Question about race

[minionofmidas]

Just stumbled over "600 years". 600 years ago, Western Europe was essentially inhabited by cavemen ruled from afar by their Islamic liegelords.
Well, not quite.
But your and my statement are roughly equidistant from the truth.

[minionofmidas]

(And VERY far from it.)

[angus]

Lewis, six hundred years ago was roughly the beginning of the Renaissance, and the beginning of a period during which the Pope, in 1493, would divide the world between Spain and Portugal.  How arrogant is that?  My statement stands.  The "Expansion of Europe" is generally agreed to have started circa 1350, with Portugal's expansioin on Madeira Island and the Gum Coast of West Affrica.  My statement is accurate.

And yes, you should discriminate between the terms "bigotry", "racism", and "prejudice"   

And I totally disagree that terms are rendered meaningless unless they have the ability to elicit emotional reactions!  Is the word automobile meaningless?  Or what about paradimethylaminobenzaldehyde?  Of course not.  They have meanings.  Are we now going to have to label every word as a "blue state" word or a "red state" word?  And if a word doesn't create debate it's thrown away?  So let's just trash the word "semiconductor" since it's "meaningless" by your definition.  "Meaningless" means without meaning.  And the term should not be confused with "not sensationalistic" which simply means without the ability to elicit a barrage of posts.  What surprises me is that you take pains to be logical in your other posts, such as the one immediately preceding patrick's.  Yet here you are very sloppy. 

Now, if you want to redefine "racism" that's fine.  Any debate should start with a definition of terms.  But let us not misuse language, as it makes communication difficult.  I do not disagree with Al that both statements are racist.  And they are no more or less racist than the statement:  "East Asians have the epicanthic fold under their eyes, which probably arose some 20 to 40 thousand years ago as a result of natural selection as the group of hunter-gatherers made its way out of Africa and those with the ability to keep sand out of their eyes in the deserts on the way to the Far East successfully passed on their zygotes."  Now, whether that statement is accurate is a matter of speculation.  It makes sense to me, but then I wasn't really around 40 thousand years ago to be sure, was I?  But whether it is accurate has nothing to do with the fact that it concerns a racial characteristic.  Let's be clear here:  I made a statement about a racial characteristic of a group.  Therefore, I made a racist statement. 

And I just want to again point out that we must not let our fear of speaking truthfully and in order to advance our understanding about the world around us.  So many politically correct thought controllers in my country would have us ignore facts because maybe they are unpleasant.  So it gets to the point that you can't even try to understand things or help people.  Sorry for the rant, but this is a very important matter to me.  Racist statements need not be offensive.  To point out differences between groups of people, and to try to speculate on the cause of these differences, can lead us to better understanding, and perhaps even technological breakthroughs in terms of medicine, health, population control, or even achieving World Peace.  Peace and understanding will not be gained by ignorance.  Let us examine racial differences.   Let us speculate openly about them. 

Patrick.  Yeah, I saw that one.  Good stuff.  Lots of geographical good luck and bad luck in history.  Science is like that too.  And yeah, you're right about PBS.  It doesn't seem to be standardized the way the private networks (e.g., Fox or CBS) are.  The programming alerts I give about History Channel or Network TV are usually valid, since they're standardized.  But PBS is funny.  That show came on Channel 2, my local PBS affiliate (actually from AL) early on a weekend morning.  But in some other market it may have aired in the evening.  In CA and MS I had only one PBS affiliate.  But when I lived in TX and MA I had two.  I think we had one in Manhattan, but I didn't get cable there.  In all those other markets I had cable.  Not sure why there's no standardization at PBS.

[Beet]

angus, you're confusing racial awareness with racism. Biological facts are racial awareness, not racism (therefore I disagree perhaps with both you and Al on this score). Racism refers to something inherently political, like communism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism. That's why when you go to racial supremacy sites they try to replace "racism" with "race-consciousness" in an attempt to de-politicize their racist views. Once something becomes de-politicized it becomes unchallengable because people are no longer thinking about the political consequences of a type of thinking (on the other hand, when labelling racial awareness as 'racism' it deprives the word 'racism' of its political meaning). It's true that there is a certain uncomfortability when discussing these topics. But please don't confuse the two, it's inaccurate and dangerous.

[angus]

angus, you're confusing racial awareness with racism. Biological facts are racial awareness, not racism (therefore I disagree perhaps with both you and Al on this score). Racism refers to something inherently political, like communism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism. That's why when you go to racial supremacy sites they try to replace "racism" with "race-consciousness" in an attempt to de-politicize their racist views. Once something becomes de-politicized it becomes unchallengable because people are no longer thinking about the political consequences of a type of thinking. So please don't confuse the two, it's inaccurate and dangerous.

