Drix D'Zanth

Aaryanna_Mom, thank you for your reply. I respect your opinion even though we disagree (and I don?t think we disagree on [i]too[/i] much). I?m interested to hear your solutions to the problem our country faces! [quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']I can understand what you are saying here, but on the flip side, don?t you think it?s fair to expect to pay a reasonable price? It?s not so much a sense of entitlement but rather one of expecting the amount of profits to be within reason. [/quote] Fair enough, but who decides what a reasonable price is? I think we both agree that families who are without the means to afford drug payments should receive some sort of help. I don?t necessarily think the government should, nor [i]can[/i] help them as well as the private sector. When Medicare began working with private insurers to cover prescription drugs in the early 70?s, over 80% of the senior patients received proper coverage. Within a decade, the coverage dropped below 50% because of both market changes and the development of new, better drugs. The government, completely inadequate (because they aren?t held accountable for anything) couldn?t keep up with changing insurance rates, new science, and a changing market. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] No they don?t stumble upon cures, but at the same time studies have shown that as much as 50% of the money spent on a new drug actually goes to marketing and other things such as paying their employees where about 15% of that cost is actual research and the remaining is estimated to be actual profit. Not so much of a cost for R & D as the drug companies would have you believe. That still doesn?t change the fact that there was a risk with the drug, though that?s true of any drug and I won?t argue that people are sue happy over things that they can control. [/QUOTE] I had to check my numbers again, so I ran a search of the literature. According to the Journal of Health Economics the most recent study of development costs lists research and development (not marketing or advertising) costs at 802 million dollars with 73% of submitted drugs being terminated sometime within their development or during testing processes. A study headed by Christopher Adams and Van V. Brantner of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics published in the SSRN found that the cost of developing and average anti-retroviral medication (HIV/AIDS drug) is $479 million. The expected cost of developing the average rheumatoid arthritis drug is almost twice that, at $936 million. Another large pharmaceutical had an expected research expense of 2.1 billion to develop an innovative anti-cancer medication. Again, these are only development costs. So, what I said earlier was correct. As far as the ?remaining? budget being profit- well, that doesn?t really fit the definition of ?profit? now does it? [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] You want increased drug prices? That?s great! How about increasing pay, improving health coverage for employees, then you won?t need to give it out for free as people will be able to afford it. [/QUOTE] I agree with you. Let?s do that! How can we? I?ll address why we [i]could[/i] by looking at your next comment. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] Here?s the bottom line as well, what you are saying here is a fallacy, not everyone is smoking or doesn?t exercise. Doing things like this only reduce the risk of having health issues, it doesn?t guarantee that one won?t. ;) [/QUOTE] The leading causes of death are heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), and chronic lower respiratory diseases according to the CDC. I?ll address these one at a time and take a look at the most prescribed drugs in turn. 1. Cardiac Disease: to be fair, there is a spectrum of reasons for heart disease. However, most heart disease could be mitigated and even eliminated with exercise. Buildup of cholesterol plaques in blood and hypertension from excess weight gain are reversible health problems simply if people are willing to live active lifestyles. (there?s a lot to cover here, so I?ll graze over these) 2. Cancer: lifestyle changes could easily mitigate cancer in this country. Thankfully, cancer rates are decreasing for nearly all types; people are wearing sunblock, women are checking for breast cancer, and men are getting prostate exams. However, lots of cancer is caused by the carcinogens inhaled by regular smoking. Hopefully research funded by drug companies and private investors will find new means to treat and eliminate cancers in time (we are getting closer, and survival rates continue to increase). 3. Stroke: age, unfortunately is a huge factor in this, baby boomers are inflating this statistic. However smoking increases the risk of pleural embolism and deep vein thromboses which can easily detach and become ischemic blockages in the small capillaries of our cerebrum. I?ve encountered many middle-aged women and men suffering from strokes, likely due to this phenomena. 4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease- Quit Smoking Please! Looking at these numbers is only to demonstrate the point that if we wish to improve our healthcare system we need to be willing (as a population) to adjust our habits and lead more healthy lives. We cannot continue to expect people to pay for our irresponsible behavior. Let?s take a look at the most prescribed drugs: -Many of the most prescribed drugs (most of these make up the top fifteen most prescribed drugs) are anti-depressants, including Paxil, Lexapro, Xanax, Lyrica (which is also prescribed for neuropathic pain as well as anxiety, hence the link) Cymbalta, and Zoloft. I can?t comment too much on depression, even though members of my immediate family have dealt with this debilitating neurochemical disease. However, there is evidence to suggest that obesity, especially childhood obesity is correlated to severe depression later in life. -A large amount of prescriptions are also opioid analgesics such as Hydrocodone, Vicodin, Oxycodone, Tramadol, Percocet, etc. Many of these prescriptions are given for any sort of pain (post-op, post-dental work pain, PT, post outpatient procedures, etc.) and are also widely abused by addicts (that?s another issue). -Then we come to the ACE inhibitors or Angiotensin inhibitors like Lipitor, lisinopril, etc. And drugs like Glucophage to manage type 2 diabetes. These drugs are prescribed for people who likely could have avoided hyperlipidemia or diabetes with cardiovascular exercise. Quid pro quo. We must be willing to address our health problems from the bottom up! [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] I can understand what you are saying but the drug companies have not made any form of regulation and price control easy. A great deal of time and money is spent keeping drugs from being more affordable here?s just a few of the things they do which have nothing to do with R & D costs. [/QUOTE] This is a misleading statement, and I read it twice to be sure. I don?t think it?s fair to characterize drug companies as trying to keep drugs from being ?affordable?. Again, this depends on ?affordable?. What [i]is[/i] ?affordable? anyway? Some citizens think that gas isn?t affordable, but the pack-a-day is. We have affordable food, but don?t invest time in exercise (which happens to be free!). To paint a picture of drug companies as robber barons who wish to keep drugs too expensive is simply sensationalism and totally subjective. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] - Tweak? original drug formulas to create a ?new? version with a bigger price tag. [/QUOTE] This might happen, yes. Before I address this, would you be willing to cite some examples? [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] - Charge individuals the steepest price, big purchasers the smallest. [/QUOTE] Big purchasers? *hmmm* you mean Hospitals, Pharmacies, and Doctors Offices? [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] - Set prices higher in huge unregulated U.S. market than in nations with price controls. [/QUOTE] It is fallacious to claim the U.S. is unregulated. How about the drug companies aren?t subject to government monopoly? I?m not an economics expert, so I?ll re-examine this as I learn more from the research. If you want to provide rebuttal evidence, I?d be more than glad to look over it. According to John Vernon of the University of Pennsylvania and the Manhattan Institute, if price controls were implemented in the united states research and development would fall by 36.1-47.5%. This isn?t so far off from the Canadian model which dropped more than 50% in drug research following the implementation of price controls introduced in the late 60?s. Not only that, as a model for socialized medicine, Canada only makes me happier that politicians like Hilary Clinton (who know nothing of medicine) don?t yet have enough sway to ruin our functioning healthcare system. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] - Claim new uses for old drugs and extend patents and monopolies to keep inexpensive generic versions off the market. [/QUOTE] New uses for older drugs? Like what? And why shouldn?t that make a drug worth more? Lets say you invent a drug that?s a pain killer, and it works a bit less effectively than aspirin. Scientists find out that this drug actually does something unexpectedly wonderful: if you give the drug during strokes, it is a superb clot-buster. Yes, you got lucky, but the drug that [i]your company[/i] invested time, money, and effort in has succeeded. Why shouldn?t you succeed? Patents and monopolies? Sure, that may be true to an extent. But I?d prefer a limited drug company monopoly over inefficient, wasteful government monopoly that is permanent! Generic versions succeed remarkably! Companies are built by making and selling generic versions of brand-name drugs. How has Pfizer dealt with the new release of a generic version of Lipitor (which Pfizer can?t stop, if you know how generic drugs are developed)? It is advertising more. No lawsuits, no bullying, just advertising. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] - Spend the most of any U.S. industry on lobbying to keep government at bay. (In the 1999-2000 election cycle, drug companies spent more money to influence politicians than did insurance companies, telephone companies, electric companies, commercial banks, oil and gas producers, automakers, tobacco companies, food processors and manufacturers. More, in short, than any other industry.) [/QUOTE] I trust that you are saying is true, but I?m not very versed in lobbying either. In my search, I couldn?t find information to back your claim, so would you be willing to let me know where you got this information (I?m not scrutinizing you, I?ll concede the point if you can demonstrate this). However, my quick search on lobbying tells me that most money that goes into Lobbying is done by large firms. That is, companies from Pfizer to Boeing, Estee Lauder to Walt Disney pool resources into a large firm (there?s a lot of these hundreds of millions of dollar firms) which represent their constituents in Washington. I?m guessing I missed something? so I?ll let you respond, I admit ignorance in this topic. [QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom] - Saturate the media with slick ads, create new brands and generate new demands. [/QUOTE] Sure, ads aren?t perfect. Hell, there?s research to suggest that some ads reduce product interest. But when you have companies like Gieco moving up from 7th to 3rd in nation-wide insurance companies due to their annoying cave man ads it stands to reason that drug companies want to follow the successful model. By new brands, do you mean new drugs? And as far as generating demand? how exactly does a drug company do that? I think I?ll let you and others respond to this before I address your concluding bit about the uninsured.

