The 'Death by Veganism' article says many things that contradict with the leading dietetic associations. For instance, they say it is okay for infants and pregnant women to be vegan: "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence." from http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy933ENU_HTML.htm

For more info check out this post: http://www.tigersandstrawberries.com/2007/05/22/nina-planck-stirs-the-pot-vegans-get-steamed-film-at-eleven/

that "death by veganism" article is one of the more biased things i've read lately. and i check fox news pretty often.

OMG. That heliocentric article is effin scary! All of the sudden, I don't recognize the United States anymore.

Both the veganism story and the geocentricist piece are pretty shocking their inanity.

In the Atlanta case, both nutritionists and the judge found that it was not what they had fed the child that lead to her death, but simply the lack of feeding her.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't all breast-fed children, by default, vegan?

As to the Blogs4Brownback guy...

wow. What a hoot. Look through the entire blog. NASA is most-likely a fraudulent agency that has probably never even been in to space. The world is only 6000 years old. Scientists can't prove their "ideology" (and are all apparently in a conspiracy to silence the writer). Sunday is the Sabbath. Gambling is supported only by Democrats and political prostitutes. There's something called "Liberal Islamo-Fascists."

This guy is way out there.

I kept reading the heliocentric article waiting for the punch line. I still find it nearly impossible to believe somebody can be that (expletive) stupid and still find on-switch for his computer. Actually, somebody that (expletive) backward should fear computers because the images on the screen are obviously the result of evil spirits (electricity and binary numbers aren't mentioned in the bible, therefore they can't exist).

Are we absolutely sure this guy isn't a satirist ala Jesus' General?

Well the dictionary says a vegan is a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products. Doesnt breast milk come from an animal?

"Doesnt breast milk come from an animal?" Ha! made me smile.

Heliocentrics, straight-to-Hell-iocentrics, OMG OGM!:

A short time ago (in the gay nineties) Darwinism/Science was in deep doo-doo. The 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment HAD conclusively proved that the Earth doesn't move. [Lord Kelvin's Sun was 25 million yrs. old only (not enough fuel). Black Bodies radiated infinite white light. Olber's paradox, the sky did the same, on and on].

Look where we are now for perspective, Spiral nebulae=galaxies, e=mc squared, quanta, DNA, human genome explosion. The Brown-nose Brown-back relativity mumbo-jumbo can be disposed of with consideration of 2 topics, a) Mach's principle b) general relativity. So?

How could fundamentalist if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it-Earth ideas be taking hold NOW?! With a word you can get what you came for:

The word?

Reactionary.

They are in full panic reactionary mode. We (atheists, moderns, etc.) are the actor's on this stage of human evolution, they can only react, helplessly, haplessly, ever more impulsively.

Reactionaries.

They literally don't count (I hope so!). I feel a sudden urge to walk through the graveyard of ideas, and whistle in the dark (what does it mean, "darkness at noon", a helio-centric eclipse?). I feel, my tummy's almost... upset.

Almost. Actually, through a sort of reductio ad absurdumb, these kinds of things can help clarify one's thoughts, kind of like a big snort of wasabi. But only if you don't remember about 1933 "Jewish Science".

Definitely a double-taker. One feels compelled, checks again for the dubious date, April 1.

Wow!

?

Yeah...

He (Sisyphus at Blogs4brownback) responded to my bait questions.

I feel like he can't possibly be for real, but it begs the question, why spend so much time and effort on this?

If it's a joke, then he and a small cadre of friends are the only ones in on it, and I can't imagine it would stay funny for that long. if it's an attempt to try to associate a candidate with negative, backwards ideas to discredit him, or to make potential supporters feel like they don't want to be associated with these kinds of people, then why Brownback? It's not like he's the best or even the biggest target.

If it's parody, it's too well done. Parody can only be considered good if it can be ascertained that it is such at some point.

But then...

There's things like his responses to my questions. He says that if the Bible says there is a foundation for the Earth, firmament, windows in the sky, unicorns, and satyrs, then it is definitely so.

And a comment by one of his supporters says (paraphrasing) that it would be silly to think that someone who was not 100% honest would ever get in to office. The way she says it really makes me think it's sarcastic remark about Bush.

Ugh.

I feel, for the second time in a month, like I'm an audience member of an early Andy Kaufman performance.

Is this guy for real?

It's funny, in a sad way, that we live in such a ridiculously over-feminized world that anything critical of a female is labeled 'misogyny', yet we can still keep freely throwing around the tiresome misandronous concepts like the myth of the car as compensation for an undersized phallus.

I side with Larry David. If such comments are okay for women, they're okay for men. So I guess the fact that so many small women drive huge cars is compensation for their enormous vaginas.

You know that the lithium ion batteries in hybrid cars on average produce 3 times the amount of co2 during the manufacturing process than a Hummer does in a year. So you need to drive your prius for three years before you are neutral with a Hummer. Hybrids are simply BS.

