DrDNA

I pondered exactly the same thing when I heard it on the radio as I drove to work. I really am torn 50/50. It will be interesting to see what opinion others here and elsewhere have.

To ME, one key word here would be choice. Certainly, a cell undergoing apoptosis has no choice in the matter. Another key word would be intent. To my knowledge, the bee does not intend to kill itself, death is simply an indirect consequence of another action taken on behalf of the betterment of the collective. On the other hand, someone that takes their life willing made a choice and had intent.

In fact, in 1881 Austria-Hungary and Serbia signed a militarty treaty to halt Russian influence in Serbia. Austria-Hungary already had an alliance with Germany to protect each other from Russia. Then Germany and Austria-Hungary made an alliance with Italy to stop Italy from taking sides with Russia. Then Russia formed an alliance with France to protect herself against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Then there was an agreement, but not a formal alliance, between France and Britain; followed an agreement between Britain and Russia. Then, a treaty was signed between Russia, France and Britain to counter the increasing threat from Germany followed by, in 1914, Triple Entente (no separate peace) in which Britain, Russia and France agreed not to sign for peace separately. Finally, in 1914, Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian-Hungarian crown, visited the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo, where Bosnian Serb militants of the nationalist group Mlada Bosna, supplied by the Serbian militant group Black Hand, ambushed Franz Ferdinand's convoy and assassinated him leading to WWI and the the end of the world which will soon be over. It is quite simple really and now you can see how the prohecy was true.

Call me jaded, but I'm convinced it was the "tears" that did it for her.

Can I hear an AMEN!? Like the way surfers out manuver man-eating sharks.....seal pups and killer whales....?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." "Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein

I'm actually one those devout Evangelical Christians that your Christianity-hating, secular, left wing, pinko commie professors warned you about, and I think it is amusing....even cute. Mimicky is after all just a form of flattery. PS: Send $5 dollars to me at The Church of The Scared Heart of The Bleeding Jesus located in Los Angeles California and all your dreams will come true.

I agree. Let the Italians clean up their mess. I'll be behind you.

Ok. I promise to cite evidence in support of all my claims if you promise to agree with everything I say.

That is very good Para. It seems somewhat clear to me that whales and dolphins are probably not really commiting suicide....perhaps they are just disoriented. Elephants, maybe so. But am I alone in remaining unclear if bees and ants fit the definition of suicide? I realize that the OP stated above that he/she may not go along with bees and ants in the defintion (somebody else and I may actually sowehat agree...WOW), and thank you for the clarification, but the definition I cited above would indicate that they do commit suicide because apoptosis is also indicated. And, I am still convinced that there is a distinct difference in between programmed cell death or losing your stinger or dying protecting the hive and an act of willfully ending your life because you are in severe pain with no end in sight or you believe that life just isn't worth living anymore. Is intent really necessary or not in the act of suicide? Personally, I think so. I'm even going to write the editors of Websters a note about this and their definition. Does it matter or not that one difference is that a drone bee that commits this form of "suicide" is not removing itself from the gene pool? From an evolutionary sense, there is no reward or punishment here for self preservation (unless of course the hive is left less well defended if a HUGE number of drones die). I refuse to be a member of that collective.

It would go a lot quicker if everyone agreed.

