> So, with that in mind. Here's a lovely picture of a kitten.
> http://www.plvet.co.uk/project/uploaded-media/kitten-big.jpg

> I dont know if it will help, but, it can't hurt.

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There are non-elite non-scientists who get published and supported.  It's
>> not common, but it does happen.  Steve McIntyre is a fine example, he's
>> been published and has shaken up an entire field:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

>> Heck, to your point, Pete's gotten published.  So I guess he's "elite".
>> We certainly think so...

>> But yes, as a general rule, people who play the game to better than those
>> who don't.  But there's room for non-conformists as well.

>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I understand that. Who gets published though? Who gets all the big
>>> awards? I think you know...

>>> On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Look, for any position, be it on nutrition or anything else, you will
>>> > find scientists who hold one point of view, and plenty of others who
>>> > hold polar opposite points of view. And yes, this occurs very commonly
>>> > among scientists at your "elite" institutions. Heck, even scientists
>>> > who share offices next door to each other often barely even talk to
>>> > one another because they disagree so much, and this occurs even more
>>> > commonly at more prestigious institutions!

>>> > On Jun 8, 11:32 am, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> > > It's amazing to me how this group can be so critical of Pose for it's
>>> > > misuse of gravity, yet when Lieberman makes the claim that we evolved
>>> > > to be coerced by government, this group provides no critical analysis
>>> > > of that statement. Just rolls along, business as usual. WE EVOLVED TO
>>> > > BE COERCED BY GOVERNMENT.

>>> > > So let me get this straight, according to this group, I should be
>>> > > extremely skeptical of Dr. Romanov who is likely a snake oil salesman
>>> > > and just wants my money.

>>> > > On the other hand, I should not be skeptical of the government, who
>>> > > basically takes my money at gunpoint.

>>> > > Why is it ok for the government and Lieberman to use pseudo science
>>> to
>>> > > push an agenda but not running coaches? And let's be clear, saying we
>>> > > EVOLVED to be coerced by government is the epitome of pseudo science.

>>> > > You guys sure can be like 5 year olds when they find out santa isn't
>>> > > real.

>>> > > On Jun 8, 11:26 am, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> > > > Sure...it can be cute to make jokes. The simple fact is you are
>>> not a
>>> > > > scientist at an elite university. You must have missed the point
>>> about
>>> > > > the *elite* being in bed with the government. Oh but wait, you've
>>> met
>>> > > > people from these elite universities and they seem nice, so it all
>>> > > > must be a big joke. No corruption, no conspiracy, no fraud. That
>>> stuff
>>> > > > isn't real, because Pete Larson is an independent scientist with
>>> > > > integrity.  Please wake up because making jokes and playing things
>>> off
>>> > > > like its a big conspiracy doesn't help things. That is of course,
>>> > > > unless you like the government controlling every aspect of you and
>>> > > > especially your kids life.

>>> > > > Hey, according to Lieberman we should focus these bans and laws on
>>> > > > children. After all, society agrees that parents can't make
>>> > > > responsible decisions for their kids...right?

>>> > > > On Jun 8, 11:06 am, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> > > > > My government minders have informed me that I may no longer post
>>> on
>>> > > > > this thread. But, Tuck, I needed to thank you for providing me
>>> some
>>> > > > > blog fodder with those Vibram dog shoes!

>>> > > > > On Jun 8, 10:36 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> > > > > > This is hilarious...

>>> > > > > > "So, you’ve determined your dog does needs boots. You head to
>>> the store (or
>>> > > > > > order them online), open the box, call your dog over, and
>>> reluctantly they
>>> > > > > > hand over a paw as you outfit them in their new boots. And
>>> then…the boot
>>> > > > > > dance. You know, the paw shaking, high-stepping, boot
>>> > > > > > dance<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmVcncZLZxU>
>>> > > > > > ."

>>> http://dogblog.ruffwear.net/2009/12/01/avoid-the-dog-boot-dance/

>>> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > > > Bad news, dude:

>>> > > > > > >http://www.vibram.us/pet_products/

>>> > > > > > >http://www.ruffwear.com/Barkn-Boots-Grip-Trex_3

>>> > > > > > > Could be next week...

>>> > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Owen Bowers Adams <
>>> morga...@gmail.com>wrote:

>>> > > > > > >> 30 years time and we'll be seeing the vibram five finger
>>> equivalent for
>>> > > > > > >> dogs .