"You know that the lithium ion batteries in hybrid cars on average produce 3 times the amount of co2 during the manufacturing process than a Hummer does in a year."

Do you have a cite for this? It seemed so incredibly unbelievable to me I started to research it. Everything I've seen says this statement is a myth and that the "researchers" who made this statement have refused to release their data for peer review. But if you post your source perhaps I can get a better idea of where the data is from. Statements like these should come with a cite. Otherwise it's just irresponsible to parrot that crap.

"It's funny, in a sad way, that we live in such a ridiculously over-feminized world that anything critical of a female is labeled 'misogyny..."

If you think we live in an "over-feminized" world sir, you are sadly mistaken. I'll agree that the world is over-feminized when 90% of tenured scientist/professors are women and 90% of CEOs are women, and every supermarket aisle carries magazines with half-naked oversexed pictures of men on their covers. Until then I'll stick with my assertion that it's still a man's world. Larry David's victim card is played for humor. When you do it for real it just sounds ridiculous.

"I'll agree that the world is over-feminized when 90% of tenured scientist/professors are women and 90% of CEOs are women"

So equality is a numbers game to you? That's odd, I seem to recall the concept being we're all born with equal opportunity, not equal results.

Are we racist because there aren't 50% Inuit in those positions?

How about age-discriminationist becase midgets don't occupy 50% of all government positions?

The numbers game is for fools.

"Until then I'll stick with my assertion that it's still a man's world."

Of course you will - because you live in an overfeminized society which continously asserts this to be true, when it's actually quite false. This is why the vast majority of high-school graduates, college applicants, and college graduates are women. Why the Democrats want to make women a protected 'hate crime' group. Why women have all sorts of special holidays and time-off packages and anti-discrimination laws and on and on and on.

In fact the anti-male bias in our society has become so bad that there have been a number of prominent psychologists writing books and filming specials about it, including an acclaimed series that aired on PBS about how boys are being neglected to continue the myth of the oppressed woman.

"Larry David's victim card is played for humor."

It is the humor of fact; the laugh of recognition. Our society embraces an anti-male attitude with open arms, openly mocking masculinity and attempting to feminize every aspect of it.

That's the sad thing. We live in a society that drugs little boys for ADD, and you're upset about women who voluntarily dress in skimpy clothing and pose for magazine pictures.

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

BlackMamba there ya go.

Mike- http://tinyurl.com/337qu7
CNWMR never made their data and methods available for peer review-- sketchballs mcgee in the science world. I'm very suspicious of their results.

Tea- If you don't see the difference between the percentage of Inuits in this society and the percentage of women, I don't think we have much to discuss. Do you disagree with the numerous, peer-reviewed studies showing a gender bias in hiring and tenuring in male-dominated fields such as science? Under what basis do you disagree these such studies?

Well why don't the women just get fake beards and infiltrate all areas of advanced society. Then once they reach the top of their field they can reveal them self and work towards hiring more women. Where are all the Hispanic CEOs? lol

Hmm, read that link you posted there blackmamba, you may be right about those sources but, I still believe Hybrids are horrible cars. If you want a car that is emission free and will leave any Ferrari in its place then check out the Tesla roadster http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php now thats a car I could drive.

It gets 200 miles per three hour charge and its power efficiency is equal to 135mpg.

I'm a grad student. At $92,000 it will be a few years before I can even be in the same room as a Tesla. I'll keep it in mind for the future.

Their planing on making a $40,000 sedan in the coming year I believe.

At first glance, I thought the heliocentric article might have been an atheistic argument against religion, which I thought seemed a little strange to me to prefer over something more usual, i.e. evolution.

Then I read it, and I'm so very frightened. Sooo very frightened.

"Timmy, don't learn about the DNA! You know what DNA stands for, right? 'Demons Now Arisen!' Yeah. That's right. So don't let reason tell you anything."

Eeeesh.

"If you don't see the difference between the percentage of Inuits in this society and the percentage of women, I don't think we have much to discuss."

The point is that there is no value in taking a glance at the number of group X that are in situation Y and then making a broad, sweeping generalization about the causative factors.

When you say "there aren't enough female CEO's", you're basically saying not enough women are doing what you want them to do. And that's all.

"Do you disagree with the numerous, peer-reviewed studies showing a gender bias in hiring and tenuring in male-dominated fields such as science?"

I would expect no rational person to agree to a conclusion that drastic without understanding the reasoning behind it.

Do these studies conclude there is bias with an end-results survey, or is it through testimonials? Both are inherently flawed. Bias is difficult to prove or deny.

What is the ratio of the number of applicants from the 'victimized' group to the number accepted?

How did their qualifications actually match up? And then there are all the vagaries of the employment relationship.

That's the whole problem: you're at a level where it's all so subjective and difficult to prove, deny, or enforce. And why are you at that level? Because all the other levels have been taken care of.

We've done all the practical things we can do for this matter. Been discriminated against? Speak out about it. Even when there is absolutely no proof of discrimination you can make the claim and cause the uproar. The punishment for the behavior is there. That's all we can do, and all we should do.