No!  I am stoned or drunk quite a bit of the time.  But I am very clear on this point.  Up until the mid 1960s the word "racist" could refer to any study of race.  it was only during the beginning the period of great Social Experimentation that the word took on pejorative connations.  Also, Racial Awareness is one of those silly PC terms.   You'll not find me using it except in this sentence. 

Let's take our language back.  Sometimes, when I say gay, as in "Don we now our gay apparel" around Christmas time, I just mean gay.  Get it?!?!

I'm ready to rant for days, so just keep bringing it on.

[Beet]

angus, you're confusing racial awareness with racism. Biological facts are racial awareness, not racism (therefore I disagree perhaps with both you and Al on this score). Racism refers to something inherently political, like communism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism. That's why when you go to racial supremacy sites they try to replace "racism" with "race-consciousness" in an attempt to de-politicize their racist views. Once something becomes de-politicized it becomes unchallengable because people are no longer thinking about the political consequences of a type of thinking. So please don't confuse the two, it's inaccurate and dangerous.

No!  I am stoned or drunk quite a bit of the time.  But I am very clear on this point.  Up until the mid 1960s the word "racist" could refer to any study of race.  it was only during the beginning the period of great Social Experimentation that the word took on pejorative connations.  Also, Racial Awareness is one of those silly PC terms.   You'll not find me using it except in this sentence. 

Let's take our language back.  Sometimes, when I say gay, as in "Don we now our gay apparel" around Christmas time, I just mean gay.  Get it?!?!

I'm ready to rant for days, so just keep bringing it on.

You're missing the point.

(Not much rant material, sorry to say, I do find your posts always interesting )

[angus]

Look, this is very important to me.  I'm very liberal about most things.  Two guys move in next door and make loud sucking and hollering and gay sex noises all night, I'm okay with that.  Two college students move in next door and smoke pot and play the stereo all night, and I'm okay with that.  Some school administrator decides that we need to teach Spanish in school as well as English because there's a sizable hispanic community, I'm okay with that.  Somebody wants to make sure inmates at the local prison gets condoms in order to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases I'm okay with that.

But when it comes to language, I'm an arch-conservative.  A prude (to use opebo's rather Victorian term).  I think words need not be emotionally charged.  When the US does something Imperialistic, I call it so, even though many Americans cringe at the word.   When a statement is racist, I call it so, even though some will have us believe that "racism" should only mean "racially discriminatory in a bad way"  And when I'm singing along with the Flintstones tune, I always say "We'll have a gay old time."  And I like having a gay old time.  And I'm not afraid to say I like having a gay old time.

[Beet]

Look, this is very important to me.  I'm very liberal about most things.  Two guys move in next door and make loud sucking and hollering and gay sex noises all night, I'm okay with that.  Two college students move in next door and smoke pot and play the stereo all night, and I'm okay with that.  Some school administrator decides that we need to teach Spanish in school as well as English because there's a sizable hispanic community, I'm okay with that.  Somebody wants to make sure inmates at the local prison gets condoms in order to help prevent the spread of infectious diseases I'm okay with that.

But when it comes to language, I'm an arch-conservative.  A prude (to use opebo's rather Victorian term).  I think words need not be emotionally charged.  When the US does something Imperialistic, I call it so, even though many Americans cringe at the word.   When a statement is racist, I call it so, even though some will have us believe that "racism" should only mean "racially discriminatory in a bad way"  And when I'm singing along with the Flintstones tune, I always say "We'll have a gay old time."  And I like having a gay old time.  And I'm not afraid to say I like having a gay old time.

I'd say it's important not to confuse the ability to have an honest, open-minded discussion with the necessity of suppressing the emotional connotations of all political words. While emotions certainly can get in the way of discussion with integrity, they should also not be denied outright. Rather, in the specific instances in which emotion is clouding reason, this ought to be pointed out. For example, communism is a political word with a negative emotional connotation, and it will probably always have this negative connotation. But this connotation comes because regimes historically communist regimes sacrificed tens of millions of people to starvation, political persecution, and state slavery for a failed dream. At the one extreme is to dismiss any idea that is associated with communism. This is intellectual dishonesty. At the other extreme is to deny that communism is a political term at all, and claim that it merely refers to awarenss of class divisions in society. This, too, is intellectual dishonesty.