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray] [color=dimgray] It's just that settling for a college I know I'd get into (in my case it's UGA or Emory) bothers me. I want to get the hell out of Georgia, mostly. I'm just stressed that there's a huge chance I won't get into my top choice school and I'll have to settle for some other university that hasn't caught my eye as much as NYU has. More so it's just hearing about these amazing students who aren't getting into [i]their[/i] top colleges. A girl I know basically had the whole package: 2400 SAT, 3rd in class, 12 APs, 4.0 GPA, plus multiple leaderships in extracurriculars got rejected from Columbia. Seriously, if that wasn't good enough for them, I don't where the hell I'm supposed to go. It's also frustrating that the people I surround myself with are the kind that don't ever study and have 100+ GPAs while taking a rigorous schedule. I'm in the corner taking the same schedule but busting my *** off only to get an 85 on the AP Physics test. One of my friends got a 2360 on her first try, and then put me down by saying that studying for the SATs is like cheating, because it's "supposed to be natural intelligence". I know that's a bunch of BS, but after years of being around these freakish and lazy geniuses it's really gets to you. [/color][/QUOTE] Don't sweat your friend, study for the test and rock it! As far as colleges are concerned, I wouldn't fret too much. The college ranking system in the States is usually put on by the Princeton Review or US News and World. This is a little inside secret- ranking systems are pretty bunk. Most colleges have a huge portion of their score ranked by their peers. That is, presidents are asked by Princeton review to rank other schools that they aren't obligated to know much about. That's right, a good bit of the ranking is subjective heresay! You will get into College. It may not be your first choice, second choice, third choice. I know how it is, and I know how you feel. Colleges are tough to get into. Med Schools and Grad programs are a freaking crapshoot! But most colleges want a broad range of students with different backgrounds, you must have something that seperates you from the cookie-cutter success student. Just don't give up! If you don't get into your dream college find a school you've never heard of. Look into it (a smaller liberal arts university, for instance. Or a state school on the other side of the country). Who knows, it might end up being a better school than you could have guessed! If not, work your butt off your first year and transfer to another school! If you invest yourself, you will get a quality education at most schools, and i would venture to say that a Harvard or Columbia isn't going to offer you anything you can't offer yourself (undergraduate education is about discovery, graduate programs are another story)! Good luck, and enjoy your college years!

