. If the crime is not worthy of prosecution, it's generally accepted that an "obstruction of justice" charge is moot.

If Wilson didn't want his wife "outed", he shouldn't have editoralized about the affair in the NYT. And Plame had already told people, friends and neighbors, that she worked for the CIA. And she wasn't "undercover" in any real sense. It was a political battle, not a criminal affair.

Wilson and Plame did pretty well off the book, I understand.

John