Yet this myth of the persecuted, underdog woman persists. And it has led our society to become incredibly anti-male. It's outrageously evident in all forms of entertainment. Masculinity is mocked and men are actively encouraged to 'be more female'. Boys are actively discouraged from participating in 'aggressive' behavior, and are put on drugs if they are deemed unruly. The qualifications for being unruly? Acting like boys. Our society overvalues motherhood - single mothers are considered saints - and undervalues fatherhood. And people are still saying "it's a mans' world!" The mind boggles.

This aggressively pro-female, anti-male attitude is destroying a whole generation of young males and will have far-reaching repercussions. It also makes for some awful TV. And if you think I'm crazy, understand that a lot of established people with lots of fancy letters after their names are writing the exact same things.

Times change. Your concern and outrage should change with them.

And regardless of his ultimate motive, Larry David is right: if 'little dick' is okay, 'wide vagina' is okay. Now that's equality.

"If you don't see the difference between the percentage of Inuits in this society and the percentage of women, I don't think we have much to discuss."

The point is that there is no value in taking a glance at the number of group X that are in situation Y and then making a broad, sweeping generalization about the causative factors.

When you say "there aren't enough female CEO's", you're basically saying not enough women are doing what you want them to do. And that's all.

"Do you disagree with the numerous, peer-reviewed studies showing a gender bias in hiring and tenuring in male-dominated fields such as science?"

I would expect no rational person to agree to a conclusion that drastic without understanding the reasoning behind it.

Do these studies conclude there is bias with an end-results survey, or is it through testimonials? Both are inherently flawed. Bias is difficult to prove or deny.

What is the ratio of the number of applicants from the 'victimized' group to the number accepted?

How did their qualifications actually match up? And then there are all the vagaries of the employment relationship.

That's the whole problem: you're at a level where it's all so subjective and difficult to prove, deny, or enforce. And why are you at that level? Because all the other levels have been taken care of.

We've done all the practical things we can do for this matter. Been discriminated against? Speak out about it. Even when there is absolutely no proof of discrimination you can make the claim and cause the uproar. The punishment for the behavior is there. That's all we can do, and all we should do.

Yet this myth of the persecuted, underdog woman persists. And it has led our society to become incredibly anti-male. It's outrageously evident in all forms of entertainment. Masculinity is mocked and men are actively encouraged to 'be more female'. Boys are actively discouraged from participating in 'aggressive' behavior, and are put on drugs if they are deemed unruly. The qualifications for being unruly? Acting like boys. Our society overvalues motherhood - single mothers are considered saints - and undervalues fatherhood. And people are still saying "it's a mans' world!" The mind boggles.

This aggressively pro-female, anti-male attitude is destroying a whole generation of young males and will have far-reaching repercussions. It also makes for some awful TV. And if you think I'm crazy, understand that a lot of established people with lots of fancy letters after their names are writing the exact same things.

Times change. Your concern and outrage should change with them.

And regardless of his ultimate motive, Larry David is right: if 'little dick' is okay, 'wide vagina' is okay. Now that's equality.

"When you say "there aren't enough female CEO's", you're basically saying not enough women are doing what you want them to do. And that's all."

I don't want women to be CEOs necessarily. I'm not saying there aren't enough women CEO's either. I'm saying the percentage of women who graduate with MBAs and want to be CEOs and are qualified to be CEOs does not correlate with the number who reach that lofty position. If the studies I mentioned didn't control for the various factors you mentioned, such as qualifications, ratios, etc. they would hardly be considered scientific and would never have passed peer review. Most agree the bias towards hiring and promoting men (by men) is unconcsious. Men are more comfortable with men. And when it comes to hiring they will usually hire men becuase that's who they are comfortable with. I'm not saying there is a secret cabal of male CEOs and tenured male scientists who are actively trying to keep women down. I'm saying there is an unconscious bias to hire those who are like you, ie other men. I'm sure if women were in the same position if power they would hire other women. But the fact remains that women are not in these positions of power and it's not for lack of trying or credentials.

Regardless, if you want to join up with the Creationists in denying scientific research be my guest. But don't expect me to jump over to your persecuted male position when you say such ridiculous things like society overvalues motherhood. Try moving to Sweden and you'll see a society that overvalues motherhood. This one doesn't. Households headed by single mothers are more than twice as likely to be in poverty and are part of the "feminization of poverty" effect that has been documented extensively. I don't think impoverished single mothers correlates with a society that overvalues motherhood. Just my opinion.

I agree that the gender gap in grade school and high school learning is documented and real. I disagree that the cause if this learning gap is due to an agressively pro-female attitude in society. Boys aren't being put on Ritalin because we are aggressively pro-female. Or I can't find anything that would conclusively document that. That is your own assertion that appears to have come out of thin air. If you want society to be more pro-boy than fine. But I don't think it has to come at the expense of women's progress. Nor do I think you have to blame women's progress for the ritalin problem. It's not an either/or phenomenon.