What I am pointing out is not a judgement of good and bad on my part, but a factual conceptual difference between awareness of differences between humans of a type we would call race (differing skin color, etc) and the political ideology of racism, which is a type of thinking about the way society should be. It's the difference between science and ideology. This does not necessarily mean the ideology is necessarily bad, even though it is true that the vast majority would say so (just like identifying "communism" as a political term does not necessarily mean communism is bad). It is simply separating the political from the conceptual.

[angus]

So, when I mean to say "Racist public policy" I say "racist public policy"  Like the policy of apartheid, for example.  But even then, not all racist public policies are "bad"   If it is a hospital policy to run sickle cell screening on all blacks because 9% of the black population is anemic, then that is (even by your definintion which includes the political) a racist policy.  Does it harm anyone?  well, yeah, I suppose chinese, white, and amerindian taxpayers could say that they're having to pay for something which has no benefit to them.  But it's likely to solve more problems than it creates.

Telling a person you can't hire him because he's gay or Jewish or black is wrong.  I also think policies which say "Hey we have enough Asians right now, so even if you're qualified we can't accept you into this university because we need more black students even if we can't find one with your SAT score, your grades, your letters of recommendation" That policy is very offensive (not particularly because it's racist, as I have no a priori reason to dismiss racist policies, as I've said, but precisely because it discriminates against persons whose races are "overrepresented" in white collar professions).

I'm not sure I disagree with anything in your last post except on the fine point of the definition of racism necessarily implying "racism as public policy".  But I recently evacuated, producing a particularly well rounded and exquisitely turned specimen, and then showered, and therefore I am generally no longer in an argumentative mood. 

[Beet]

So, when I mean to say "Racist public policy" I say "racist public policy"  Like the policy of apartheid, for example.  But even then, not all racist public policies are "bad"   If it is a hospital policy to run sickle cell screening on all blacks because 9% of the black population is anemic, then that is (even by your definintion which includes the political) a racist policy.  Does it harm anyone?  well, yeah, I suppose chinese, white, and amerindian taxpayers could say that they're having to pay for something which has no benefit to them.  But it's likely to solve more problems than it creates.

Telling a person you can't hire him because he's gay or Jewish or black is wrong.  I also think policies which say "Hey we have enough Asians right now, so even if you're qualified we can't accept you into this university because we need more black students even if we can't find one with your SAT score, your grades, your letters of recommendation" That policy is very offensive (not particularly because it's racist, as I have no a priori reason to dismiss racist policies, as I've said, but precisely because it discriminates against persons whose races are "overrepresented" in white collar professions).

I'm not sure I disagree with anything in your last post except on the fine point of the definition of racism necessarily implying "racism as public policy".  But I recently evacuated, producing a particularly well rounded and exquisitely turned specimen, and then showered, and therefore I am generally no longer in an argumentative mood. 

Argh, clarification of questions here. Asking (Question 1) whether there is a difference between nonpolitical recognition of racial differences and racism, a political thing, is one question. Asking (Question 2) which particular political statements/decisions are racist is an entirely separate question.

(Question 1) I wasn't trying to say racism necessarily implied public policy, but the word is used to describe what is inherently political. Expressing a self-justified belief that "white women should not mix with black men" is inherently political and therefore racist. On the other hand, saying that blacks are overrepresented athletically or asians having the epicanthic fold is not political, for they represent statements about what is rather than what should be (and like any statements about what is can be tested for accuracy). Like all science, they may have politically significant implications, but are not in themselves political.

Well, if you're referring only to public policy then of course it is political, for policies are systemic decisions that necessarily reflect some view of how the world should work (the mere existence of hospitals, reflects the view that death is a bad thing).

(Question 2) The sickle cell example: is it racist?

Hospitals are probably merely following the judgment of using all the information that they can get to maximize their cost-benefit ratio in disease detection. One can say this is not racist for it is ultimately rooted in something other than race (of course, one can say the intuitive fear that one might get seeing a black man while walking alone in the city at night as rooted in cost-benefit analysis of self-preservation), so this can become very tricky.

All I cared about was pointing out there's a difference between recognition of biological racial differences and racism, a political ideology (Question 1). Which particular policies are actually racist is a swamp I'd rather not get into for now... I have to study for a midterm now anyway.

[minionofmidas]

I've checked, and Angus' theory about the original meaning of the term "racist" is wrong.
I can't rule out that the term has been used with his definition early on - although frankly I suspect it to be quite new - but when the term was coined in the 1940s, it meant an ideology in which one group of people is deemed to be "racially" inferior to another. Not just "different". In fact, it was coined to describe Nazi Germany.