Blike, I just read this and it reminded me you of your question/statement.... Quote "Stop giving antibiotics for colds, doctors told By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor Last Updated: 12:09pm GMT 09/01/2008 Doctors are to be told to stop prescribing antibiotics for coughs, colds and sore throats because over-use of the drugs is fuelling the spread of killer hospital superbugs. Using antibiotics too liberally has led to bugs such as MRSA becoming resistant to treatment with the drugs. Most colds, coughs and flu are caused by viruses, which cannot be treated with antibiotics anyway, Mr Johnson points out. Announcing a £270 million campaign against superbugs, to be launched next month, he says it is vital that doctors adopt "less of a knee-jerk reaction to prescribing". The campaign, called Clean, Safe Care, will also include an extra £45 million for hospitals to spend on infection control nurses or antibiotic specialist pharmacists. All patients going into hospital will be screened for MRSA by 2009. Staff have already been told they must be "bare below the elbows" to help prevent the spread of infection between patients and all hospitals should undergo a "deep clean" by March this year, although experts have dismissed this as a gimmick. advertisementMr Johnson says: "The past 60 years have seen great advances in health care and medicine. For example, the use of antibiotics has saved countless lives, but antibiotics do not work on most coughs, colds and sore throats and their unnecessary use can leave the body susceptible to gut infections like Clostridium difficile." Over-use of antibiotics, which can be used only on bacterial infections, has been blamed for the rise of drug-resistant tuberculosis. The drugs can strip natural bacteria from the gut and allow C.diff to take hold and kill vulnerable elderly people. Too-liberal use of antibiotics, especially when patients do not finish their courses, allows multiplication of bugs that have mutated to become resistant. If antibiotic use is not curbed, doctors could run out of effective treatment as certain bugs become resistant to more and more drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to invest the billions of pounds needed to research and develop new antibiotics because they are not very profitable. Dr Mark Enright, professor of molecular epidemiology at Imperial College London, said even common bacterial infections do not really need treating with antibiotics and usually go away on their own. "In the old days, before we had problems with resistance, people thought it really didn't matter - you could throw antibiotics at these cases and you would pick up the odd one that was treatable that way," he said. Over-use of antibiotics is blamed for the rise of drug-resistant superbugs "I am sure there are still GPs who think they know best and think antibiotics are the global panacea we once thought they were." The most common antibiotic ingredient, amoxicillin - one of the penicillin family - has become less effective because more bugs have become resistant to it. Other common generic antibiotic ingredients that are less effective include cefaclor, used for chest infections, and trimethoprim, used to treat urinary tract infections. Prof Kevin Kerr, consultant microbiologist at Harrogate District Hospital, said the pressure on GPs to prescribe antibiotics can be immense. In some cases patients are told by one doctor in the practice that they do not need antibiotics only for them to book with another partner who is more willing to capitulate. He said: "These campaigns are desperately needed. The focus has been on cleanliness and washing hands but without closing the circle by tackling prescribing it is only half the battle." Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, said: "The Government has ignored the link between antibiotics and hospital infections for too long. Over-prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics is very dangerous." End Quote http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IVLWZ0LAPX2IPQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/09/nbiotic109.xml

Well, I ordinarily wouldn't take it as being friendly, but I'll take your word for it in this case and accept it as such. I agree that is probably correct, and it is why I underlined "percieved". I might also add that their locations on the left.....center.....right line, curve, circle......or whatever geometric form that lying tool of the pundits, the media and the powers that be is....... are pretty much mute at this point. Unless they do something dramatic, like light themselves on fire and run through a caucus screaming their positions, Gravel and Kucinich have reached the point of not mattering anymore in this election season. One might say that we are now left with the chore of wading through a much more homogenous pile of goo.

So your clock to determine who is a native (or who has claim to the land) and who is not has some arbitrary, convenient starting point just before the birth of Christ? I don't think that is fair at all. How does that work? Actually, Judaism is a religion. Jews may or may not be members of a separate "race" or ethnic group depending on your definition, but a lot of people would disagree with you. For example Hitler (although I admit, my stomach turns using him to validate my point) put forth a lot of effort trying to exterminate the Jewish people (as an ethnicity or race). This was a lot more about ethinic cleansing than it was a war on a particular religion. The Jewish people trace their origins as an ethinic group as having a common ancestry in the line of Abraham, Abraham's son Isaac to Jacob and then Jacob's 12 sons. The native inhabitants in that region who relate to Islam diverge in that they often cite Abraham's other son, Ishmael. This is a clear ethinic difference. I don't think this holds water. You might have a stronger leg to stand on if you based you argument on ethnicity. Can you name one case in history where a claim to a piece of land was substantiated based on religion only? I can not, but that doesn't mean that there is no precidence and I admit I am no expert in law. But as an example, if I converted to a Native American religion today, it would give me absolutely no claim what so ever to tribal land, tribal privileges, Native American affirmative action programs, etc.

