|
Post by joew on Aug 28, 2011 22:42:55 GMT -5
roges, I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say the Constitution allows for a martial state, but it's definitely scary that there are people who think it does. IMO it is essential that we vote against anybody who thinks a martial state would be constitutional.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Aug 28, 2011 22:45:49 GMT -5
I mean, the governor can call out the National Guard to protect persons and property in natural disasters, or things like riots, and to put down insurrections, but I don't consider that a martial state.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 28, 2011 23:18:35 GMT -5
I'd like to hear what you mean by political expediency but unless you can be more specific than "I think" then it really has no relevance since I was merely stating parallel hypotheticals.
"I wonder" is another hypothetical in that, even if I were to ask any of these persons face to face I would still not know, for certain, if they were telling the truth. Only people who have nothing to lose in any given situation can be counted on to tell the truth. Again, just my opinion.
Do I have faith in human Altruism in general? Uh uh, faith is not my base.
I do think that you are honest in your beliefs though, So, do you think these people (politicians in general) care about or consider the consequences and outcomes of their actions beyond their pitiful lifespans, beyond the accurate memory of history, beyond their social class, beyond their understanding?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 28, 2011 23:21:01 GMT -5
roges, I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say the Constitution allows for a martial state, but it's definitely scary that there are people who think it does. IMO it is essential that we vote against anybody who thinks a martial state would be constitutional. Actually I believe tha it may be in the war powers act which is legal under the constitution. I can do the research if you lke.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 28, 2011 23:30:35 GMT -5
The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.[citation needed] Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities.[13]
The National Guard is an exception, since unless federalized, they are under the control of state governors.[14] This was changed briefly: Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allowed the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007 reads "The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."[15] The President signed the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 on January 13, 2008. However, Section 1068 in the enacted 2008 defense authorization bill (H.R. 4986: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008") repealed this section of PL 109-364.[16] Ex parte Milligan
On September 15, 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law.[citation needed] The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States (which he had already done under his own authority on April 27, 1861). Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in Ex parte Milligan, 71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional in areas where the local courts were still in session. New Orleans, Louisiana in the War of 1812
During the War of 1812, U.S. General Andrew Jackson imposed martial law in New Orleans, Louisiana before repulsing the British in the Battle of New Orleans.[17][18][19] The Great Chicago Fire
In response to the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, Chicago mayor Roswell B. Mason declared a state of martial law and placed General Philip Sheridan in charge of the city on October 9, 1871. After the fire was extinguished, there were no widespread disturbances and martial law was lifted within a few days.[20] [edit] The American Revolution
As a result of the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, one of the Intolerable Acts, which suppressed town meetings and assemblies, and imposed appointed government, tantamount to martial law. The West Virginia Mine War
During the events of the West Virginia Mine War, martial law was declared on the state of West Virginia. At the behest of Governor Cornwell, federal troops had been dispatched to Mingo County to deal with the striking miners. The army officer in charge removed the constitution (selectively; accounts show that he only jailed Union miners), and did not allow assembly of any kind. If his soldiers found any miners, they immediately took them and imprisoned them. The jails filled up so quickly that he had to release miners. As it went, miners were arrested, jailed, and released without any sort of trial. After a time, when the trial of Sid Hatfield began; the military occupation and "veritable military dictatorship" (Governor Cornwell) of the army officer ended. Many of the miners were not released from jail. It was only the first of three times that federal troops would be called to quiet the miners in the West Virginia Mine War. [edit] The Territory of Hawaii
During World War II (1939 to 1945) what is now the State of Hawaii was held under martial law from December 7, 1941 to October 24, 1944.[24] Freedom Riders
On May 21, 1961, Governor Patterson of Montgomery, AL declared martial law. Freedom Riders Hurricane Katrina
Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law. On the evening of August 31, 2005, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin nominally declared "martial law" and said that officers didn't have to observe civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters.[25] Federal troops were a common sight in New Orleans after Katrina. At one point, as many as 15,000 federal troops and National Guardsmen patrolled the city. Additionally it has been reported that armed contractors from Blackwater USA assisted in policing the city.[26]
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 28, 2011 23:38:34 GMT -5
As you can see in the above (Title V, Subtitle B, Part II, Section 525(a) of the JWDAA of 2007) All it takes is for the President to enact the bill using his emergency powers. Granted the act was repealed but not until the alleged emergency was over.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 29, 2011 8:28:18 GMT -5
I don't regard wiki as an authoritative source, and even if one did, take note of the numerous "citations needed," which means that the description is incomplete. What is missing is the strict limitations imposed upon the circumstances under which martial law can be enacted.
