All Hank, all the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Leeches.

the Christian Science church next store had a plumbing truck in its drive way. If the minister had to call a plumber to fix a clogged drain, how you going to listen to him when he says you can read your angina away?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You can tout studies till you're blue in the face. If what those "studies" say about second hand smoke were accurate (in the sense that they conveyed to the average person his actual chance of getting cancer from a nearby cigar now and again), we'd all have cancer.

According to "govt studies," most of us should be dead. Second hand smoke is not a huge risk, and taht is exactly why, no matter how many studies you might offer me, or how much Sidd will "2" you on the issue, it will always sound absurd for people to say "second hand smoke causes cancer."

It sounds absurd.

Does it happen? Sure, to a degree remarkably infrequent.

Ask an onc how many patients he/she has seen over the years who got lung cancer ascribable to ssecond hand smoke (not industrial second hand smoke).

Unless the only reason you eat healthily and exercise is pure vanity, you are totally inconsistent. Eating right and exercising does not ensure you will never get sick. It increases your chances of not getting sick, and improves your quality of life. Similarly, inhaling second-hand smoke increases your chances of getting cancer (though it does not ensure you will get cancer) and can make quality of life worse.

I would think you'd be too busy spraying asbestos insulation into the kid's stroller for winter (if breathing asbestos fibers ensured getting asbestiosis, everyone would have it!) and pouring radium into the bottles because it's cool how it makes the milk all glowy to post.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As it happens, Dingell was quoted out of context by PowerLine

Well...Dingell did in fact say, "Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel." When asked to clarify, he still doesn't say he is against Hezbollah and only condemns Hezbollah for its use of violence. Full quote below.

Which apparently means he isn't against Hezbollah's goals and any actions it takes that aren't "violent." Which, basically, means Dingell is retarded for trying to make this distinction. Hezbollah has engaged in horrific violence in the past (before the most recent Lebanon skirmish) so Dingell should flat out say he is against the terrorist organization. That he didn't out and out condemn this violent organization is just splitting hairs. He needs to retire.



DINGELL: First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a– a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes– it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.

ANCHOR: Overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if– even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.

DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence,

DINGELL: First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a– a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes– it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.

ANCHOR: Overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if– even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.

DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.

ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?

DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


I could give a shit about what you do with your kids. My doctor father used to get ready every weekend for 100 mile road trips by making a 16 ounce gin and tonic for the road. The single car seat was reserved for the infant, and the other three kids at various weights under fifty pounds were strapped in to whatever lap belts were around. We all lived. Doesn't mean it was safe then or now.

I strap my kids to the luggage rack with bungy chords and mainline 15.5% alcohol zinfandel out of a box on the passenger seat (California zin, hi Ty!), while, in homage to my friends from the British Empire, I drive on the left side of the road.

Let's see your pansy'd ass Doctor Daddy beat that.

eta: and I am a JD!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Unless the only reason you eat healthily and exercise is pure vanity, you are totally inconsistent. Eating right and exercising does not ensure you will never get sick. It increases your chances of not getting sick, and improves your quality of life. Similarly, inhaling second-hand smoke increases your chances of getting cancer (though it does not ensure you will get cancer) and can make quality of life worse.

Vanity and stress release.

The devil's in the details. My problem with these studies is they all fail to tell people how very little being around second hand smoke, or drinking four cocktails a night, raises their risk. The people who put out these studies want them to be read, so they say "Second Hand Smoking Causes Cancer!"... and in the fine print, you read, "in one out of 3,000,000 people, 79% of whom have a mutation at gene CDK9."

A person who just reads headnotes (most of the press) takes the ball and runs with it. Then some idiot on a city planning board holds it up at a metting and says "We must ban smoke everywhere!"

And so misiniformation spreads further...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Well...Dingell did in fact say, "Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel." When asked to clarify, he still doesn't say he is against Hezbollah and only condemns Hezbollah for its use of violence. Full quote below.