It?s interesting to hear the reactions to this topic. Controversy breeds sensationalism, I suppose. But, I can?t help chuckling when I read Molleta suggesting ?revolution? (within appropriate context, of course). I also can?t help but notice a few trends that are being encouraged in this thread, please correct me if I?m wrong: 1. The Bush Administration isn?t effectively negotiating drug prices to support citizens that are on Medicaid and Medicare, etc. 2. Drug Companies are charging too much for their product. 3. Socialized medicine may solve our problem and is a better system than the current healthcare system. 4. Capitalism bad, Socialism good. It?s perfectly fine to prefer socialism over capitalism. I?m going to try and avoid the big economic debate. I am also going to try to avoid the broad ethical conclusions that are drawn when endorsing one economic system over the other. Hell, I am going to even leave Bush (for the most part) alone. My involvement in this thread will be to try to bring some perspective, and hopefully share in a little mutual education. So, I?ll start with a little devil?s advocate. I have a few issues with your arguments so far. First is the sense of entitlement most people have when it comes to drugs. I don?t think anyone here would argue that they ?deserve high quality computers and high speed internet? or accuse Bill Gates of price-gouging. No, he?s established a product and marketed it successfully to become the richest man in the world, he?s earned his money relatively legitimately (except for the whole Steve Jobs, OS scandal back in MicroSoft?s founding, let?s not digress). Let?s face it, computers have improved our quality of life in many ways and have facilitated a huge economic boom because of their vast networking and organizational abilities. Don?t you think it?s fair that drug companies who develop sometimes life-saving medications deserve the profits they earn? Drug companies don?t ?stumble? upon their products. Antibiotics, anti-retrovirals, and other high-quality drugs simply don?t exist for drug companies to happen upon like a gold vein. Instead, Drug companies have to invest millions of dollars in R&D, marketing, and testing. They provide the material for scientists and a tentative time scale developing drugs that always incorporate a large investment risk. Then the drug needs to undergo a rigorous testing by our government (the FDA, and sometimes the EPA or USDA depending on the application of the drug)- which guarantees that it will take longer-than-necessary and be bogged down by our endless (useless) government policy. I know what you our thinking, ?it?s all important! We don?t want another ?Thalidomide?, right?? Sure, that would be terrible. Nevertheless, the reality is that double-blind testing doesn?t always work. Couple that with the fact that even if the government is responsible for the mistake, the Drug Company is held solely accountable. Take Vioxx, for example. Our litigation-happy nation may put Merck into bankruptcy because of research indicating a likelihood that Vioxx increases a risk of heart-attack. That?s right, ?Risk?. So, even if Uncle Joe lived a sedentary life, was as overweight as much of our nation, smoked, drank regularly, and ate a high-calorie diet; the Vioxx caused that massive coronary. So, let?s sue Merck, get away with it because we have a relatively science-ignorant judiciary, make millions (because everyone deserves a million dollars to replace our loved ones) and screw over the other millions of people that depend on drugs [i]made by Merck[/i]. You want reduced drug prices? That?s great, invest between 250-800 million of your own dollars and a solid decade of research in developing a drug that may or may not work. If you cure something, great! Give it out for free! As far as Medicare and Medicaid are concerned, they are simply broken systems. Why should we try to force drug companies to negotiate with an institution that regularly pays $0.20 on the dollar for procedures and calls it even with hospitals? Listen, I?m not here to tout a pro-Drug Co. agenda only. I?m aware that they aren?t perfect, and sometimes they over price redundant drugs. I also am in favor of a system of healthcare to assist those who don?t have the means to help themselves such as Medicare or Medicaid. Our government has demonstrated that it cannot handle the pace of the changing economy and scientific community, nor can it facilitate the best coverage to help these patients. The lack of accountability in our government (because, what can we do, exactly to hold them responsible??) ensures that the system will be ?patched? before we develop something that works. Here?s the bottom line: If you want to solve the healthcare crisis in America we need to stop smoking and start exercising. We live in a country with the finest hospitals, staff, and technology in the world. We are privileged to have emergency rooms across the country which treat frequent fliers regularly despite the stacking debt they owe our system. We live in a country that can guarantee quick and effective surgery. The US heads the research and development of drugs, despite the fact the government wasting billions of dollars because of sensible investors willing to risk millions to make a profit. And guess what? The system works! We benefit from it. It?s not perfect, but it?s the best we have so far. And until I hear people honestly trying to do their part to improve our heath, I really don?t care to hear the complaints. I know our health-care system intimately. I?ve been working as an in-department paramedic for the last five years at a large emergency department. I?m enrolling at the University of Michigan Medical School this fall, and I?m going to be starting my second year of graduate research working on Anti-Cancer agents with the Van Andel institute this May. I?ve seen drug development, and I know the work (and thousands of dollars) it takes to become a doctor in this country. I?m not talking out of my *** when it comes to this topic. Enough with the instant gratification and sense of entitlement, America! We need to own up to our health problems and fix them without ruining a system that works! Is it any wonder that almost 20% of the patients in Detroit receiving are Canadians willing to pay the extra buck to get the best treatment (and they don?t have the insurance we have)?

(Long overdue, sorry Erik; Retribution, I should respond to you by the end of the week if I can get a nice chunk to think about the debate for a while) I am glad I did, Erik. I always like when a controversial topic such as this pops up on OB, although the last thirty times I have posted on Gay marriage it seems less of a round-table discussion and more a podium where each member takes his post to spit out his/her rhetoric. [QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]I was wondering if/when you would show up, Jordan.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]First of all, there really haven't been any arguments. Not one person who has replied to this thread says we should keep gay marriage illegal. You yourself, Jordan, have taken no stance on the issue with your post, although I assume by your nature and the nature of your reply that I have not shaken your values.[/size][/QUOTE] I can?t really control what you derive from my post, really. Nevertheless, I tried to remain neutral and simply ask some thought provoking questions. I don?t think people address these questions really thoroughly before they come to a decision regarding Gay Marriage. [QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]And then the middle...stuff. 1-5 have little to do with what I have said. As for 6, the Bible lists homosexuality as a sin. The Bible is as much against homosexuality as it is against driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone. It is the Christian ideology, the Christian majority, the group of people themselves that make this sin worthy of ostracism and oppression.[/size] [size=2][/size] [/QUOTE] Realize, Erik, my reply was not to your original post as much as it was for the rest of the post-ees. What?s interesting is how people interpret the Bible to suit what [i]they[/i] want as opposed to what God might want. Now, I?m not aware of any verse that talks about obeying every law your country has (I know the ?give unto Caesar....? thing was more about unnecessary social disobedience). Obviously we can justify obeying the law without needing a religious text as authority. The last sentence of this quote is what really deserves attention. I think you raise a major point considering how un-Christlike that ostracism and oppression is. [QUOTE=Adahn] [size=2]The Christian ideology, in vehemently denying homosexuals the rights associated with a civil union, keeps those homosexuals from accepting God, damning them to death, when otherwise it could relent, [i]allowing[/i] those homosexuals to come to God and making available to them the path to salvation. The ideology, and all who support it in this way, then, commit the greatest of sins, which is to actively prevent people from accepting salvation and eternal life.[/size] [size=2]I tried being subtle and nice, but that doesn't work sometimes. No matter how much you try to deviate from [i]this[/i] issue, I will bring us back to it. I will continue to strike at the heart of this issue, which involves God and the [i]souls[/i] of all those involved.[/size][/QUOTE] Christianity is not about soul saving alone. The Christianity you paint with these messages sounds an awful lot like, ?save as many souls as you can, no matter what it takes.? I think Ronald Sider?s book [u]The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?[/u] serves as a nice (and more complete) treatise to the point I?m about to make. It is of course virtuous to wish that everyone experienced the salvation that you describe, Erik. However, the ?bulk soul train? image I am getting seems to have the wrong intentions. Bear in mind, for all of the souls that you save leaving this world; for some reason God keeps pumping souls into the world. Being a Christian should be a life-changing event that is relevant to your time [i]on earth[/i]. A Christian believes that he has been given freedom from the shackles of his bad habits, desires, and mistakes with unmitigated mercy. Not only that, it?s a call to cast away materialism and embrace honesty, charity, love for your neighbor, and a significant journey along a path re-aligned with (hopefully) God?s. Now, while I agree that we should love a gay man no less than a straight man and that there is no reason why a gay man cannot be a Christian (as we are all sinners), I simply don?t agree with the opinion that marriage includes homosexual partners. Now, I?ve thought this through a lot. I also happen to be more libertarian than most of my peers. If the state passes a law allowing gay marriage, I don?t think I?ll actively combat it (there are far more important issues in this world). However, when an (ideal) democratic government calls upon its citizens to cast a vote on gay marriage, we must judge ethically and practically if the law is worth passing (and in special circumstances like this, if it is morally just). At this moment, given the circumstances, I?m not convinced that gay marriage?s merits outweigh the flaws. Erik, I have no purview over the eternal destination of anybody. I have no right to judge anybody?s sins. I am not ?voting? against gay marriage simply because I think homosexuality is a sin.

