The F$$d P$lice are C$ming

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

There, that's better.

at least by the 90s no one thought that "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" shirts were funny anymore.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i don't think this is true at all. celebrities do lots of different charities, certainly cancer is on that list, as are many others. AIDS is a big one, certainly, but if you look at the scale of *global* AIDS, it's already the deadliest disease in human history. that does seem to point out that it's worth of some consideration.


disproportionate, yes, when 5% of the population makes up about 45% of the population with HIV in the West. i agree. but there's that other 55% of heterosexuals who have it, and sadly it's their plight that actually made the government start to care about AIDS. when it was just gays and Haitians in the early 1980s, no one cared. mothers and children had to start dying.

lung cancer certainly seems a lifestyle disease. so does any number of heart ailments related to weight, stress, smoking, diet, and exercise.

AIDS continues to be stigmatized in a way that other diseases aren't, and sexual diseases in general are stigmatized in ways that other diseases aren't. look at the "controversy" over Guardasil here in the US. the real objection was not that it was a somehow unsafe vaccine, quite the contrary. the real controversy was that some abstinence-obsessed parents thought it would encourage kids to go out and have sex since, hey, no HPV to worry about! this is why the abstinence-only crowd is obsessed with supposed "failure rates" of condoms -- because knowledge that facilitates responsible sexual activity utterly crushes their "no sex till biblical marriage" because it removes the fear-mongering and scare tactics they use about STDs and about how contraception is utterly doomed to failure.

certainly people bring diseases upon themselves. still, yes, i actually do feel more sympathy for someone who neglects to use a condom in a heated moment than someone who smokes a pack a day for 20 years and is diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer.

Well, your analogy with lung cancer is probably a good one, in so far as both diseases kill largely due to lifestyle reasons and in both cases there is a small but statistically significant sufferers of either disease who were just unlucky (people who never smoked contracting lung cancer, people who never or rarely engaged in promiscuous sex contracting AIDs).

You say that it was only the plight of heteros developing AIDS that actually made the government start to care about the disease. As far as I am aware the majority of HIV positive people in Ireland contracted the virus not from sex, whether gay or straight, but from using unsafe needles for injecting heroin - and funnily enough, for that reason, AIDS sufferers here are stigmatised, but because they are assumed to be heroin addicts rather than gay.

The whole idea, though, of any disease having a stigma about it just does not sit well with me, whether AIDs, lung cancer or anything else.

[Irvine511]

the only other point i'd make is that you can have sex once and get HIV. or you can have sex with thousands of different partners and never get HIV. so it's not so much that repeated sexual activity causes this disease, but that the disease is transmitted sexually (usually).

interesting about the differences between the US and Ireland. we certainly have arguments over clean needle exchange programs here but it always seemed like the UK/Ireland had a much larger heroin problem than is understood over here.

but that does tie into attitudes in the early 1980s where the main groups getting HIV were gays, drug users, and Haitians. and some attitudes were, "at least AIDS is killing the right people."

it took Ronald Reagan until 1987 to even say the word AIDS.

can't speak for Ireland, but i have since seen Margaret Thatcher's public address on HIV/AIDS, and it's remarkable how much more sensible, calm, and rational she was in comparison to over here. something like, "if you have sex, use a condom." no doubt she isn't beholden to evangelical groups and their infantile attitudes towards sexuality.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it always seemed like the UK/Ireland had a much larger heroin problem than is understood over here.

Definitely. I think Dublin and Glasgow have among the world's highest % of heroin addicts. I'm sure there are some urban areas in the US that have higher rates, but they are not significant in the context of the overall US population in the way that Dublin is for Ireland and Glasgow is for Britain.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

but that does tie into attitudes in the early 1980s where the main groups getting HIV were gays, drug users, and Haitians. and some attitudes were, "at least AIDS is killing the right people."

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

can't speak for Ireland, but i have since seen Margaret Thatcher's public address on HIV/AIDS, and it's remarkable how much more sensible, calm, and rational she was in comparison to over here. something like, "if you have sex, use a condom." no doubt she isn't beholden to evangelical groups and their infantile attitudes towards sexuality.

I don't remember that address, but I think, in general, The Tories approach in the 1980s was probably better than Reagan's - and probably because, as you said, evangelical groups don't hold sway over conservative politicians on this side of the pond in the way that they do in the US.

Plus, of course, some of her cabinet went to Eton or other British public schools.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Wasn't sure where to post this. I'm not surprised at all about the results of that experiment. We will never have an obese female President, I can say that for sure.

"portly" - Letterman says if you can't call Gov Christie fat then the terrorists have won



Chris Christie: The Politics Of Weight

By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times / for the Booster Shots blog

September 30, 2011, 5:44 p.m.

Straight-talking New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is a portly guy -- and has spoken publicly in the past about his struggles with the scale. Now that he might be a contender for Republican nominee for president, other people are speaking publicly about his weight, too, and what impact it might have on his electability next November.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote that the governor needed to lose weight for his (and the country's) health. Others complained that an inability to lose weight was a sort of failure of character. Still others rushed to the would-be candidate's defense, writing that fretting over Christie's weight had more to do with prejudice than with real concerns about politics.

