Speed, dope, metal; hallelujah!

I am a heterosexual man. The morphologies that I observe to be of interest to men, including myself, are very ordinary. If a trace was made with the level of human male interest on the vertical axis, and the degree of human female idealization on the horizontal, a Gaussian shape would be delivered - I'm pretty sure. I do not think porno exclusively encourages unrealistic expectations because so much of it is of the naughty housewives variety - depictions of unmodified middle aged women. From what I observe of my homosexual brothers, they are just the same - we fellows are polymorphous in our perversity, and we are (homo and hetero) only given pause by whether the prospect is male or female. If you have the right set of parts, and are capable of giving consent, you are likely a contestant!

It's important to remember that most men reside firmly in the meat of another Gaussian distibution - not Brad Pitt, but still not 400 lbs. It is possible that mere physique is not a good analogy; women are said - sometimes condescendingly - to have more complex desire. Still, I think that no matter how it's examined most men are going to less than ideal in women's eyes, yet still more than absolutely unworthwhile.

In short women are, in the main, ordinary; so are men. I think most men like women's bodies just the way they are. In fact there isn't much choice! When I consider porno, I see a much wider variety of body types there than anywhere else in the mass media. Porno's celebration of the ordinary woman predates Dove's by at least 16 years.

He hit somebody (yeah, with the ball - no difference) who hadn't hit him first over a game? Get rid of him. Don't be unnecessarily unpleasant - you want to remain in control of the situation - but get it done.

That's what I should have wrote, but was prevented from by politesse.

"Appoggiatura "Do you think Bonds did or did not knowingly use steroids?"

Had the following answers:

Blacks: 37 percent yes

Whites: 76 percent yes

The only problem with this is that it's not a yes/no question. Think about it."

What I think Appogiatura is saying is that the wording of the question is ambiguous. There are really two 'constituent' questions present in the original wording, and they are logical inverses of each other.

Question 1: "Do you think Bonds did knowingly use steroids?"

Question 2: "Do you think Bonds did not knowingly use steroids?"

If one answers 'yes' to question 1, a 'no' answer to question 2 follows logically. Putting both constructions of the question in the same sentence renders the whole thing invalid - it is not known which of the two questions was being answered.

Further investigation may give some interesting debate to do with psychology - black people and white people seem to have statistically different responses to the badly worded question. Maybe each group has a different idea of which of the two questions is being asked.

However, a simple reading of the results as, "black people think x about Barry Bonds, and white people think y about Barry Bonds", isn't reasonable because the question is so badly constructed.

I, as another Canadian, would like to temper the earlier Canadian's remarks by recalling the sometimes violent opposition that there was in Canada on the introduction of our system. This was before there were great amounts of money invested in such physical plant as MRI machines. It is not merely the fault of the electorate - there are entrenched and diffuse social and economic forces which will seek to keep things just the way they are.

For example, given the capital intensive state of contemporary medicine, along with the large numbers of people, both rich and merely getting by, who work in the current system, I think that change in the American system will require a great disruption.

I wish Americans good luck with changing their system to something more humane for two reasons:

1. As described by Americans themselves, the current situation is inhumane and unnecessary.

2. Right wing governments outside of America which seek to dismantle or disable universality of health care point to the US as the example of what works.

You blame the victim, ignore the relevant Canadian history and then claim the moral high ground.

There was no suggestion that pursuit of an equitable health care system in the United States is not achievable or a worthwhile pursuit. There is, however, recognition of the political realities that will work against such an achievement. Forewarned is forearmed - it is not simply a question of making the correct ballot box choice; if it was Hillary's plan would be in place today.

...bicycles are not stone age technologicaly. A list of transportation modes, from most environmentally harmful to least might be as follows:

1. space shuttle

2. hummer limousine

3. hybrid car

4. hybrid bus

5. bicycle

6. animal (e.g. horse or camel)

7. foot

Bicycle transport is probably an improvement - not perfection, but an improvement nonetheless. Bicycles do require energy (food calories) for their operation, which in turn may require greater pollution via food production, in addition to other political and environmental penalties (e.g. due to metal and petroleum required for bicycle production and maintenance).

Still, I think that not hauling an engine and a passenger compartment around gives bicycles the edge over all current engine powered transport.

Hey you kids! Get offa my lawn!!

Heh heh heh