[quote name='2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange']why not? [/COLOR][/quote] If you pardon Death Knight's ad hominem arguments for a moment. The reason your statement is wrong is because it is a logical fallacy. The statement that "everything" is "everyone's fault" is evading the premise of the discussion. The argument when applied to homosexual marriage falls under the logical fallacy of dicto simpliciter; a sweeping generalization to a very exceptional situation. [QUOTE=2007DigitalBoy][COLOR=DarkOrange] ...and seriously, why IS this an issue?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Why are you bothering to ask this question when you already know the answer if you simply [i]think[/i] about it? Don't worry Erik, I'll reply to your comment as soon as I finish my work for the day.

It is interesting to see the assorted Otakuites go on an anti-religious diatribe whenever a gay marriage debate starts up. I thought through this debate critically for a long time, and I?ve gone over the arguments with my friends. There are a few premises that are being assumed right off the bat with some of the arguments I?ve seen here. Let me point out which I think are and aren?t legit: 1. [u]Everyone has a right to pursue happiness[/u]: I think this is fair. It?s right there in the founding document of our nation (changed from the original ?pursuit of property? Locke idea to ?happiness? by Jefferson). Obviously, we set normative and legal limits to our pursuits. I can?t justifiably take my neighbor?s pool in my pursuit of happiness. Everyone has individual rights as well. Here?s the question that follows in my mind: Is granting marriage to homosexuals going to have no exterior social or economic impact? 2. [u]Marriage is about love[/u]. This would ideally be true, but our legal society cannot really define love. I doubt this is true in most instances of marriage. This argument does not really hold water when I look at it; we should not justify legalizing marriage for this reason if we cannot even define objectively what it is! 3. [u]Homosexuals cannot get married[/u]. This is where the 2nd premise falls apart. Homosexuals cannot legally be married. However, there is nothing preventing them from that religious/spiritual union. Ask yourself; when are you going to consider yourself married, at the alter, or at the (judge?s) bench? 4. [u]By not changing our current legal establishment of marriage to include homosexuals, we are doing something morally reprehensible[/u]. This seems like a fair argument. Indeed, it might be true in the end. I think the central focus of the argument is sociological, not moral. Both sides take an ethical stance. Some invoke what they earnestly believe is divine instruction, others invoke a sentimental argument with a pseudo golden-rule (?If you were gay, wouldn?t you want the right to get married??). What do you think are the benefits toward a society that allows for legal homosexual marriages? What do you think are the disadvantages? Do you think these civil liberties should apply to instances of polygamy or incest relationships (obviously, the slippery-slope argument isn?t really one that holds too much water with me, but it is worth addressing)? 5. [u]You are born gay[/u]. I am not opposed to this argument, but I think the burden of proof requires some evidence. No one (from what I?ve seen, correct me if I?m wrong) has cited any evidence in support of this argument. 6. [u]The Bible is against homosexuality [/u]. It is mentioned in Leviticus; which is arguably ?fulfilled? by Jesus. Paul also mentions it in Romans as being sexually immoral. Historically, sex is not a huge focus for early Christians. The real genesis of our sexual focus comes about from St. Augustine (probably the 3rd most influential Christian of all time, after Paul). If the Bible, or some other religious text doesn?t serve as your moral guidebook, where would you say your morals come from (I?m just curious, not challenging)? I think this is enough for now. BTW: Boo, nice sub-title ;).

B.B. King for blues. He may not be the greatest guitarist, but he's easily the most prolific and creative blues artist of all time. He's more than earned his title as King of the blues. His songs (which he wrote almost all personally) show off quite an epic range and he pulls his lyrics off with passion. My favorite Jazz singer is definately Ella followed closely by Billie Holiday. Ella Fitzgerald has the cleanest sound I've ever heard. She has PERFECT PITCH. Billie sings to my soul, though. Bel canto: I'm not a gigantic fan of female opera stars, almost all of whom are first sophranos. I'm a big fan of the rich bass vocal of Oskar Hillebrandt and Cesare Siepi. My favorite tenors are Luciano Pavorotti and Carlos Seise. As a facination, I've been delighted by Regina Spektor recently, she's got a very easy, natural sound. I also like her vocal "tricks" she includes in some of her songs (Apres moi).