>>> > > > > > >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>> > > > > > >>> LOL.  At least they're trying to be logically consistent...

>>> > > > > > >>> We've had this discussion in the past.  If you walk your
>>> dog in an area
>>> > > > > > >>> where they use a lot of salt on the streets (like NYC),
>>> you should use
>>> > > > > > >>> booties, as the salt will cause the dog's foot-pads to
>>> crack.  Dog-sled
>>> > > > > > >>> racers also use booties to protect the dogs' foot-pads
>>> from ice crystals.
>>> > > > > > >>> Some of the breeds that they use for dog-sled racing
>>> aren't 100% nordic
>>> > > > > > >>> breeds, and don't have the adaptation that a 100% nordic
>>> breed does.

>>> > > > > > >>> So there are some cases where they're called for.  And
>>> those look like
>>> > > > > > >>> pretty non-supportive, moccasin-style booties.

>>> > > > > > >>> You can safely stay for a bit longer... When you start
>>> seeing people
>>> > > > > > >>> talk about arch support for their dogs, leave and I'll go
>>> with you. :)

>>> > > > > > >>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Owen Bowers Adams <
>>> morga...@gmail.com>wrote:

>>> > > > > > >>>> I think it's time to find a new planet.

>>> https://currentinstinct.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/dogs-in-sneakers.jpg

>>> > > > > > >>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>> > > > > > >>>>> "And Tuck, don't let Nike find out about your barefoot
>>> dog."

>>> > > > > > >>>>> Mum's the word.  Better take those pictures of Facebook,
>>> I guess... :)

>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 9:55 AM, RHH <
>>> rhagenst...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Much of the discussion here has been inane.  There is a
>>> difference
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> between science and policy.  The former is supposed to
>>> greatly inform the
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> latter, but rarely does.  There is excellence in
>>> science and there is poor
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> practice in science (just like medicine, law,
>>> architecture, etc.).  I have
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> seen phenomenal science coming out of government
>>> agencies and incredibly
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> weak science coming out of universities.  I have seen
>>> excellent science
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> coming from profit-driven corporations and
>>> values-driven "science" coming
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> out of independent institutions (and vise versa).
>>>  Blanket statements about
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> the scientific community, about the government, etc.
>>> don't advance our
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> thinking and discourse any more than blanket statements
>>> do about how all
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> blacks behave, or generalizations about lawyers or
>>> preachers or whatever.

>>> > > > > > >>>>>> And Tuck, don't let Nike find out about your barefoot
>>> dog.  Four feet
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> hitting the dangerous ground represents twice the
>>> market that you do.  They
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> will have your dog in pronation control, shock
>>> absorbing, orthotically
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> enhanced shoes in the blink of an eye.  That'll improve
>>> the pup's gait for
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> sure.

>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Rand

>>> > > > > > >>>>>> --
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."
>>>  hosted by Barefoot
>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Ted

>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Membership Options:
>>> > > > > > >>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

>>> > > > > > >>>>> --
>>> > > > > > >>>>> _________________________________
>>> > > > > > >>>>> Tucker

>>> > > > > > >>>>>  --
>>> > > > > > >>>>> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted
>>> by Barefoot
>>> > > > > > >>>>> Ted

>>> > > > > > >>>>> Membership Options:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

>>> > > > > > >>>>  --
>>> > > > > > >>>> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..." hosted
>>> by Barefoot Ted

>>> > > > > > >>>> Membership Options:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

>>> > > > > > >>> --
>>> > > > > > >>> _________________________________
>>> > > > > > >>> Tucker

> No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There are
> other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
> endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
> climate-change forum, or anything else.

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> > " " how much soda you can drink
> > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> > " " regulates salt intake
> > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
> > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
> > us about the environment
> > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
> > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
> > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> > instantly decimate the environment)
> > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
> > families

> > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> > And I'm aggressive???

> > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while your
> > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the point of
> > being
> > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with you.

> > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy nut,
> > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends who is a
> > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
> > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all slaves
> > > etc etc):

> > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

> > --
> > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> --
> _________________________________
> Tucker

> And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> government mandates.

> On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "And I'm aggressive???"

> > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
> are
> > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
> > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
> > climate-change forum, or anything else.

> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> > > " " how much soda you can drink
> > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> > > " " regulates salt intake
> > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
> > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
> > > us about the environment
> > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
> > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
> > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> > > instantly decimate the environment)
> > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
> > > families

> > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> > > And I'm aggressive???

> > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
> your
> > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the point
> of
> > > being
> > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
> you.

> > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
> nut,
> > > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends who
> is a
> > > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
> > > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
> slaves
> > > > etc etc):

> > > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

> > > --
> > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
> Ted

> > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> > --
> > _________________________________
> > Tucker

> --
> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

> Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
> need coercion"..."

> Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I hope
> he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving in
> that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future is
> most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > government mandates.

> > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "And I'm aggressive???"

> > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
> > are
> > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> > > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
> > > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
> > > climate-change forum, or anything else.

> > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> > > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> > > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> > > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> > > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> > > > " " how much soda you can drink
> > > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> > > > " " regulates salt intake
> > > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
> > > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> > > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> > > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
> > > > us about the environment
> > > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
> > > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
> > > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> > > > instantly decimate the environment)
> > > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
> > > > families

> > > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> > > > And I'm aggressive???

> > > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
> > your
> > > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the point
> > of
> > > > being
> > > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
> > you.

> > > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
> > nut,
> > > > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends who
> > is a
> > > > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
> > > > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
> > slaves
> > > > > etc etc):

> > > > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

> > > > --
> > > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
> > Ted

> > > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> > > --
> > > _________________________________
> > > Tucker

> > --
> > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> --
> _________________________________
> Tucker

> Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
> simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
> more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
> don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
> saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

> Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
> in those shoes?
> Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
> that stuff?
> Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
> Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

> What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

> "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
> Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
> increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
> coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
> technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
> evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
> not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
> that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

> Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
> understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
> with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
> eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
> WEAKER, not stronger.

> On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
> > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also discuss
> > all the time.

> > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
> > need coercion"..."

> > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I hope
> > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving in
> > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future is
> > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> > > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > > government mandates.

> > > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "And I'm aggressive???"

> > > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
> > > are
> > > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> > > > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
> > > > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
> > > > climate-change forum, or anything else.

> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> > > > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> > > > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> > > > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> > > > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> > > > > " " how much soda you can drink
> > > > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> > > > > " " regulates salt intake
> > > > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
> > > > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> > > > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> > > > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
> > > > > us about the environment
> > > > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
> > > > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
> > > > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> > > > > instantly decimate the environment)
> > > > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
> > > > > families

> > > > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> > > > > And I'm aggressive???

> > > > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
> > > your
> > > > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the point
> > > of
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
> > > you.

> > > > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
> > > nut,
> > > > > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends who
> > > is a
> > > > > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
> > > > > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
> > > slaves
> > > > > > etc etc):

> > > > > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

> > > > > --
> > > > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
> > > Ted

> > > > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> > > > --
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > Tucker

> > > --
> > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

> > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> > --
> > _________________________________
> > Tucker

> Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
> simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
> more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
> don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
> saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

> Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
> in those shoes?
> Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
> that stuff?
> Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
> Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

> What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

> "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
> Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
> increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
> coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
> technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
> evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
> not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
> that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

> Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
> understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
> with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
> eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
> WEAKER, not stronger.

> On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
> > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also discuss
> > all the time.

> > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
> > need coercion"..."

> > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I
> hope
> > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving in
> > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future
> is
> > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> > > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > > government mandates.

> > > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "And I'm aggressive???"

> > > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.
>  There
> > > are
> > > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> > > > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in
> that
> > > > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum,
> or a
> > > > climate-change forum, or anything else.

> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> > > > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> > > > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> > > > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> > > > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> > > > > " " how much soda you can drink
> > > > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> > > > > " " regulates salt intake
> > > > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of
> tonkin
> > > > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> > > > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> > > > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then
> lectures
> > > > > us about the environment
> > > > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to
> pay
> > > > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is
> fine
> > > > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> > > > > instantly decimate the environment)
> > > > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich
> banking
> > > > > families

> > > > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> > > > > And I'm aggressive???

> > > > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because
> while
> > > your
> > > > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the
> point
> > > of
> > > > > being
> > > > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it
> with
> > > you.

> > > > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a
> conspiracy
> > > nut,
> > > > > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends
> who
> > > is a
> > > > > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati
> run
> > > > > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
> > > slaves
> > > > > > etc etc):

> > > > > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

> > > > > --
> > > > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by
> Barefoot
> > > Ted

> > > > > Membership Options:
> http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> > > > --
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > Tucker

> > > --
> > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
> Ted

> > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> > --
> > _________________________________
> > Tucker

> --
> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

> Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> Pete posted it because it was about diet and Lieberman.  But, as you
> observe, you wouldn't know that cause you're not an old-timer here.  That's
> fine, no harm.
> ""We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?"

> Ask all the hunter-gatherers who didn't need a government.  Oh, that's
> right, you can't.  They're almost all dead.

> "There's a long-standing debate in the anthropology community over how
> agriculture spread throughout Europe. One camp proposes that agriculture
> spread by a cultural route, and that European hunter-gatherers simply
> settled down and began planting grains. The other camp suggests that
> European hunter-gatherers were replaced (totally or partially) by waves of
> agriculturalist immigrants from the Middle East that were culturally and
> genetically better adapted to the agricultural diet and lifestyle."

> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-otzi-european-ev...

> (See, even tied that back into diet, so we could stay at least somewhat
> OT. :)

> That lifestyle includes a large, coercive government.

> We had a discussion a while ago about persistance hunting.  This is likely
> the behavior that led people to being what we are today, and also led to
> the extinction of most of the large mammals on earth.  It's how we evolved
> as runners.

> Persistence hunters didn't have governments, they didn't need anything
> more than a chief of their tribe.  There are, today, a handful of
> persitence hunters.  They've been, to use a round number, 100% replaced by
> agriculturalists with coercive governments.

> I don't like it, but them's the facts.
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Ok, not going to argue on what the group does and doesn't discuss. I'm
>> a random visitor/poster...don't follow all the topics. My Only point
>> there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an article
>> about politics, so I talked politics. Personally, I find it
>> fascinating and despite me being over the top, I do respect the
>> opinions put forth here. Also, I don't really care about talking about
>> the actual politics, I want to analyze the claim "we evolved to need
>> coercion" with "by government" heavily implied in the article.

>> Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
>> simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
>> more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
>> don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
>> saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

>> Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
>> in those shoes?
>> Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
>> that stuff?
>> Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
>> Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

>> What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

>> "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
>> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
>> Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
>> increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
>> coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
>> technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
>> evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
>> not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
>> that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

>> Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
>> understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
>> with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
>> eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
>> WEAKER, not stronger.

>> On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
>> > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
>> > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also discuss
>> > all the time.

>> > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
>> > need coercion"..."

>> > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I
>> hope
>> > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving in
>> > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future
>> is
>> > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
>> > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
>> > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
>> > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
>> > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

>> > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
>> > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
>> > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

>> > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
>> > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
>> > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
>> > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
>> > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
>> > > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
>> > > government mandates.

>> > > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > "And I'm aggressive???"

>> > > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.
>>  There
>> > > are
>> > > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list
>> to
>> > > > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in
>> that
>> > > > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum,
>> or a
>> > > > climate-change forum, or anything else.

>> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
>> > > > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

>> > > > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
>> > > > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
>> > > > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
>> > > > > " " how much soda you can drink
>> > > > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
>> > > > > " " regulates salt intake
>> > > > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of
>> tonkin
>> > > > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
>> > > > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much
>> soda
>> > > > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then
>> lectures
>> > > > > us about the environment
>> > > > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people
>> to pay
>> > > > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is
>> fine
>> > > > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
>> > > > > instantly decimate the environment)
>> > > > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich
>> banking
>> > > > > families

>> > > > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

>> > > > > And I'm aggressive???

>> > > > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because
>> while
>> > > your
>> > > > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the
>> point
>> > > of
>> > > > > being
>> > > > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it
>> with
>> > > you.

>> > > > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a
>> conspiracy
>> > > nut,

> "Before these stories appeared we had years and decades of sleek official
> spokespeople telling us that “science” tells us that salt is bad. New
> Yorkers can thank their stars that Mayor Bloomberg hadn’t gotten around to
> salt prohibition before the new studies appeared. It’s even possible that,
> a few decades hence, we’ll be reading similar pieces in the *Times* about
> how the calamitous predictions of the shrillest of climate change activists
> similarly “do not reflect what the science shows.”"