Reporting that "Mayor Nagin said so" does not mean that martial law was enacted (it was not), and the hiring of some Blackwater guards, who though generally better trained were in a similar capacity to security guards at the mall, also does not mean that martial law was in effect. Matewan was a complex event which wiki has misinterpreted, and Hawaii was under attack at Pearl Harbor and war was declared.
The President has emergency powers but they must be backed up by Congress (this has recently been tested when Congress challenged the White House regarding US involvement in Libya). As Joew notes, state governors can call out the National Guard in a state of emergency, but otherwise the Posse Comitatus Act is quite clear, the repealed John Warner Act notwithstanding.
I am an admitted poor student of history, but even I have learned and observed (as I have lived in New Orleans, Hawaii and West Virginia) that "martial law" is an extremely dangerous state and its declaration is strictly limited by our Constitution. Which by the way, largely exists to limit the powers of federal government, not establish them. When Constitutional authority is exceeded by government actors, the action is put down. That includes puffery pieces from the likes of Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz chattering away from their think tanks; under the First Amendment they are entitled to free speech, but talk/print does not make it so.
Roger, for the third time, no, I do not think that the entities you question had any motivation of concern for citizens. And when you ask what I think, I will likely tell you "I think..."
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 30, 2011 2:08:53 GMT -5
I need time to think about this discussion. In the meantime... Don't it make ya proud of your heritage www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11457552Interesting development. I tried to link to both the NYT and the Wa. post articles for this story and the links just took me to a subscription page. Opinions please?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 30, 2011 7:16:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 30, 2011 9:06:27 GMT -5
The ease with which some people have been able to dismiss others as sub-human is astounding. "Objective" research is inherently dangerous, which is why I'm troubled by the big push for science/engineering/technical education. Yes, we need such skills, but without history, literature and philosophy we may create a race more robotic than robots.
But I have to admit I find the body disposal business hysterical and not icky. Freeze-drying is a hoot.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 30, 2011 14:10:52 GMT -5
But ending up as a Fizzy? Come On!
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 30, 2011 14:49:24 GMT -5
//The ease with which some people have been able to dismiss others as sub-human is astounding. "Objective" research is inherently dangerous, which is why I'm troubled by the big push for science/engineering/technical education. Yes, we need such skills, but without history, literature and philosophy we may create a race more robotic than robots.//
Good analysis.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 30, 2011 16:08:11 GMT -5
OK ready?
Let me explain something to everyone so no one avoids the conversation or considers it contentious. First, as everyone knows, the internet is a very hard place to carry on a meaningful debate — Too much of our common reference system is supplanted by imagination when in print.
Xecondly I have spent a lifetime Leaping from High society to Middle class to those continuously on the edge of disaster — not just observing, but becoming one with those fractions of society to the point that the emotional reality of that state of mind became my emotional reality. I am overly opinionated, sometimes unreasonably defensive — more an orator than a conversationalist, but not unable to recognize my weaknesses and other peoples talents. I find more value in abstract discussion than I do in fact/scientific method.
Point number three? K is educated in the extreme. From my observation she has an educated balance between conversationalist and adviser with emphasis on adviser — bedside manner eh. I believe she could scan a twenty page essay in ten minutes and very accurately debate every point with a ± 10% degree of error. When she punches holes in my observations I am forced to reevaluate and I will do so because, having spent time with her, I picture her looking at me, head cocked, eyes slightly squinted, and a hint of a smile, stating facts I can not refute.
Final point - I think in abstract, K is fact based. We may debate but there is no animosity... None! This is true for the rest of you also.
If you just don't see the value of the debate that is fine, but please do not shy away from these conversations for self conscious reasons. We are all friends here and interested in the same things Friendship, Facts, Family, Freedom... And just a little respect baby!
I Am... Curious Roges
|
|
|
Post by Nomad-wino on Aug 30, 2011 17:41:13 GMT -5
I remember the old days when debate was not for the weak or literately challenged. Most point-counter point posting ended with a thinly or thickly veiled remark that was the equivalent of sticking a dagger in a wound and giving it a few hearty twists. I was not well equipped to handle my end of a debate and often came off looking like an uneducated dolt. Sarcasm ruled. Because of that I feel that the last remaining souls here are a bit timid to be forceful in debate for fear of reviving the old days and ways; I know I am. All of this is my opinioin of course. Anyway, I am always awed by how well informed and articulate everyone who still posts here is. I read far more than I post because it's just so darn interesting to hear (read) what you say and the unique way in which you say it. I love it here! Group hug Mike
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 30, 2011 19:00:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 30, 2011 20:49:41 GMT -5
I think that discussion is interesting, and I wouldn't call this a debate, no daggers and stabbing with a twist. I haven't seen or felt any animosity so I hope it hasn't come through that way. I like the sharing of diverse viewpoints.