Erik, I am very proud of the brutal honesty. I think what separates what you?ve said from conceit is because you are sharing yourself with relatively little regard for the consequences (I know, ?what consequences?, right?). I think that this thread will be a good way of getting people to open up a little. This will be therapeutic, and everyone likes some ****ing honesty every once and a while. Here goes: The Bad- I don?t know where I could start. Let?s start with the big ****; I?ve let three girls fall in love with me before breaking their hearts because it made me feel wanted. In retrospect, I know I have no purview over their emotions, but I should have broken it off when I figured out the feelings wouldn?t be mutual. One of those girls was a typical ?good girl? (only kissed a boy) and I gave her an O for the first time in her life. In retrospect, I should have restrained myself and let someone who will really love her give her that. Those instances are probably the worst things I?ve done, but I?ve paid for my mistakes. Let?s see, I?m abrasive in debates and can be extremely sarcastic. I have no patience for stupidity and I?m very good at the art of retort. I?m extremely overprotective of my younger sister to the point that I was once charged with assault for throwing a guy through a glass window (he slapped my sister, so the charges were dropped mutually). I speak before thinking a lot. And I?ve on more than one occasion accidentally blurted out a secret (nothing too huge). Lastly, I bite my fingernails and my toenails. I know that sounds gross, but my feet are remarkably clean because of this fact. The Good: I?m unabashedly kind and generous. I?m highly intelligent and I rarely study for tests. I aced organic chemistry and I only studied the day before each test. Despite my overall apathy for active learning, when I?m interested in something I master it. I?m extremely good at school and I?m well on my way to becoming a Doctor (I scored a 36 on my diagnostic MCAT). I?ll be applying to med schools soon, and I don?t expect to have any trouble getting in. Despite my parents being wealthy, I?m not spoiled? I always grew up in an environment that deliberately kept money from being prioritized; both of my parents were DIRT poor growing up (sub-poverty level). I?m good at winning the hearts of ladies honestly. I?m not the kind of guy who?s looking to get his rocks off and dump the girl. I?m romantic and I know how to treat a lady. I?m pretty proud of my current work as a paramedic over the summer. I?ve been part of countless life-saving incidents and have personally saved a few lives (I shocked a couple guys out of arrhythmias over the years, etc). I?ve talked two people out of committing suicide and one is well on his way to recovery (the other is in a mental hospital). I?ve been part of five deliveries and caught the baby twice ( I should mention that other people caught the baby in the remaining three, no babies were dropped!). I stuck a tube in a person?s chest to drain blood from his lung, I?ve drilled a hole in a lady?s head to drain blood from her subarachnoid space, and I stuck a huge needle into a guy?s chest to drain fluid around his heart (the pericardium). I?ve gone on two international aid trips giving out medical care, clothing, and food for the poorest of the world. I donated half of my summer earnings to fund a school in a forgotten town in Argentina. I?ve got an amazing singing voice (which helps with the aforementioned romantic side) and was the lead in my high school musicals. I?m good with children, and I?m ridiculously optimistic (without being naïve) about life. Sorry if that sounds overly pragmatic, but I think it?s more significant to show that you are a good person through your actions as opposed to simply [i]thinking[/i] you are.

[quote name='cancer][SIZE=1']Okay, the high school I'm moving to in a week has a problem, as my friend down there informs me. It has a brown recluse spider infestation that seemingly began a few weeks ago. In the first week of January they did a level three extermination, which did not kill the spiders. Twelve students have been bit, one girl had an asthma attack from the fumes. As you may know, these spiders can be deadly. Yet the school hasn't even closed down. They're still expecting students to come as if everything is normal. What can be done about this. Does anyone know?[/SIZE][/quote] Well, the Recluse bite itself isn't deadly. I can only imagine if there is some extremely uncommon allergy to the venom, it may account for a deadly bite. The reason the Recluse is considered so dangerous is because its bite causes the tissue around the bite to necrotize (die) and this dead skin and subdermal tissue is very easily infected. Post-bite infection is probably the only reason life or limb would be compromised. The school has a valid reason to remain open. Obviously, this depends on whether or not the students were bitten before or after the level three extermination. The Brown Recluse is more likely to avoid students and hide than it is to ever attack humans. I'd be skeptical to your claim that twelve students were bitten unless the infestation was more sizable than I would expect before someone calls in an exterminator.

I like the quote in my signiature, but I've got plenty that I could probably add to it. If you really want quotes, I suggest hitting up any quotations website or joining facebook. Anyone on facebook has a plethora of quotes from authors they never read or scientists they never studied. Here's one. "Roses are red and ready for plucking. You're sixteen and ready for Highschool" Kurt Vonnegut Jr. [u]Cat's Cradle[/u]