[angus]

actually it was coined in about 1935 in French (racisme)   And yes the French were referring to Nazis in Germany & Austria.  But the word replaced earlier forms in english, such as the word racialism which had been around since the early 1900s, and that term replaced even earlier terms.  And even as late as the early 1960s Hyams and Ordish used the term in the simple non-negative way I used it earlier in their essays on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.  But all that is beside the point.  The point is that the root of the word racism is race.  And race refers to genetically related groups.  And we can argue about how many groups there are or which ones they are, but clearly there are races, and races mix, and sometimes they don't.  But if the term means simply related to race, both statements are racist.  I'm just not buying that it can only be used correctly if it refers to formal public policy.  (If it does, then neither statement is racist.)  There is of course a more specific connotation nowadays and it's the one you get in the dictionary and has to do with prejudice and a supposition of some inferiority/superiority among the racial groups.  If you use it in this denotation, then both statements are still racist.  So whether you use the broader or more narrow definition they're both racist statements.  It is only when you decide that racism must be formal and government instituted that you can argue that neither is racist.  Nothing new here, Lewis, since any debate hinges on how we define terms.  So, using any of several definitions of the word, both are racist statements.

[Beet]

using any of several definitions of the word, both are racist statements.

Nobody said racism had to be formal and government instituted. The root word of conservatism is conserve. Does that mean conservationists are conservatives?

And which two statements are you referring to?

[angus]

using any of several definitions of the word, both are racist statements.

Nobody said racism had to be formal and government instituted. The root word of conservatism is conserve. Does that mean conservationists are conservatives?

And which two statements are you referring to?

one of the most conservative things I do is turn off the lights when I'm not using them.  another is that I recycle all my PTFE, glass wine bottles, and cans.  Been doing it for years.  I also am a really lousy tipper.  So I'm pretty conservative.  I'm a dues paying member of the Sierra Club, and so some might call me a conservationist.  I supported George Bush in the last general election, and so some might call me a conservative.  But more importantly, I am very very cheap and also very very picky about the landscape, which makes me both conservative and a conservationist.

Forces can be conservative too.  These include elastic and gravitational forces.  Conservative should be distinguished from dissipative forces, such as friction.

Which two statements?  You gotta be kidding me.  The two statements that started all this!  And they're both racist. 

"nobody said...  public policy"?!?! You said it yourself, in your diatribe about how all "isms" are inherently political (which is demonstrably false as well, as in nepotism, onanism, etc.)  At the time I didn't think it was intelligent enough to even deserve a response.  Still don't, but felt it provided an easy reference here.

[patrick1]

I also am a really lousy tipper. 
. 

I realize this outside the bounds of this thread but  Why are teachers as a rule cheap on the tips?  I have worked at bar, restaurant, beach club and the teacher was always denigrated as a skin-flint.  Half of my buddies became teachers and they are all cheap.  Wage does not have anything to do with it because I know plenty of people who make less who tip more.  Sorry for the tangent..  I'm curious.  Theory?

[Beet]

using any of several definitions of the word, both are racist statements.

Nobody said racism had to be formal and government instituted. The root word of conservatism is conserve. Does that mean conservationists are conservatives?

And which two statements are you referring to?

one of the most conservative things I do is turn off the lights when I'm not using them.  another is that I recycle all my PTFE, glass wine bottles, and cans.  Been doing it for years.  I also am a really lousy tipper. 

Forces can be conservative too.  These include elastic and gravitational forces.  Conservative should be distinguished from dissipative forces, such as friction.

Hah, right there. My bad
So words sometimes, though not always, are generalizable through the root. I'm not sure if conservatism is a word in physics, though I would be surprised if it was. I'm afraid you have much more knowledge than I, which only means that I'm probably benefitting disproportionately from this thread, I hope that's okay with you. Of course, I wouldn't quite say that not everything related to conservation would be called conservative, so even here there's not a universal generalization.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, technically, they are not, though if you are looking for some adjective to describe the fact that they pertain to race, there is a word called
ra·cial    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (rshl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of race or races.
Arising from or based on differences among human racial groups: racial conflict; racial discrimination.

Which is very similiar to the racialist that you had mentioned previously, except that it lacks the -ist suffix of course, which apparently means "one who practices."