How about anybody who feels something has "crossed the line" just say so and that discussion will be moved to PM's?
Yes I am fact-based, but it goes with the territory of being a physician, where there are endless demands for "EBM" (evidence based medicine). Three fourths of what I do is not validated with gold standard, randomized, double-blind controlled studies, but I/we do our best. medicine remains an art as well as a science.
Still, I have always been an anthropologist at heart so I have a good appreciation for culture, myth and allegory. That's valuable too, and it exists in medicine.
Also, much progress has been made in objective research and protection of (human) subjects, though I am not well informed on protection of animal subjects (based on limited knowledge, I think control is fairly tight). Institutional Review Board review is required of virtually all human research in the US, and it is quite rigorous, including extensive disclosure of potential risks to the subjects involved. My master's thesis proposal was subject to IRB review despite the fact that it involved only amalgamated insurance data use, totally anonymous; the IRB submission was about 50 - 60 pages long, much longer than my thesis proposal itself.
The IRB's are usually composed of a variety of people from among all possible stakeholders - scientists yes, but also lay people, ethicists, community leaders, patient representatives, so I am not very worried about unbridled research and excess technology. Most undergraduate programs require a significant amount of liberal arts basics anyway.
As for the Guatamala and Tuskegee research projects, which both occurred from 1932 - 1972, they have been widely discredited and criticized. 1932 was a long time ago, and no one I have known since I began in health care in 1972 has ever said anything other than "That was terrible, I can't understand how it happened to begin with, let alone persisted for 40 years." Those studies would never be allowed today. In fact, human medical research studies are stopped as soon as it is obvious that one treatment is clearly better, in order that all patients can receive the treatment in question.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 31, 2011 1:54:03 GMT -5
That was nice Mike. I am impressed by how self effacing and considerate most of you are... compared to my brutal honesty.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 31, 2011 1:58:32 GMT -5
Oh now this is precious, the characters are a perfect cross section of human characteristics Though there are not enough of them each could embody a number of us. So Who's Who... Anyone Dare?
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 31, 2011 2:29:23 GMT -5
//I don't regard wiki as an authoritative source, and even if one did, take note of the numerous "citations needed," which means that the description is incomplete. What is missing is the strict limitations imposed upon the circumstances under which martial law can be enacted.// But the pertinent information is Cited in in the footnotes of the Wiki article. What else do we have? There is no such thing as investigative journalism any more. It's all Corporate propaganda and I will make this point in a future post. Wiki is a great source if you are willing to apply some critical analysis. The problem is that most people are unwilling to do their own research. That is no way for the citizens of a free market Democracy to act. That is what got us to where we are today. Spoiled! "But it makes me feel bad" There were hundreds of national guard troops in New Orleans and the fact is that Habeas Corpus was effectively suspended by way of Mayor Nagin's declaration of a state of emergency and suspension of civil rights and Miranda. People did unlawfully die because of this, we will never know for certain how many. The thing is; What if the Boogy Man Al Qaeda really had the capabilities attributed to it? What if a dirty bomb went off in concert with this event? Fortunately few of the men willing to be President these days have the will to be King. I Am... Deep beneath the flesh and turning the knife Roges
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Aug 31, 2011 3:18:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 31, 2011 8:47:22 GMT -5
So National Guard troops were in New Orleans? That does not indicate martial law, that indicates that Governor Blanco (not the mayor BTW) called them out because there was a "declared state of emergency." I believe there are 8 states with "state of emergency" at the moment (or very recently) because of Hurricane Irene, par for the course in such a situation. National Guard troops were also in Placquemines, Jefferson and St. Bernard parishes, and Mayor Nagin had nothing to do with that. He was the mayor of New Orleans, not emperor of the southeast.
There were and are some dirty cops, especially in New Orleans. So what else is new? A number of those "officers" are now in prison serving time for their crimes. In the emergency some acted wrongly (remember Alexander Haig announcing he was in charge) and some took advantage of a situation to deliberately commit crimes. Those are the ones who landed in prison.