I?m impressed Rachmaninoff, few people can pull of the consistent post quality that I?ve seen from you. I also appreciate the speedy response, I was excited to hear what you had to write and you?ve given me plenty to think about here. I think you might appreciate that I?m writing my response while enjoying our friend Sergey?s Piano Concerto No.2 in C Minor, Op.18: 1. Moderato. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']Actually it?s not so much semantics as it is a poor job on my part explaining what I meant. So I?ll try to clear that up by explaining it again. [/quote] Thank you. I?ll try to quote your response as coherently as possible. [QUOTE=Rachmaninoff] I already stated that I agree with the concept of conditioning in relation to being afraid of things. A simple example would be two children who accidentally fall off of a deck while playing and get hurt. One associates the experience with heights=pain and becomes afraid of heights and avoids the edge of the deck. Where the other child makes no association at all and doesn?t avoid it. So their fear or lack of fear is due to association. The incident isn?t something that means you will automatically be afraid. But it has the potential of you learning to be afraid of falling or heights. [/QUOTE] That is a compelling argument, and I have no doubt it is the case for many instances of fear from childhood to adulthood. However, what intrigues me is the vast majority of fear that is simply irrational. This is because we are capable of judging circumstances irrationally, and our inability to make rational judgments is especially likely in early developmental years. I mentioned in my first post about the Prefrontal region of the brain which is responsible for the processing of judgment calls (bit of fun trivia, the Prefrontal cortex develops more slowly in men than women, women mature within their high-school years while men may take until age 25 to be fully developed! Explains a lot of behavior, right?). Let?s see if I can outline what I think is the most persuasive neurochemical explanation: Example: you have a child who is going to bed and looks at his open closet door. Unfortunately, the inside of the closet is a black void of unknown and the child?s senses begin sending information to his underdeveloped PFC (prefrontal cortex). Rapidly, thoughts of monsters and frightening villains occupy the poor child?s mind and the PFC sends a signal to the amygdala to panic. The amygdala stops the LC (locus ceruleus) from ?cooling down? and the excited LC sends a message to the child?s pituitary gland. The message a simple one, entitled ?panic now?. The gland excites the adrenaline glands to produce chemicals, which begin raising the little scared child?s heart rate and sense of urgency. His senses are also more acute and the slightest noise continues to excite his already hyper-stimulated brain. A shoe falls loudly to the ground in the closet and the child screams. His worst fears surely have been confirmed; the monsters are coming. [QUOTE=Rachmaninoff] I don?t believe something can make you afraid for the simple reason it?s not something that is a guarantee that if someone experiences it they will be afraid. Take Satan, the implication I run into among Christians I know is that Satan makes you afraid. But I would argue that people?s fear of Satan or other things he is suppose to have made you afraid of are merely another association. A child grows up with their parents, extended family and even teachers at church telling them that Satan is evil and the cause of much misery and fear. So they learn to be afraid of something even though it may not exist. The idea that Satan makes you afraid would imply that the fear is there whether or not you even know he exists. And yet as you explained in your post, we?ve already identified how thought processes can lead to fears through experiences and associations. So in the end Satan didn?t make us afraid, we learned to associate him with things that are frightening. [/QUOTE] I agree with you entirely. While I don?t want to draw this topic into a tangential discussion of theology, I do recognize that (as far as Abrahamic religions are concerned) there may be a case for some source of evil. It?s worth noting that while Satan might be the progenitor of fear, humans are capable of perpetuating it on their own. Your account of teachers at church telling children that Satan ?makes you afraid? runs contrary to the convention of ?fear no evil?. Of course, this is a matter of theological debate. In any case, I think any irrational fear of Satan (either because it?s theologically plausible that he?s not worth fearing or because he simply doesn?t exist) is unfortunate and unnecessary. [QUOTE=Rachmaninoff] The idea that something makes you afraid is to pat, to easy. Being afraid in my opinion is far more complex and not something that happens because someone makes you afraid. I hope that cleared up what I was trying to say.[/QUOTE] Very much so, I hope you get an idea of what I mean as well. In either case, I think we agree for the most part about the nature of fear aside from theological arguments.

As some have already mentioned, Tarantino did use a lot of "tribute" material in his films- particularly the Kill Bill movies; of which many of the stylistic elements were drawn from Spaghetti Westerns and Kurasawa-generation samurai films. I appreciate his management of chronology in the movie Pulp fiction. My friend's a film major at Columbia and he was explaining exactly how Tarantino catalysed a sort of coherent "free verse" filmaking style (although he wasn't the first to do this, just popularize it). Pulp fiction bent the time frame around the plot in order to build it to the most relevant and exciting sets of climaxes and conclusions. At least that's what I could gather from it. I forget, was Four Rooms on the list? If not, that movie is worth mentioning.

Astrology has a pretty interesting history. When it was first developed by the Babylonian empire about 1,500-2,000 years BCE the star-gazers would watch for specific patterns in constellations. Eventually the astrological zodiac that people use today was codified around 2,000 years ago in the same general region under slightly different assumptions. Your sign is determined by the specific constellation of stars that the sun passes over during that month (or period of time that they use to pick your zodiac sign). Being born on May 15, I could expect the sun to pass over the Taurus constellation. Well, I could 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the research of A.L Berger and A. Wittmann demonstrate that the Earth wobbles like a top (a phenomena known as axial tilt). This means that today the sun passes a full constellation beyond Taurus during my birthday, which means that I?m actually a Gemini. And when astrology was first being thought up I would be born an Aries. Astrologists don?t seem to care much about this little bitty problem. I wonder what I am, a determined but stubborn Taurus, an energetic but impatient Aries, or a witty but cowardly Gemini?

To start, I think I noticed a contradiction in your post that you should probably refine in the future. [quote name='Rachmaninoff']I?m more inclined to believe that fears aren?t so much ingrained but rather learned. Retribution put it well in how we are conditioned to associate certain things as being scary.[/quote] Doesn't the above statement contradict the following statement(?): [QUOTE=Rachmaninoff] About the only theory I don?t really agree with is the one presented here by Hanabishi Recca:For the simple reason I don?t think it?s possible for something to force one to be afraid.[/QUOTE] If you don't believe it's possible to force one to be afraid, then you refuse a vast amount of conditioning. Specifically in reference to fear-mediated responses, a severe case of anxiety is usually the unconscious consequence of an incident that may be out of the subject's control. For example, there are children who have an irrational phobia of needles because their first experiences with needles involve being restrained with little thought to assuaging any fears a child may have. Surely a case could be made for the ability (while it may not be someone's intention) to force somebody into being afraid of drowning by pushing them into the pool or afraid of loud noises by drafting them into a war? Even if this is just a misunderstanding based on semantics, it's worth mentioning for its own merit. Fear is a very complex question that psychologists and thinkers have tackled for a long time. Retribution's post seems lauded, and rightfully so, but it is somewhat incomplete. Research in neurochemistry and neuropsychology has given new insight into some of the fundamental mechanisms that cause us to feel the emotion we describe as "fear". In our brain, there are two small, highly related, identical structures called the amygdalae. This region is the primary one responsible for conditioned (i.e. Pavlovian) fear responses. When we process an event through our amygdala (which has links to our perception and memory regions in the brain) it is actually associated with what is called an unconditioned stimulus. For reasons that are under continuing research, we are able to naturally react fearfully to events such as: sudden noises, sudden visions, bright visions, being unexpectedly touched, heights, sudden pain, and a recent study suggests that we have an innate ability to judge whether an object is sharp, rough, or would seem to cause pain. In anxiety disorders, the link between the amygdala and the region of the brain which produces the bodily changes we experience during fear, called the Locus Ceruleus, (sweating, fast heart rate, etc) is broken and the LC is continually stimulated and keeps provoking a paranoia whenever you even [i]think[/i] of the event that you are conditioned to fear. We also know that the processing of hippocampal short-term memories into emotional responses such as fear does not inhibit their ability to consolidate into long term memories. This means that even an irrational fear that we can reconcile on the short term may be stored in our brains as a long-term fear. Imagine being afraid that a bee will sting you after it chases you. Your mother tells you that the bee just thought your bright clothing was a flower and you feel much better. Two months later a fly lands on your arm and your incidental glance mistakes it for a bee. You suddenly panic. Even though you felt no fear of bees within the short-term of the first situation, the memory remained stored and evoked a fear response. We are also capable of unlearning our fears (effect habitation) if we have a functional region of the brain called the Pre-Frontal Cortex, which is primarily responsible for our ability to rationalize and produce sound judgments. Understandably, if this region is underdeveloped such as in childhood or adolescence, our fears seem much more intense and our ability to ?overcome? them is less effective. I should stop and let people read this. I want to hear your thoughts before I get too wordy.