That is interesting. I wonder if Obama would get a bigger boost in the primaries if Edwards just dropped out altogether. And in the general elec especially, Edwards on an Obama ticket might hurt a lot more than he would help. He is at least percieved to be much further left of center than most of the other dems. That could serve to drive away many indies and "centrist" republicans.

Drudge 40.86% IN: CLINTON 39; OBAMA 36; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 5; KUCINICH 2... 38.20% IN: *MCCAIN 37; ROMNEY 30; HUCKABEE 12; GIULIANI 9; PAUL 8; THOMPSON 1... I just read this and it disgusts me.....makes me like the Clintons even less (if that's even possible). Quote: "On CNN today, Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton with a vehemence that raised eyebrows in both of their circles: Brazile: I could understand his frustration at this moment. But, look, he shouldn't take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup. Figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former commander in chief. Someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For him to go after Obama, using a fairy tale, calling him as he did last week. It's an insult. And I will tell you, as an African-American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing. [snip] Blitzer: But tell me why, as an African-American, Donna, you feel that the president's comments weren't appropriate. Brazile: First of all, if Bill Bennett [also on the show] had said some of the things that Bill Clinton is saying about Barack Obama, I would have called Bill Bennett out of his name and said that Bill Bennett should shut his mouth because he is not speaking in the right tone. I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a kid, he is a United States senator. He's experienced. The people of Illinois elected him, and regardless of what kind of items are on his résumé, this is a man who has worked all his life. He's proven; he's been a college professor. I don't have to give Barack Obama a résumé. I'm not for anyone at this point. But I think for Bill Clinton to go out of his way to become a distraction to Hillary Clinton and to launch the kind of attack on Obama is just out of character for Bill Clinton. I think it's time he helps Hillary talk about her message and not go down this road." End Quote. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Brazile_on_Bill_Depressing.html Comments?

Man, I hope Hillary doesn't take NH. What a way to ruin my week. But F= ma is currently Obama's friend regardless of the outcome tonight. "Obama and Clinton are now tied with 33 percent of the vote each nationally, according to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll. The finding is a stunning change from mid-December, when Clinton held an 18-point advantage over Obama." http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/558314.aspx And on the other side. 37%. Look at Maverick go! Wow!

One pill makes you larger And one pill makes you small And the ones that mother gives you Don't do anything at all

This just in......Hillary says she has a penis and a vagina!

Well, I just hope he gets some access to healthcare and soon. Diabetes is nothing to mess with and nothing to be diagnosed on a science blog. Which brings up another topic. Is there a good, existing access to healthcare (aka "universal healthcare") thread that could be resurected?

Sorry. Just pasted that from Drudge....no further details were given. 10.96% IN: OBAMA 36; CLINTON 38; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2... 10.29% IN: MCCAIN 37; ROMNEY 28; HUCKABEE 12; GIULIANI 9; PAUL 8; THOMPSON 1... This just in....Hillary has her cake and eats it too..... “I’m running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change.” Hillary in DOVER, N.H.

Currently, OBAMA 36; CLINTON 37; EDWARDS 17; RICHARDSON 4; KUCINICH 2... MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 29; HUCKABEE 11; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1...

His girlfriend's mom stealing glucose monitoring sticks you pee on at her place of work is sufficient access? I just hope she doesn' t get caught.

Ah. Yes. The images of all those starving African children with flies in their eyes and of George W throwing perfectly good embryonic stems cells in garbage cans. If only we aborted more fetuses, it would be better.

It is dribble as far as I'm concerned. Another promised free lunch....kind of like taking pills that make you skinny but never getting off your butt. I had a one semester "speed reading" course in the 7th grade as an elective. Then I spent YEARS trying to unlearn it. It trained me to skim texts very quickly, and read blocks of words, not individual words, at one quick, steady pace; never slowing down to ponder anything. Using their "speed reading" techniques, I was able to turn pages very quickly, but never actuallly understood the concepts or got anything out of what was written on those pages. I believe that sleeping with a book under your pillow gives similar results. Except sleeping with a book under your pillow does not teach you poor reading habits....how not to get anything out of what it is you are reading. But, individual results may vary.