[Beet]

"nobody said...  public policy"?!?! You said it yourself, in your diatribe about how all "isms" are inherently political (which is demonstrably false as well, as in nepotism, onanism, etc.)  At the time I didn't think it was intelligent enough to even deserve a response.  Still don't, but felt it provided an easy reference here.

Forgive me for my indiscretions, angus. You were keeping up a response to me through the discussion, so I was under the impression you were fully engaged. If you ever feel that my posts don't deserve a response, please don't respond. I will always enjoy your posts, however.

The suffix -ism within a certain context which I thought was assumed, refers to some sort of pre-packaged ideology. When I said political, I explained what I meant in a way consistent with only the broader definition,
"politics
n 1: social relations involving authority or power"
I had mentioned for example that the hospitals' decisions was political... surely you did not think I assumed only hospitals owned by the government? The more general distinction I made was between ideology and science, between statements about how the world should work, and how it is.

EDIT: Also note, that I never used the words "public policy" until you did, and here is my exact quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there's a part of that which wasn't understood by you, sorry.

EDIT #2: Now that I go back and re-read my post, I didn't even say that "all -isms" are inherently political. I said racism was inherently political, and compared it to other political isms. But from the article I linked above it's clear that some authors have used the suffix -ism to refer to the political, whether in the broader or narrower sense. Of course, a certain context is always assumed in these cases.

[dazzleman]

I also am a really lousy tipper. 
. 

I realize this outside the bounds of this thread but  Why are teachers as a rule cheap on the tips?  I have worked at bar, restaurant, beach club and the teacher was always denigrated as a skin-flint.  Half of my buddies became teachers and they are all cheap.  Wage does not have anything to do with it because I know plenty of people who make less who tip more.  Sorry for the tangent..  I'm curious.  Theory?

Interesting question, Pat.  I have no idea.  I have heard that women and blacks are cheap tippers, compared to white men, and I have some theories about that, but I have no theory about teachers.

Could it be that most of them never worked in a situation in which they depended upon tips?  Could be, but many other people fall into that category too.

It could be a minimalist mentality that some teachers acquire that leads them to get as much as they can get, while giving as little as they can get away with.  That would apply to plenty of other professions too, though.

[angus]

Lots going on here. 

First to frodo, as an unimportant aside, folks don't usually use the word "conservationist" in that form when talking about springs and bowstrings and such, but they do use it in the form "conservative"  And it brings up a larger point.  One scientist can look at another and ask the question, "...so, how do you discriminate between particles of the same mass but with different quadrupole moments?"  Or something like that.  Now, the word discriminate is one of those emotionally charged words.  Like socialism, racism, abortion, masturbate, anal, penis, and the like.  Some words just make people giggle, or  get angry.  Anyway, I'm all about being conservative, in the true sense of the word, and I get very offended when some folks call call Repbulicans conservative when clearly many of them are on spending sprees unparalleled.  Similarly, I get even more angry at the thought of the word liberal being applied to anything the Democrats come up with (solely by virtue of the fact that the democrats are coming up with them) when some of their ideas are about as illiberal (and quite frankly authoritarian) as anyone can imagine.  Well, anyway, this phenomenon has been posted about ad infinitum, and I think most folks recognize spending two billion dollars to oust a 3rd rate, 3rd world dictator hardly qualifies as conservative, just as most folks recognize that added bureaucracy and regulation is hardly liberal.  But then language evolves, and I can accept that.  If, for the purpose of this debate, you want racist to mean exactly what it says under the first entry in Merriam-Webster's 2006 Dictionary of American Standard English, which is something like "...a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race..." then I'll concede that point.  After all, any debate depends on defining terms.  And of course, in that case it is still clear that both statements are racist by the agreed-upon definition.  My rant has more to do with my "take our language back" quest than with anything specific you typed.  You're just a victim of the DNC and its thought control via language control.


Patrick, that deserves its own thread, full of amusing anecdotes, theories, tales of brushes with third-world police, the priority of books and drugs over food, and such.  But the short answer is that any job that requires that you have a PhD is a also a job that required that you extend your adolescence and poverty into at least your late 20s.  For example, my first postdoctoral position paid about 75 grand, which was considerably better than the 18K per year stipend (plus tuition) I got from the NSF for studying at BU, but I still looked for a Dollar Tree, the Farmer's vegetable market, and bought most of my beef, pork, and corn tortillas at the Mexican store after I moved 3200 miles across the country to accept this job.  In fact, except for buying a nice German car, I didn't splurge at all.  I'd go on vacations in other countries, have a good time, but still stay in four-dollar-a-night hovels just like I did in graduate school.  Why?  I guess that after a lifetime of eating Raman noodles and letting your date pay your way at the movies, etc., because you simply have no money, you just get used to the idea of living on the cheap.