> http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/08/ny-times-unsett...

> I thought you might take some comfort in knowing that even the elites are
> pissed off that the elites have screwed up the science.  The author of that
> bit is a liberal democrat, and would probably admit himself that he's part
> of the "power elite":

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Russell_Mead
> Oh yeah, and Taubes wrote his first bit about how salt isn't bad for you
> in 1998:

> http://yelling-stop.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-time-to-end-war-on-salt....

> You're right, in that a lot of this is about control, as politicians need
> something to scare you with so that you'll cede power to them.  But it's
> not nearly as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "Only point there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an
>> article about politics, so I talked politics."

>> Pete posted it because it was about diet and Lieberman.  But, as you
>> observe, you wouldn't know that cause you're not an old-timer here.  That's
>> fine, no harm.
>> ""We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
>> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?"

>> Ask all the hunter-gatherers who didn't need a government.  Oh, that's
>> right, you can't.  They're almost all dead.

>> "There's a long-standing debate in the anthropology community over how
>> agriculture spread throughout Europe. One camp proposes that agriculture
>> spread by a cultural route, and that European hunter-gatherers simply
>> settled down and began planting grains. The other camp suggests that
>> European hunter-gatherers were replaced (totally or partially) by waves of
>> agriculturalist immigrants from the Middle East that were culturally and
>> genetically better adapted to the agricultural diet and lifestyle."

>> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-otzi-european-ev...

>> (See, even tied that back into diet, so we could stay at least somewhat
>> OT. :)

>> That lifestyle includes a large, coercive government.

>> We had a discussion a while ago about persistance hunting.  This is
>> likely the behavior that led people to being what we are today, and also
>> led to the extinction of most of the large mammals on earth.  It's how we
>> evolved as runners.

>> Persistence hunters didn't have governments, they didn't need anything
>> more than a chief of their tribe.  There are, today, a handful of
>> persitence hunters.  They've been, to use a round number, 100% replaced by
>> agriculturalists with coercive governments.

>> I don't like it, but them's the facts.
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Ok, not going to argue on what the group does and doesn't discuss. I'm
>>> a random visitor/poster...don't follow all the topics. My Only point
>>> there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an article
>>> about politics, so I talked politics. Personally, I find it
>>> fascinating and despite me being over the top, I do respect the
>>> opinions put forth here. Also, I don't really care about talking about
>>> the actual politics, I want to analyze the claim "we evolved to need
>>> coercion" with "by government" heavily implied in the article.

>>> Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
>>> simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
>>> more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
>>> don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
>>> saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

>>> Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
>>> in those shoes?
>>> Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
>>> that stuff?
>>> Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
>>> Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

>>> What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

>>> "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
>>> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
>>> Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
>>> increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
>>> coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
>>> technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
>>> evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
>>> not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
>>> that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

>>> Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
>>> understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
>>> with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
>>> eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
>>> WEAKER, not stronger.

>>> On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
>>> > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
>>> > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also
>>> discuss
>>> > all the time.

>>> > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved
>>> to
>>> > need coercion"..."

>>> > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I
>>> hope
>>> > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving
>>> in
>>> > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our
>>> future is
>>> > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

>>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is
>>> obviously
>>> > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
>>> > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want
>>> to
>>> > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
>>> > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

>>> > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
>>> > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
>>> > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

>>> > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
>>> > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
>>> > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
>>> > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
>>> > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
>>> > > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
>>> > > government mandates.

>>> > > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > "And I'm aggressive???"

>>> > > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.
>>>  There
>>> > > are
>>> > > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list
>>> to
>>> > > > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in
>>> that
>>> > > > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum,
>>> or a
>>> > > > climate-change forum, or anything else.

>>> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
>>> > > > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

>>> > > > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for
>>> lunch
>>> > > > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
>>> > > > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be
>>> vaccinated
>>> > > > > " " how much soda you can drink
>>> > > > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
>>> > > > > " " regulates salt intake
>>> > > > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of
>>> tonkin
>>> > > > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
>>> > > > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much
>>> soda
>>> > > > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then
>>> lectures
>>> > > > > us about the environment
>>> > > > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people
>>> to pay
>>> > > > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is
>>> fine
>>> > > > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
>>> > > > > instantly decimate the environment)
>>> > > > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich
>>> banking
>>> > > > > families

>>> > > > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

>>> > > > > And I'm aggressive???

