Oops, I guess I wasn't being clear. I simply meant I've met a lot of people who have deep-seated suspicions about the medical establishment in this country, and its a suspicion that is likely rooted in historic events. I was talking about a mentality, not the technicalities and differences between the 80's and the 30's-70's. And yes, Wright is trying to create links between the two in order to energize his rhetoric/agenda.

I was just reading about Wright's whole (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'Black people think differently, clap differently, right brain vs left brain, have different and superior brains, etc'.

I mean, really?

I met a guy one time who was doing a study about brain size and intelligence levels and found that the children he was studying from Africa actually had smaller brains.

I politely looked at him and nodded and then kept about doing my work.

There are all sorts of factors that can affect brain size. Essentially the root of his research was that there was a difference in head size and potential intelligence based on racial lines. It was interesting but really useless research I think.

Men's brains have been shown to be larger and contain more white matter than women's brains. Men also tend to have more specialized brains, where women have a bigger connection between hemispheres and tend to not specialize.

To my knowledge, there has never been any significant difference between the brain structure of people of different races. There are many differences in the way people of different CULTURES think, but that is a product of the culture you grow up in, and not related to brain structure.

To answer your question, yes, malnutrition can have pronounced effects on children's development in multiple facets, including brain development, starting at conception.

The male and female brains are actually different in a lot of ways. Men also have greater focal acuity in the front portion of their line of site and notice movement quicker while women have greater peripheral vision. Basically men "make up" more of what we see in our field of vision due to decreased peripheral vision ("make up" in the sense that the brain does not receive specific images but adapts what is sees based on a complicated system of processes). Women also have better olfactory senses.

Men's brains also tend to be bigger toward the rear portion of the brain which controls your bodily functions (the cerebellum) while womens tend to be larger toward the front.

Can you give us the Reader's Digest version for those of us that can't get video at work.

Well done Obama, it needed to be said, and you did it perfectly. It was everything I had asked for and more, you were believable, your position was understandable, and I agree with everything you said 100%.

I can happily say I can now continue to consider you for my vote, and I look forward to the debates between you and Sen. McCain, assuming you get the nomination.

Here's what he said:

I'm outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday. I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992 and have known Jeremiah Wright for almost 22 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but they also give comfort to those that prey on hate and I believe they do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. They certainly do not accurately portray my values and beliefs. If Reverend Wright thinks that is political posturing on my part, he does not know me very well.


I have already denounced those comments that have come out of these previous sermons. I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church, has built a wonderful conversation. They are a wonderful people and what attracted me has always been the ministries reach beyond church walls. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions, that the U.S. government is involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Louis Farrakhan represents one of the greatest voices of the 21st century, when he equates the United States' wartime effort with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightfully offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. That is what I am doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.


I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That's in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That's who I am, that's what I believe, and that's what this campaign has been about.

First, thanks Groucho for posting that!

Second, damn, now that was a good response. I'm wavering I have to admit. I'm really starting to like Obama a little more right now.

Thanks Groucho (I am in class, and could not listen).

Great response

Going along with what Loyal said, you don't get the full shabang via the transcript, watch the video when you get a chance.

Wright aint that nuts, he speaks a bit sense. One of the quotes i read of was him saying something like "Goddamn America", which was taken out of context - he followed on by saying "Goddamn America for killing inoocent people" which is absolutely correct. Rev Wright is the man.

The man is a conspiracy theoriest and an idiot, I'm sorry. So no, God don't damn America, damn "Rev." Wright.

nah, he was dancing an everything.

Though seriously he should have kept his mouth shut till after Obama got the presidency, but seeing as Obama basicly threw him under a bus - he can vent a bit.

He's ("Rev. Wright") is still an idiot no matter which way you spin it.

"seeing as Obama basicly threw him under a bus"

Okay, I'm not heavily into Obama but this is just not fair in the slightest. What all the pundits of CNN, MSNBC, and many other news stations (not Fox news, I don't watch that) have been repeating over and over is that when this first started way back when Obama should have unequivocally distanced himself from Wright and cut all ties.

Obama didn't do that but instead said that while Wright's statements were certainly not the nicest things to say they were understandable and while Obama disagreed with them it wasn't something Obama would denounce Wright for. Obama did anything but throw Wright under a bus and all the flack Wright is getting now he deserves.

Wright's whole performance at Monday's press event was sickening. He was clearly in it for himself and could not have cared less about the damage his statements would do to Obama's campaign.