[patrick1]

I also am a really lousy tipper. 
. 

I realize this outside the bounds of this thread but  Why are teachers as a rule cheap on the tips?  I have worked at bar, restaurant, beach club and the teacher was always denigrated as a skin-flint.  Half of my buddies became teachers and they are all cheap.  Wage does not have anything to do with it because I know plenty of people who make less who tip more.  Sorry for the tangent..  I'm curious.  Theory?

Interesting question, Pat.  I have no idea.  I have heard that women and blacks are cheap tippers, compared to white men, and I have some theories about that, but I have no theory about teachers.

Could it be that most of them never worked in a situation in which they depended upon tips?  Could be, but many other people fall into that category too.

It could be a minimalist mentality that some teachers acquire that leads them to get as much as they can get, while giving as little as they can get away with.  That would apply to plenty of other professions too, though.

I think it might be that teachers think they are doing a job more redeemable than most.  Cops are also cheap-generally speaking.   
Reading angus, My question wasn't really about phd's- it is people with the entry level masters degrees. The 24 y.o all piss and vinegar to spread their ideas.   I think there is a correlation between civil service and tightnes

[angus]

you're talking about public school teachers?  I did that too, for two years, a long long time ago.  I can tell you that they're not so much cheap as poor.  There's a difference.  Here's when I really offend you and dazzleman, being as how you're serious hardcore republicans:  most of those teachers are underpaid.  That's just the way it is.  They're broke all the time, so they don't spend much. 

[patrick1]

you're talking about public school teachers?  I did that too, for two years, a long long time ago.  I can tell you that they're not so much cheap as poor.  There's a difference.  Here's when I really offend you and dazzleman, being as how you're serious hardcore republicans:  most of those teachers are underpaid.  That's just the way it is.  They're broke all the time, so they don't spend much. 

Sure most teachers should be paid more.   However, many of my buddies make near $100,000 and are still cheap.  Further, I am not a hardcore repub.

[Beet]

Lots going on here.

Indeed. I'll just assume you're drunk and looking for an argument. The rest of your post simply wasn't worth responding to.

[angus]

LOL.  I guess I deserved the comeback.  truthfully, I'm pretty drunk about this time every night.  But that's not the problem.  It's just that I had the all you can eat Indian buffet today.  Too much naan, saag paneer, and chicken vindaloo.  Funny thing, I can eat oily, salty chinese pork all day every day, no problem.  But Indian always sets me back about half a day to a day even.  There must be a physical reason, but I don't know what it is.  Though I did see a chemistry seminar on Curcumin (a component of the Tumeric plant) last week and its purported effect on Alzheimer's disease prevention.  I guess I can trade the pleasure of twice daily evacuation for the longevity of my mind's independence.  You might say I'm "conserving" matter.  Hard to be clever while bloated and stiff.  No worries, I always start my day with a pot of strong french-roasted, turkish grind, African AA.  (I may be cheap about most things, but I drink good, rich coffee and always buy plush, high-quality tissue.  some things are just too important to skimp on.)  I'll be back in the saddle by about 9 am, and ready to rant.

[Beet]

LOL.  I guess I deserved the comeback.  truthfully, I'm pretty drunk about this time every night.  But that's not the problem.  It's just that I had the all you can eat Indian buffet today.  Too much naan, saag paneer, and chicken vindaloo.  Funny thing, I can eat oily, salty chinese pork all day every day, no problem.  But Indian always sets me back about half a day to a day even.  There must be a physical reason, but I don't know what it is.  Though I did see a chemistry seminar on Curcumin (a component of the Tumeric plant) last week and its purported effect on Alzheimer's disease prevention.  I guess I can trade the pleasure of twice daily evacuation for the longevity of my mind's independence.  You might say I'm "conserving" matter.  Hard to be clever while bloated and stiff.  No worries, I always start my day with a pot of strong french-roasted, turkish grind, African AA.  (I may be cheap about most things, but I drink good, rich coffee and always buy plush, high-quality tissue.  some things are just too important to skimp on.)  I'll be back in the saddle by about 9 am, and ready to rant.

That's alright, angus, it's an interesting topic you bring up, and even when you're combative you're interesting. That's all that matters, eh? I'm sure when Lewis gets here he'll say something sensible.

Like don't forget to eat right.