Clearly, Christie is electable (at least, as governor.) Perhaps even more so: last year, political scientist Beth J. Miller and psychologist Jennifer D. Lundgren, both of the University of Missouri in Kansas City, published research suggesting that a portly physique was a political asset -- in men.

The researchers recruited 120 students for their experiment, one-half of whom were assigned to read about female candidates for office and the other half to read about male candidates. Each of those groups was further divided into two, one half reading about obese candidates and the other about non-obese candidates. The candidates were described in detail, and study participants even got to see pictures.

Heavy women didn't fare well: Obese female candidates were evaluated most negatively of any group. But obese men came out well, getting fewer negative marks than their thinner counterparts.

"Larger body size may be an asset for male candidates," the researchers wrote, in a study published in the journal Obesity in April 2010.

One concern expressed by pundits Friday was that Christie, if elected, would have trouble carrying out his duties as president because of weight-related health problems. "Like everyone else, elected officials perform best when they are in optimal health. Christie obviously is not," Robinson opined.

At least one physician has offered a perspective on that notion, as well, but with conclusions that may be less encouraging to Christie.

The last obese person to be elected president was William Howard Taft, who weighed around 300 pounds when he ran for office in 1908, and maintained that weight throughout the time he was president. A 2003 paper from the journal Chest suggests that Taft's weight did cause problems for him when he was in office, including sleep apnea that left him drowsy and, perhaps, unfit to govern.

"As President, Taft could fall asleep anywhere, anytime. He fell asleep during conversations with the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the wife of the French ambassador. He napped before and after a mid-morning meeting with the President of Mexico," wrote cardiologist and sleep disorder specialist Dr. John G. Sotos.

But still there was hope for Taft, who dropped 60 pounds after he left office and kept the weight off (and his mind alert) during his tenure as chief justice, Sotos wrote.

[the iron horse]

France to impose fat tax on sugary drinks such as Coca-Cola and Fanta | Mail Online

[MrsSpringsteen]

Washington Post

Posted at 06:30 PM ET, 10/23/2011
Soda boosts violence among teens, study finds
By Rob Stein

Teenagers who drink soda are more likely to carry a weapon and act violently, according to new research.

Sara J. Solnick of the University of Vermont and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston analyzed data collected from 1,878 14- to 18-year-olds in grades nine through 12 in 22 public schools in 2008.

Those who drank five or more cans of non-diet soft drinks every week were significantly more likely to have also consumed alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the previous month, the researchers found.

Moreover, even after taking other factors into consideration such as age, gender and alcohol consumption, the researchers found that heavy use of carbonated non-diet soft drinks was significantly associated with carrying a gun or knife and violence towards peers, family and partners.

About 23 percent of those who drank one or no cans of soda a week carried a gun or knife, and 15 percent had perpetrated violence toward a partner. In comparison, among those who consumed 14 or more cans a week, 43 percent carried a gun or knife and 27 percent had been violent toward a partner, the researchers found. Similarly, violence towards peers rose from 35 percent to 58 percent while violence towards siblings rose from 25.4 percent o 43 percent.

“There was a significant and strong association between soft drinks and violence. There may be a direct cause-and-effect relationship, perhaps due to the sugar or caffeine content of soft drinks, or there may be other factors, unaccounted for in our analyses, that cause both high soft drink consumption and aggression,” the researchers wrote in the journal Injury Prevention in a paper titled: “The ‘Twinkie Defense’: the relationship between carbonated non-diet soft drinks and violence perpetration among Boston high school students.”

The Twinkie Defense refers to Dan White, who was tried for the 1979 assassinations of San Francisco city district Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. White’s lawyers argued he had “diminished capacity” in part because he was depressed and had recently changed from a health-conscience diet to eating junk food such as Twinkies.

[PhilsFan]

Kids with acid reflux probably are in worse moods than those without it.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Washington Post

Posted at 06:30 PM ET, 10/23/2011
Soda boosts violence among teens, study finds
By Rob Stein

Teenagers who drink soda are more likely to carry a weapon and act violently, according to new research.

Sara J. Solnick of the University of Vermont and David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston analyzed data collected from 1,878 14- to 18-year-olds in grades nine through 12 in 22 public schools in 2008.

Those who drank five or more cans of non-diet soft drinks every week were significantly more likely to have also consumed alcohol and smoked cigarettes at least once in the previous month, the researchers found.

Moreover, even after taking other factors into consideration such as age, gender and alcohol consumption, the researchers found that heavy use of carbonated non-diet soft drinks was significantly associated with carrying a gun or knife and violence towards peers, family and partners.

About 23 percent of those who drank one or no cans of soda a week carried a gun or knife, and 15 percent had perpetrated violence toward a partner. In comparison, among those who consumed 14 or more cans a week, 43 percent carried a gun or knife and 27 percent had been violent toward a partner, the researchers found. Similarly, violence towards peers rose from 35 percent to 58 percent while violence towards siblings rose from 25.4 percent o 43 percent.