I would agree there is less investigative journalism than there once was due to corporate control of the media. But that does not mean that there is widespread martial law (there was not in NOLA, and that was why "citations needed" - there are no citations because some of those things did not happen). Accurate reporting is needed all around.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 31, 2011 9:12:57 GMT -5
I'm watching the morning news as I prepare for departure (flying down to Winslow at 75 mph). Given the disasters now taking place post-Irene, I do not see any alternative to the National Guard stepping in to help (at the request of the governors of course) in such catastrophic life-threatening situations that exceed local capacity to cope.
So what alternative do you propose Roger, if you think the National Guard should not be made available?
BTW, I think Craig Fugate is doing an excellent job at FEMA, especially compared to "Brownie" (who was admittedly made a scapegoat) during Katrina. Too bad he is not Sec of DHS instead of Nappy. Imagine that - a competent person appointed instead of an unqualified political crony!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Aug 31, 2011 9:41:56 GMT -5
I often start with wiki if it comes up early in a search. The articles can be flawless and meticulously researched, but some are very spotty. Just like the old days of slogging through good and weak references in the library. What was that old magazine digest we were taught to use when we had to write our first term paper? It semed so authoritative, but part of the lesson was learning to keep looking and verify. I think sometimes a wiki piece is left with 'citation needed' because the writer wants to get the bulk of it out. Like your remembering hundreds of thousands more deportations under Obama, k - you had read it and wanted to make your point. And that's a great example because now I don't remember where we discussed that and don't want to pin it down right now. Like Joe, I shudder to think that people think the Constitution permits martial law. But most of our law comes from decades of case law that none of us is in a position to speak about with confidence. Furthermore, I think the term martial law can be ambiguous. In a huge blizzard in Kalamazoo long ago, we were informed that martial law had been declared and anyone driving on any street would be arrested. Seemed like a good idea to me and I never questioned who made the determination or by what authority. Joe says he doesn't consider a state of emergency to be a martial state, but when does temporary control become permanent and what does it take to reverse an abuse of martial powers? After 9/11 we became accustomed to uniformed and armed military in airports. I didn't like it, but I obediently trusted they were necessary. As one law after another was passed diminishing our rights, I became more alarmed but had no recourse. The 8 years under neo-con control and abetted by most of Congress have left us with fewer safeguards against internal threats as we focus on external threats. I don't mean to sound like a Ruby Ridge type of crazy, but we shouldn't be too complaisant. And a quick Googling of "unethical medical research" turns up a host of articles, probably all of which are biased one way or another. There have been Congressional hearings and Obama has formed some sort of investigatory commission, so I don't think we can say all of that is ancient history. As a short-term drug rep 20 years ago, I learned how very slippery big pharma and research universities could be in their mutual quest to make money. Don't even get me started on animal research. I want to be Eeyore.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Aug 31, 2011 21:20:14 GMT -5
I did google "unethical medical research" and found mostly articles related to issues pre-dating the mid to late 1970's when laws were passed domestically and internationally regarding protection of human subjects.
The causative link of Hepatitis B vaccine, AIDS and chimpanzees has been conclusively disproven. I was never particularly good at immunology so it is not something I can explain here; too complicated for me to repeat the line of proof.
Drug testing is now typically done in universities or commercially oriented centers. Although there are rare reports of tragic deaths of study participants, those individuals did consent to testing that could involve severe complications including death. Paid subjects always think that won't happen to them, but in fact, sometimes death does occur. One way to reduce this is through extensive animal testing prior to human testing.
Personally, if someone asks me if they should participate in a study, I would advise only phase 3 studies, possibly phase 2, and never phase 1.
As far as DOD studies (WRAIR and AMRIID are frequently mentioned in the google search), they operate independently since they are military facilities and studies; for various reasons, they may not be subject to the restrictions that other institutions must follow.
Regarding animal studies, there is a basic philosophical question to be answered: is animal damage/suffering "worth it" to save human lives?
I participated in a teaching session in the use of laparoscopic surgical instruments, and I operated on a pig, removing its gallbladder. The operating room procedures were the same as those used on humans; the pig was later euthanized and did not at any time suffer any pain or mistreatment for being a pig instead of a human.
Obviously if you do not believe animals should be used to teach doctors to use instruments before they practice on humans, that is no justification. This teaching session and this use of animals was approved by the nearby university's IRB, though it was conducted by the instrument manufacturer.
I believe this high standard is typical of most animal research in the US, though I am sure there are some exceptions. But when the US government/military/private entities conduct experiments overseas, they may be subject to less stringent provisions, and may in fact deliberately choose those sites for that reason. Personally I do not condone such, but the details of international law are way outside my knowledge base.
