There is no "trans fat" in meat and dairy unless it is produced in a factory and added. I believe you are thinking of "saturated" fat. Trans fat is vegetable oil that has been processed in a factory to make an artificial, toxic food that people used to think was good for them because it had no cholesterol in it. (Think margarine and Crisco.)

Also, different fats do, in fact, have different effects on health. It is true that one gram of fat has the same number of calories as any other gram of fat. However, fats from nuts and seeds contain many essential nutrients we are incapable of producing ourselves. So it's that a gram of beef fat doesn't make you FATTER than a gram of avocado oil, but you are wrong that different fats do not affect HEALTH differently.

As for PETA, I do think there are a lot of crackpots there who make us normal, tolerant vegetarians look bad. It gets to the point where you're afraid to tell someone you don't eat meat because they think you'll hate them for doing it themselves. Ridiculous. Yes, animals should be ethically treated. But I happen to know plenty of farmers who treat their animals very well and then slaughter them. Not my personal choice, but frankly it is really, really difficult to get the nutrients you need (particularly as a child or as a perimenopausal woman, and added together that group is 4/5 of my family unit) without eating animal products of some kind, we are lucky enough to be able to buy eggs and milk from our neighbors.

Nancy is the cutest new Republican troll I've seen in a long time! You don't want him to cry, do you? His mascara might run.

How many times will you have to be banned before you give up?

I actually asked the same question about moveon.org a while back and I found out what it's like to be ones of those cows that are skeletonized by pirhanas on the nature shows.

I am a HUGE Obama fan, but if you can't look objectively at things anymore, you have a problem.

However, one of the reasons I like Obama is that I think he is the most likely politician to push for real campaign and electoral reform. I don't have a beef with him wanting to compete fairly in an unfair system, but I will be deeply, deeply disappointed if he doesn't work hard to make the system itself fair.

It was cool to see the finger-things, but I thought this was a video of ovulation. That, to me, suggests ... an egg.

However, I think you are mischaracterizing this somewhat, Alex.

Let's pretend this is a duel. Obama said he would take a government-issue six-shooter IF his opponent did the same. It was never unconditional, as your own article reveals. At the time of some of his statements, it appeared that his opponent agreed.

But it turns out his opponent has several concealed weapons and a number of snipers hiding above the saloon, the depot and the livery.

I am disappointed that Obama isn't sticking with the idea of a duel with government-issue six-shooters, but it does take an agreement from both parties in order for that to work.

Doesn't it seem logical that fewer members of a species sharing the same resources would be happier and more prosperous - almost by definition? I know economics can seem counterintuitive, but is this basic idea in dispute?

Also, I don't know what this guy was tracking, but it also stands to reason that baby busts and booms would be caused by paucity and prosperity (respectively), not the other way around. That is the way it works across species, I think. So he's got cause and effect mixed up. You can't make more resources by having more babies.

Am I missing something?

How about fewer PROBLEMS?

That is a good reality check. Message discipline is hard work. These volunteers did something really, really stupid and got stuck trying to explain themselves. I am among those who'd like to hear Obama denouncing the idea that there's something wrong with being Muslim. And I'd like to see these young women on the stage with him during the speech.

I remember being pleased when I was pregnant that you could drink up to four "cups" without increasing miscarriage risk. Then I found out that a "cup" is 5 oz. So even a Starbucks "Tall" (=small, right?) is 2-1/2 "cups." I looked up Venti and it's 20 ounces. Yeah, that's FOUR CUPS of coffee. Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I hope I am, because we drink the equivalent of a venti at home twice a day, and we make it strong.)

that there are crazy people everywhere. Let us not forget, also, that Cinderella and similar tales did not originate in America. There have always been crazy people everywhere.

BTW, the headline is really terrible. Every time I look at it, it gives me an unparsability headache.

Not entirely honest?

It would be difficult to express in words the depth of my disillusioned surprise.

/snark

chimpboy, you make this sound much easier than it actually is. How do you think this would work?

In principle, I do agree with this idea. However, since this is a medical issue, SOMEONE needs to guarantee that in rural areas patients will be able to acquire the medicine they need.

So, my question is: who will be responsible for guaranteeing that? This is not an ethical question but a legal one. What entity is responsible for guaranteeing that patients have reasonable access to their medicine? If there is no way to guarantee that, there is no way that pharmacists or pharmacies can choose NOT to fulfill medically sound prescriptions.

It is not just any product. It is medicine.