The fact that something like this could/did seriously damage Obama's electability among genius Americans is just another example of how the US seems hell-bent on setting up shop in the rut we've found ourselves in.

If McCain ends up winning the election I'm seriously moving elsewhere. There's no way I can take 4 more years of Bush-like policies and "thought" processes.

Exactly, Wright could have just stepped aside now and continued preaching. Instead, he decided to make a spectacle. He got his 15 minutes of fame and now he is reveling in it, making himself look like an idiot (or maybe just exposing the truth about his own character). It really is going to become a circus, but I'm pretty sure Obama can weather it.

Malcolm, on a side note...your signature...for real?

Yes, 100% for real. I had it for less than 12 hours before it was taken down. Yay.

As for the "best" part of Wright's show, I thought it was especially telling when he said that one of the reasons he was speaking out was because he's not running for office and he doesn't answer to politicians but he's been running for Jesus for years and he answers to god so he had to set the record straight.

Going by his own statements, why would he need a press conference (a few of them and an interview and who know what book deals are coming) to set the record straight to his god? I'd imagine that just continuing to preach to the people at his church and living his life according to how he thinks this god character wants him to would be more than enough.

I guess his god makes the who's naughty and nice decisions based on press conferences and interviews alone.

My guess is he is unhappy with Obama's reaction and wanted to get back somehow with he same media that lambasted him.

Personally I have not been able to accept Obama's responses myself except when he says that he is my pastor and not me. I don't care who is pastor is really and I feel this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I have my issues with Obama but this is not it. I don't feel he need a full out condemnation of Obama, In fact I respected him for going to a church like that because it showed that he was listening to major concerns real and imaginary of the people in his community.

However he should of known this was going to come and preempt like he did the whole cocaine thing because then few would of cared however his last 2 speeches on wright sounded like campaign speeches.

It is almost impossible to catch HIV orally.

Well the hypothesis is that it mutated from a contamination with SIV (which leads to Simian Aids) because Green Monkeys were commonly used to harvest the Polio virus cells used in the vaccines.

What it doesn't account for is how two separate vaccine trials both would suddenly have the same result (Hepatitis B in NYC and Polio in Africa) in a radical new virus. I just don't buy that. Plus, how do they account for the fact that HIV was noted in SF, LA and NYC in near succession?

I mean, it is an interesting theory Loyal but I'm not sold at all.

Not really, not if your mouth has an open sore and/or bleeding gums.

Plus if you can get pregnant from kissing (like my Mum says), I don't see why you can't catch AIDS from it as well.

Even if you have an open sore, it is not that easy (provided you are only swapping saliva). The amount of virus contained within saliva is pretty small and acids in the saliva also prevent some transfer.

Jeff is right. Even with open sores the chances of contracting HIV through the mouth is very very low like in the 1-10,000 range maybe even lower it is so rare it isn't even considered a real risk. I used to do part time conseuling in SF for HIV testing. I still am somewhat involved with the Project T group which is a potential for a prophylatic in pill form.


For instances the chances of a man catching HIV from vaginal sex is 1 in 50 to 1 in 300 depending on strand and viral load. In cases where sero mixed couples take medication properly and the viral load is undetectable the chances of catching it are almost 0 in fact in Sweden has announced that within its own country sero mixed couples who are on medication can have unprotected sex provided they continue following proper care and testing.

Even for things like introvenous drug use and receptive sex the numbers are lower. For instance depending on strain and viral load once again unprotected sex only yeilds about 1 in 10 to 1 in 50 rates. Compared to Hep A,B,C which is closer to 30%.

Introvenous drug use is around 8% when sharing needles with an infected person and Blood Transfusion is even around 15% and that is the highest risk type.


However other things such as circusium and coinfection like contracting Hep C and HIV at the same time have dramatic effects on the rates of which HIV spread. Coinfection (Hepatitus, Herpes) raises these numbers to around 30% while circusium reduces the chance of catching it. Conditions like Hemophylia andopen sores around genital areas increase the chance as well.

as for the mouth the virus is found in salvia however the mouth has a lot of defenses ports to cells close alll the time at the sign of any foreign objects air is usually mixed in with most entry vectors and that kills the virus on contacted. High acid levels also kills the virus and immune cells that do not reenter the body also exit there and can kill the virus. Anything that does manage to get in is miniscule as it takes a certain number of viruses to transfer for an infection to hold.

Of course remember it only takes once.