As some sort of sick joke my professor in Quantum Physics let us all try to derive the Schrodinger wave equation as the essay question. I don't think he was seeking tenure for much longer, as he already had a job in some company doing strong force testing. Anway, I've never seen so many students start crying... at least three broke down. One student vomitted in the trashcan, he couldn't make it out of the door. There was a silver lining, the question wasn't for credit, but extra credit. I got stuck about halfway through, but I gave it an attempt. Some kids panicked so much that they didn't even try. You got full extra credit if you just attempted the problem reasonably. Moral of the story: Always try to climb, no matter how high the summit.

Aren't these situations what high powered rifles are for? I'm wondering why we don't poison his tea or something. As much of a pacifist I am, this man is killing his people as we speak; by standing idle, we share the blame. As much as it would be nice to think Kim Jong Il isn't going to act on his word, it's really pulling the covers over our head. The only reason he hasn't made his move is because China has a tight leash on his megalomaniac ***. China is rapidly becoming the world's leading superpower. If a conflict begins in Korea, China needs to be assured that it can survive and win against the United States. It's only a matter of time, really. It's going to suck being drafted when that happens. How many years do you think we've got until China looses her grip?

[QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial] Hey man, I totally agree. I just don't choose to believe Astral Projection is a possibility, without proof. lol Some things I am more inclined to believe than others, and most people are that way. That's why I said it's up to the individual (I'm also very aware that science can be disproven but man, it's been pretty solid the past couple of decades).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I know, my post wasn?t really a stab at you so much but more a catalyst to get this discussion away from ?is it possible? (because we likely won?t come to a conclusion) and more towards ?why do we think it?s impossible??. We look at the successes (and some failures such as Miller-Urey prebiotic soup and Haekel?s embryo drawings) in our biology textbook and forget that our solid knowledge base is built upon a significantly greater multitude of failures. Thanks for being a good sport, Seraphim, and don?t think I?m picking on you ;). I think I?m fair in saying that without any reputable evidence, I?m not really going to pay much attention to this subject.

[quote name='HedonismBot][COLOR=Sienna']First I'd just like to say that being a Communist and being a terrible human being are two different things. [/COLOR][/quote] [QUOTE=HedonismBot][COLOR=Sienna] And then I'd just like to say that Che Guevara is one of the most overrated pop colture icons of our day. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Che Guevara is a pop culture icon? I think in order for that to happen we?d need to really embrace socialism as a pop-culture idea. His image alone makes an interesting shirt, but rarely is it anything more. Let?s not judge the man by the fact his image is often mis/overused. [QUOTE=HedonismBot][COLOR=Sienna] He overthrew dictators and had them replaced with an even worse Soviet (There's a difference between Sovietism and Communism) system of government. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] He?s not Soviet, or even communist. Soviet implies the USSR specifically. Che is a Marxist socialist. [QUOTE=HedonismBot][COLOR=Sienna] He was personally resonsible for the founding Cuba's forced labour systems. He's generally considered a brilliant leader; but that couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, he never had one recorded combat victory throughout his entire career as a 'freedom fighter.' As a politician, he was even worse, and it was as a result of his managment abilities that Cuba's economy nearly collapsed. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] I think the major pitfall to your argument here is your opinion of Che as a military commander. To which I have two responses: -The NVA and Viet Cong never won a single battle against the US in the Vietnam conflict. Let me ask you, is there still a ?South Vietnam?? -Is Cuba still under Batista control? Che fought a guerilla war, he wasn?t gaining territory- he was gaining momentum. To this effect he succeeded quite well. His greatest strength wasn?t necessarily in his military abilities, but his post-war skill in inspiring incredible social change. He was truly a renaissance man of the socialist party. I really challenge you to read some of his speeches, or even his biography. I don?t like what Che did, and I don?t agree with his method of governing; but I respect him for the intelligent (and supernaturally charismatic) man that he was. Despite his best efforts, Cuba ended up in the shitter. There?s a lesson to be learned from that, though: ?In all human affairs there are efforts, and there are results, and the strength of effort is the measure of the results.?- James Allen You?ve got your hands on the wrong ruler, here. [QUOTE=HedonismBot][COLOR=Sienna] I don't get why he's so popular. I'm a fan of socialism, and I think that mild communism can be a good thing, but I realize that Che was nothing like the image he built up around him. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] This hasn?t been one of your most eloquent arguments on OB, hedonism bot. You usually seemed well informed, which is why I?m reaming you a little in this post. The idea of ?mild communism? is frankly oxymoronic. I?m sure we?re all sick of the uninformed rebel-teen wearing his Che t-shirt feeling like he/she?s taking a ?public stance? against social norms. But if we examine this man outside of the hype he truly was quite extraordinary.

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]I consider 'proof' in the scientific sense, something that can be tested and observed. It's pretty impossible to get proof for anything involving spiritual concepts or religion, so it's up to the individual to believe what they feel is true and right for them. The end.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] Again, being tested and observed doesn't make something "proven" at all. Please spare me the dictionary definition on this; but many logical, tested, and seemingly "well understood" scientific principles have been disproven over the years. Just because we have our doubts as to what Aristotle describes is the "Formal cause" doesn't mean that a natural phenomena described by many as a spiritual one is unquestionably false. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of "supernatural" events considering everything should carry the burden of truth as opposed to the other way. Let's open up our minds, though, maybe there is something real hiding behind the facade of spiritualism? I've heard of lucid dreaming, this seems more likely than some "spritual" release. I'll see if I can't dig up some neurochemistry articles on the subject.