Which apparently means he isn't against Hezbollah's goals and any actions it takes that aren't "violent." Which, basically, means Dingell is retarded for trying to make this distinction. Hezbollah has engaged in horrific violence in the past (before the most recent Lebanon skirmish) so Dingell should flat out say he is against the terrorist organization. That he didn't out and out condemn this violent organization is just splitting hairs. He needs to retire.



DINGELL: First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a– a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes– it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.

ANCHOR: Overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if– even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.

DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence,

DINGELL: First of all, our problem is that we must be a fair and honest broker and a friend to all parties. The resolution didn’t make us that. We have to have the trust of both of the people of Israel and the people of the Arab countries around it, in order to help resolve the problem. If we don’t, the possibilities of regional war, calamitous situation with regard to israel which has 5 million people amidst a billion and a half Arabs are a real potential for calamity. Having said at that, what we have to do is to see to it that finally we begin to address the problems that exist to abate the difficulties that are preventing a– a honest solution to the problem and a negotiated end. It takes– it takes a lot of work to get the trust that it takes to do this. The resolution did not instill that kind of trust and the end result would be quite frankly, the real solution to the problems that exist in the middle east would probably have been and probably will be put off.

ANCHOR: Overall majority of your colleagues didn’t see it that way and some would suggest that if– even though there are obviously a lot of issues with Lebanon and with Palestinian cause wrapped up in this, that this largely boils down to israel against Hezbollah and Hezbollah is a group that the United States has deemed a terrorist organization, that there’s only one side for the Americans to come down on in this fight.

DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.

ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?

DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.

Exactly. If you read all that, it's apparent that Hanson was either full of shit or had an intern find a quote for him.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As it happens, Dingell was quoted out of context by PowerLine, Rush Limbaugh and others in a way that made him sound more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Amazingly enough, Victor Davis Hanson has managed to quote selectively from a lengthier statement Dingell made to address the earlier smear to again smear Dingell as being more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Bewildering? Hardly. Instructive? Yes, but not in the way he meant. What a hack.

Translation: Dingell hates America and Israel. but not in bad way.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, bullshit. Lies, damned lies and statistics. If I gave Steven Leavitt the data in those studies, he'd find fifty explanations other than second hand smoke for the cancers. .

Ty, what does Quiggan say?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I strap my kids to the luggage rack with bungy chords and mainline 15.5% alcohol zinfandel out of a box on the passenger seat (California zin, hi Ty!), while, in homage to my friends from the British Empire, I drive on the left side of the road.

Let's see your pansy'd ass Doctor Daddy beat that.

eta: and I am a JD!!

Does anyone make zin in Washington? I know they make a zin knockoff called primitivo in Italy. They make a zin in South Dakota, but with grapes from Lodi.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does anyone make zin in Washington? I know they make a zin knockoff called primitivo in Italy. They make a zin in South Dakota, but with grapes from Lodi.

so you've had personal experience with terrorism, and you're involved at the Supreme Court? I'm ready to guess: Are you Jose Pidilla?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty, what does Quiggan say?

He says you should stop paying illiterates to translate Victor Davis Hanson's columns for you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you've had personal experience with terrorism, and you're involved at the Supreme Court? I'm ready to guess: Are you Jose Pidilla?

By "personal experience," you mean seeing lots of security guards at a school, right?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
driving IS safer than flying.....

This will only be true when the terrorist start taking out a least twenty planes a year.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does anyone make zin in Washington? I know they make a zin knockoff called primitivo in Italy. They make a zin in South Dakota, but with grapes from Lodi.

There are a couple. I know Sineann out of Oregon makes a zin that is nice, PacNW terroir, although it probably loses something in the translation from the classic attributes. Columbia Winery had a small release of a 2003 Zin last year (the winemaker there, david Lake, likes to play around with varietals that are not necessarily WA staples). Not great. His 03 barbera was good. He also makes a very nice Sangiovese. Had some of the 04 of that last night.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
By "personal experience," you mean seeing lots of security guards at a school, right?

which tribe are your people from? oh. you're not Jewish? I'm afraid you wouldn't understand then.