>>> > > > > On Jun 8,

> Pete posted it because it was about diet and Lieberman.  But, as you
> observe, you wouldn't know that cause you're not an old-timer here.  That's
> fine, no harm.

> http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/08/ny-times-unsett...
> ""We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?"

> Ask all the hunter-gatherers who didn't need a government.  Oh, that's
> right, you can't.  They're almost all dead.

> "There's a long-standing debate in the anthropology community over how
> agriculture spread throughout Europe. One camp proposes that agriculture
> spread by a cultural route, and that European hunter-gatherers simply
> settled down and began planting grains. The other camp suggests that
> European hunter-gatherers were replaced (totally or partially) by waves of
> agriculturalist immigrants from the Middle East that were culturally and
> genetically better adapted to the agricultural diet and lifestyle."

> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-otzi-european-ev...

> (See, even tied that back into diet, so we could stay at least somewhat OT.
> :)

> That lifestyle includes a large, coercive government.

> We had a discussion a while ago about persistance hunting.  This is likely
> the behavior that led people to being what we are today, and also led to
> the extinction of most of the large mammals on earth.  It's how we evolved
> as runners.

> Persistence hunters didn't have governments, they didn't need anything more
> than a chief of their tribe.  There are, today, a handful of persitence
> hunters.  They've been, to use a round number, 100% replaced by
> agriculturalists with coercive governments.

> I don't like it, but them's the facts.

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok, not going to argue on what the group does and doesn't discuss. I'm
> > a random visitor/poster...don't follow all the topics. My Only point
> > there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an article
> > about politics, so I talked politics. Personally, I find it
> > fascinating and despite me being over the top, I do respect the
> > opinions put forth here. Also, I don't really care about talking about
> > the actual politics, I want to analyze the claim "we evolved to need
> > coercion" with "by government" heavily implied in the article.

> > Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
> > simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
> > more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
> > don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
> > saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

> > Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
> > in those shoes?
> > Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
> > that stuff?
> > Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
> > Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

> > What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

> > "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> > government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
> > Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
> > increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
> > coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
> > technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
> > evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
> > not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
> > that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

> > Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
> > understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
> > with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
> > eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
> > WEAKER, not stronger.

> > On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> > > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
> > > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also discuss
> > > all the time.

> > > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
> > > need coercion"..."

> > > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I
> > hope
> > > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving in
> > > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future
> > is
> > > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> > > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> > > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> > > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> > > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> > > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> > > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> > > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> > > > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > > > government mandates.

> > > > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > "And I'm aggressive???"

> > > > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.
> >  There
> > > > are
> > > > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> > > > > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in
> > that
> > > > > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum,
> > or a
> > > > > climate-change forum, or anything else.

> > > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> > > > > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> > > > > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> > > > > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> > > > > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> > > > > > " " how much soda you can drink
> > > > > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> > > > > > " " regulates salt intake
> > > > > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of
> > tonkin
> > > > > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> > > > > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> > > > > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then
> > lectures
> > > > > > us about the environment
> > > > > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to
> > pay
> > > > > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is
> > fine
> > > > > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> > > > > > instantly decimate the environment)
> > > > > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich
> > banking
> > > > > > families

> > > > > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> > > > > > And I'm aggressive???

> > > > > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe

> "In grade school I listened to green day and nirvana but since then my
> musical tastes have evolved"

> Scientific evolution would mean there are measurable traits that have
> developed in our species. For example with running we have the
> achilles, the arch and other things people point to as evidence that
> we evolved to run.

> What I'm trying to understand is *how* we evolved to be coerced by
> government. What are the traits we possess that indicate we evolved to
> be coerced? Did someone study the brain and find that our ability to
> think critically is getting worse (wouldn't be surprised). Is our
> ability to make decisions for ourselves getting more and more limited?
> Or better yet, is our ability to take marching orders from the gov
> getting better? I understand we evolved to work together in groups and
> help each other. It's a huge leap to say we evolved to be forced into
> things by government.