[QUOTE=F.O.Y.][COLOR=DarkOrange]First let me notify that I am a hardcore skeptic about most spiritual things, but if it appears to be true, I don't see why it wouldn't be. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] I like this argument, Dark Orange. ?If it seems true it cannot be false,? or, if I address it contextually, ?If it is true, then it must be true.? Astral projection? I don?t know. Obviously, one can?t disprove it. But I would like to see the rational argument for it. It?s really pointless for me to make much of a decision about it considering how little it has affected my reality. This is where my distinction differs from most; just because I have no experience in the subject doesn?t qualify me in carrying much of an opinion. Perhaps some of these people who are in this debate should consider this point. I guess to play devil?s advocate, Dead Seraphim, can we be certain of anything? I think we can, but I would like you to justify your claim. Tell me what it means to prove something.

I think it was a German Holocaust survivor who plainly laid out the paradox of the death penalty. This is a simple logical argument that basically can serve as a rebuttal to any arguments for the death penalty. You are encouraged to debate this, as usual: 1.Murder is the killing of an innocent human being (let?s avoid the ambiguity when it comes to movtive, premeditation, etc- you?ll see why that?s irrelevant) 2.The death penalty is based on a justice system which is subject to human error. 3.Innocent people are killed by the death penalty (in reference to the earlier parentheses; this is clearly a premeditated killing). 4.The state murders innocent people. 5.We are the state. 6.If the death penalty is just, we deserve the death penalty.

Hello talented graphical artists! I am returning to this ever-talented community to issue a simple challenge. A student organization at my college has created a project called ?Giving Hope to Africa? (note, I go to Hope College- hence the name). The project involves hundreds of students collecting money and supplies for a trip this summer where they will distribute them to local clinics and provide labor in an effort to relieve these people in light of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. In an effort to spread the word and gain support for the trip they are designing T-shirts to wear and put on sale. The request is a non-profit one, all proceeds will go to benefit Africans or towards supplies (all of the students are paying travel expenses out of their own pockets). The impact we make may not be world-changing. I guess we are trying to help as much as we can; how can we say we are ?Christians? if our works don?t reflect that faith? (Of course our group has since become multi-religion and multi-creed) The front of the T-shirt is already designed, a simple ?Hope for Africa 2007? label with a red ribbon (the AIDS ribbon) below it. These will be printed on black T-shirts. The back of the T-shirt is where you come in, if you are willing to help: -You can use any color scheme you like. Remember the shirt itself is black. -We would like a graphic of the African continent. This could be outlined, filled, etc. -The ?official verse? for the trip is: Proverbs 3:27 ? ?Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act.? please incorporate that into your design. -The ?official slogan? for the trip is: ?We are nothing without Him?. Please incorporate this into the design as well. -Remember, this is a T-shirt design? try to keep it fairly simple but be creative! Please don?t let the fact that the organization is Religious stop you, this is a good cause no matter what context you approach it! Submit your designs in this thread and when the group meets I?ll present the designs. Also, give me your real name in your submission so that I can give you full credit. Think about it, a campus united under one altruistic goal, wearing [i]your[/i] design! Sorry about the short notice, but the entries are due by NOON (eastern time) on this coming monday (9/25).

Yes, Dagger, Snails and Slugs are both Gastropods. Inventions for which I feel grateful? That's a tough one. Let me list a few off the top of my heads: -Language: despite an earlier debate over the merits of language, I consider it probably the most fundamental invention to human as a social animal. Remember, language is sinless... people are not. -Pasteurization: Nobody likes bacteria-flavored milk. -The Vaccine: Thanks again, Pasteur (You too, Jenner). -The printing press: Like your manga? Thank Gutenburg. -Music -Antibiotics: Doubling our life expectancy since 1928. All thanks to fungi. -The refrigerator: Because we have enough salt in our diet. -The Academy: And I do mean Plato. -Modern science -Newtonian Physics: Now we're gettin' somewhere! -Asexual reproduction: More of a "natural invention". Because as much as people would love to deny it, their garden is as much for the snails and slugs as it is for anything else. -Poetry Oh yeah, 2 more inventions that I like, -Ninjitsu -Piracy

On the issue that you can "prove" something that doesn't exist- I have a joke for you. There once were two men sitting on a bus. One man was taking paper from a notebook, crumpling it up, and throwing it out the bus window. The other man inquired, "Why are you throwing out all of that paper?" The first replied, "I'm warding off the elephants that would chase our bus, of course." The second remarked, "I don't see any elephants". So the first man turns to him and with a wink says, "That's because it's working." The moral of the story: It's logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. Who's to say it's not your destiny to know of destiny which would effect how your actions respond to the knowledge of destiny? The idea of destiny merely states that something is going to happen in the exactly how it will. I know that sounds circular and all, but there are broad theories of reality that evoke this imagery of circularity. Think about the Big Bang. There's a school of thought that hypothesizes we are just one of an infinite number of Big Bangs, expansions, contractions, and a new Big Bang. From that, we may draw the idea that (Entropy withstanding) the universe is the EXACT same now as it was an infinite number of times in the past. If that is so, then we are doing the exact same thing we've done now in an analogous frame of reference an infinite number of times in the past as well. Including thought, witch is theoretically explained by natural phenomena, and any social interaction. I think the only wrench in that theory comes with the challenge of the "epiphany". Do I believe in predestination? No. But I'll give it credit, it's very fascinating.

Here's a little tidbit of info to mix up the pot-o-discussion (shadowblade hinted it): there's no such thing as race, as far as objectivity is concerned that is. There's no biological or genetic foundation behind race. Race is just another fabrication to keep one group above another, to give one mand the short stick at the consequence of the other. It's unfortunate that we perpetuate race on both ends of the spectrum. I would hope we can one day be a color-blind society. But if you think about it, we'll just find some other attribute to hate (like religion, ethnicity, height, hair color ;) ). The idea of race can also adverslely effect what might be positive change. If a study identifies black families as having more children out of wedlock than white families most social scientists keep their hands off of the issue as it may be too "racially sensitive". I think the ability for minorities to use the "race card" is also quite tragic and socially dangerous. So I guess it's a two-way street. Oh, and shadowblade, social darwinism isn't fake. Social darwinism isn't even what you claimed it is. Don't get me wrong, I've only had a few classes in sociology but I know that this is a very important principle that basically means there is some sort of "artificial selection" in society that perpetuates change. This change doesn't have to be bad, but it is inevitable. It's just Darwin's idea of the "fittest" surviving and constant change being applied to social theory. This doesn't mean it carries the assumption that one ethnic group is more "fit" than another.