I'll stick with US and similar western based studies, and I'll stand by my belief that almost all US research involving human subjects is closely scrutinized and regulated to meet acceptable standards. I consider the laws passed since the mid-1970's as acceptable, and new laws since then have reflected appropriate additions, compatible with related knowledge expansion.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Oct 31, 2011 12:18:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 31, 2011 23:16:06 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry much about this Roger. It's a political ploy pure and simple, nothing to do with reality.
Politicians pander to the fringe, nothing new but this is pretty small potatoes, since it is Mississippi, and "everybody knows" Mississippi is a nothing-burger state filled with nut cases taking oddball political stances to get some ink. Many/most Mississippians are rolling their eyes, outraged that a few more nutcases are getting more adverse publicity for their state - because they know this is stupid stuff.
This happened here in Arizona when Russell Pierce, president of the State Senate, got one more stupid bill passed and immediately stayed because of court challenges. Finally the people realized he was wasting their tax dollars with stupid laws. I have lost track of the carnival, but basically he is being recalled.
The few people to whom this "fetus is a person" (extreme pro-lifers bent on banning all abortions and keeping women barefoot and pregnant) is an important issue will jump on somebody's bandwagon and vote for them. Everybody else will forget about it, because in the event the law is passed, it will be quickly suspended while the premise is challenged, ultimately successfully, if anybody even bothers to pursue it beyond "Well I tried."
Nobody is trying to create more humans, just trying to subjugate women. Don't give the idiots more credence than they are due. Have you actually discovered someplace in the US, or the world, where logic and reality take precedence over emotions and theater? I haven't, but maybe I have grown too cynical.
|
|
|
Post by rogesgallery on Nov 1, 2011 1:03:13 GMT -5
I have a strong feeling that it won't succeed. It is based on the proof of when a fetus becomes life. Of course consciousness is another question, so until someone can get an opinion from a fertilized egg that question will stand.
The bigger question is: Would said fetus choose to live the life of an un-chosen — therein lies the question that must be put to the fertilized egg. That is logic.
I have to disagree with the subjugate women part, and if I didn't know you better I would consider that the statement of a paranoid feminist.
Personally I think it is a case of the self righteous underestimating the attraction of sex in the human experience and expecting the popular visage of a cartoon god to make their ideal of chaste group utopia a reality. After all aren't the bulk of the anti abortionists women?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 1, 2011 10:05:49 GMT -5
The law will not succeed because it will be successfully challenged as a violation of the law of the land - the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade. This has been tested many times. It never gets down to "What would the fetus want?" except in a very small number of "wrongful life" law suits. I think the addition of "fetus as person" with attendant appealing and appalling photos, is an effort to add emotion to the effort.
I am a feminist, but not paranoid, just realistic. It's easy for you to say there is no motivation to subjugate women, because of your own gender. Men do not have to deal with the disadvantages of forced pregnancy, required male co-signers on loans, quotas on the number of women in the medical school class, glass ceilings and other effects of discrimination against women.
I am also strongly pro-life, right up to the point where some fat rich white guy in Washington, DC or any state capitol tells me I have to risk my life for my fetus, leaving my other children motherless, and my husband a widower. If I choose to do this, it is my business, not yours. (That is the "generic pregnant woman" vs the "generic male with decision power," not you personally)
Most anti-abortion demonstrators at clinics may be women - because clients are female, so women demonstrators "relate better" - but the movement is driven by men, especially conservative male pastors, and male president/directors of pro-life organizations. And now that the issue is more at the State House rather than the abortion clinic, it's definitely a male dominated process. In the states at issue, men are the majority of members of the legislatures.
|
|
|
Post by Nomad-wino on Nov 1, 2011 19:00:03 GMT -5
I read in the news today that the United States leads the world in obesity. However, other countries are doing their best to catch up to us (e.g. Germany and Great Briton). I say that this is one area that the U.S. does not need to be the world leader and I, as a citizen of such will do my best to make this happen. I'm changing my diet (not going on a diet) and will shed some excess weight. God (or suitable substitute or fine without God fellow Americans) Bless America!
Mike
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 1, 2011 20:57:07 GMT -5
Good for you Mike!
I agree, this is an area where we do not need to be first.
It is really a puzzle why we have become so obese so fast. Yes, we gain weight because we eat more calories than we burn, but to have such huge increases in the obesity rate in only one or two generations is quite unprecedented.
|
|