“There was a significant and strong association between soft drinks and violence. There may be a direct cause-and-effect relationship, perhaps due to the sugar or caffeine content of soft drinks, or there may be other factors, unaccounted for in our analyses, that cause both high soft drink consumption and aggression,” the researchers wrote in the journal Injury Prevention in a paper titled: “The ‘Twinkie Defense’: the relationship between carbonated non-diet soft drinks and violence perpetration among Boston high school students.”

The Twinkie Defense refers to Dan White, who was tried for the 1979 assassinations of San Francisco city district Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone. White’s lawyers argued he had “diminished capacity” in part because he was depressed and had recently changed from a health-conscience diet to eating junk food such as Twinkies.

So, now a study confirms that sodas are the reason for the increase in
teen violence?

Being raised in a two parent family where values are taught to
children and rules/limits set have nothing to with it.

It's those evil sodas!!!

[PhilsFan]

Seems more based in reality than any of the sources you tend to cite.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Seems more based in reality than any of the sources you tend to cite.

If your reply is to me, I didn't cite any source.

If it it is, why not do do some online research on the breakdown of the family the past 30 or so years and the increase in teen violence.

Is there a connection?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

If your reply is to me, I didn't cite any source.

Bingo?

If it it is, why not do do some online research on the breakdown of the family the past 30 or so years and the increase in teen violence.

Is there a connection?

Well someone is clearly a teacher... Pfan is not one of your students, though. Since you're the interested one here, why don't you do the research and share with the rest of the class?

As to the article, you've totally misrepresenting the study. The study does not claim that soda consumption is THE reason for violent behavior, or even one of the main reasons for violent behavior. And the study doesn't even comment whatsoever on the "increase in teen violence" or broken families, so I'm not really sure from where you're drawing your conclusions about it. It's merely showing a correlation between violent behavior and soda consumption - nothing more, nothing less.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

If it it is, why not do do some online research on the breakdown of the family the past 30 or so years and the increase in teen violence.

there isn't.

crime on the whole is way, way down from it's peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s. youth crime, and crime as a whole, dropped dramatically in the mid-1990s. society on the whole is safer than it has been since the 1960s.

likely, the legalization of abortion has much to do with this. it's really not to do with ...

Being raised in a two parent family where values are taught to
children and rules/limits set have nothing to with it.

this represents little more than an inkling you have, a feeling you get, a need to view yourself and your views as superior to those around you, and likely an overall problem with modernity as evidenced in your other posts. it's not at all represented by facts, as you yourself admit.

but you can keep trying. maybe one day you'll hit upon some facts that actually buttress the lifestyle you're trying to promote.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

there isn't.

crime on the whole is way, way down from it's peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s. youth crime, and crime as a whole, dropped dramatically in the mid-1990s. society on the whole is safer than it has been since the 1960s.

likely, the legalization of abortion has much to do with this. it's really not to do with ...



this represents little more than an inkling you have, a feeling you get, a need to view yourself and your views as superior to those around you, and likely an overall problem with modernity as evidenced in your other posts. it's not at all represented by facts, as you yourself admit.

but you can keep trying. maybe one day you'll hit upon some facts that actually buttress the lifestyle you're trying to promote.

Your opinion.

I will keep trying.


Teen violence linked to... excessive soda consumption!? | TG Daily

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

crime on the whole is way, way down from it's peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s. youth crime, and crime as a whole, dropped dramatically in the mid-1990s. society on the whole is safer than it has been since the 1960s.

likely, the legalization of abortion has much to do with this.

I'd go with:
1) tougher sentencing laws and more efficient policing techniques which led to...
2) record numbers of criminals behind bars (where it's harder to commit crimes)
3) And an aging population

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

So, now a study confirms that sodas are the reason for the increase in
teen violence?

Being raised in a two parent family where values are taught to
children and rules/limits set have nothing to with it.

It's those evil sodas!!!

Reading is fun. Read the study again it never states soda is the reason.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Bingo?



Well someone is clearly a teacher... Pfan is not one of your students, though. Since you're the interested one here, why don't you do the research and share with the rest of the class?

As to the article, you've totally misrepresenting the study. The study does not claim that soda consumption is THE reason for violent behavior, or even one of the main reasons for violent behavior. And the study doesn't even comment whatsoever on the "increase in teen violence" or broken families, so I'm not really sure from where you're drawing your conclusions about it. It's merely showing a correlation between violent behavior and soda consumption - nothing more, nothing less.

I think that the family is a huge factor in a teenagers life.

I guess we can go back and forth on this with opinions and stats.


Have you ever read The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton?

[BVS]

Well this is a tangent, but since this is your thread...

I actually agree, family does play a huge role. But I don't have as a narrow of view as you as to what constitutes family.

I have three friends that made the 40 under 40 list in Texas last month. All grew up poor; one raised by his grandmother, one by his two moms, and one by her single dad. The only thing they had in common besides being poor was that they had loving families.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

Your opinion.

statistics are my opinion? i suppose that's the only recourse you have.

good luck.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I guess we can go back and forth on this with opinions and stats.

but you have only one of the two.

your opinions are as good as someone else's information?

i blame sugary soda for such crappy thinking.