> As you note in your blog, this is a very slippery slope. I personally
> don't buy that we evolved to be coerced by government. I think we
> evolved to be free thinkers, decision makers, and masters of our own
> bodies and minds.

> Also, Tuck, aren't you not a fan of agriculture in general? Do you
> think we evolved to eat grains? You are a paleo guy correct? (not
> sure, but I think this is accurate, please correct if wrong). If it is
> correct, are you saying that persistance hunters being replaced by
> agriculturalists is evidence that we evolved to be coerced by
> government, but not evidence that we evolved to eat grains?

> I see what you are getting at, but again, how is that scientific
> evolution? What are the adaptive traits?

> On Jun 8, 3:13 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Only point there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an
> > article about politics, so I talked politics."

> > Pete posted it because it was about diet and Lieberman.  But, as you
> > observe, you wouldn't know that cause you're not an old-timer here.
>  That's
> > fine, no harm.

> > http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/08/ny-times-unsett...
> > ""We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> > government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?"

> > Ask all the hunter-gatherers who didn't need a government.  Oh, that's
> > right, you can't.  They're almost all dead.

> > "There's a long-standing debate in the anthropology community over how
> > agriculture spread throughout Europe. One camp proposes that agriculture
> > spread by a cultural route, and that European hunter-gatherers simply
> > settled down and began planting grains. The other camp suggests that
> > European hunter-gatherers were replaced (totally or partially) by waves
> of
> > agriculturalist immigrants from the Middle East that were culturally and
> > genetically better adapted to the agricultural diet and lifestyle."

> > http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-otzi-european-ev...

> > (See, even tied that back into diet, so we could stay at least somewhat
> OT.
> > :)

> > That lifestyle includes a large, coercive government.

> > We had a discussion a while ago about persistance hunting.  This is
> likely
> > the behavior that led people to being what we are today, and also led to
> > the extinction of most of the large mammals on earth.  It's how we
> evolved
> > as runners.

> > Persistence hunters didn't have governments, they didn't need anything
> more
> > than a chief of their tribe.  There are, today, a handful of persitence
> > hunters.  They've been, to use a round number, 100% replaced by
> > agriculturalists with coercive governments.

> > I don't like it, but them's the facts.

> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, not going to argue on what the group does and doesn't discuss. I'm
> > > a random visitor/poster...don't follow all the topics. My Only point
> > > there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an article
> > > about politics, so I talked politics. Personally, I find it
> > > fascinating and despite me being over the top, I do respect the
> > > opinions put forth here. Also, I don't really care about talking about
> > > the actual politics, I want to analyze the claim "we evolved to need
> > > coercion" with "by government" heavily implied in the article.

> > > Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
> > > simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
> > > more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
> > > don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
> > > saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

> > > Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
> > > in those shoes?
> > > Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
> > > that stuff?
> > > Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
> > > Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

> > > What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

> > > "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
> > > government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
> > > Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
> > > increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
> > > coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
> > > technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
> > > evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
> > > not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
> > > that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

> > > Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
> > > understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
> > > with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
> > > eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
> > > WEAKER, not stronger.

> > > On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> > > > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
> > > > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also
> discuss
> > > > all the time.

> > > > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we
> evolved to
> > > > need coercion"..."

> > > > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I
> > > hope
> > > > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly
> evolving in
> > > > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our
> future
> > > is
> > > > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is
> obviously
> > > > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with
> barefoot/minimalist
> > > > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't
> want to
> > > > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it,
> based
> > > > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > > > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > > > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science
> comment
> > > > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > > > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > > > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing
> evolution?
> > > > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an
> opinion
> > > > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > > > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to
> need
> > > > > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > > > > government mandates.

> > > > > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "And I'm aggressive???"

> > > > > > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.
> > >  There
> > > > > are
> > > > > > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this
> list to

> Math and writing are two of the bigs ones, actually.  Both were invented
> to allow better allocation of agricultural resources and control of
> production.  They were never invented by HG cultures, AFAIK.

> Evolution affects behavior and culture, not just physical form.
> " I think we evolved to be free thinkers, decision makers, and masters of
> our own bodies and minds."

> It's a trade-off.  We have traits that go both ways.

> "Also, Tuck, aren't you not a fan of agriculture in general? Do you think
> we evolved to eat grains? You are a paleo guy correct? (not sure, but I
> think this is accurate, please correct if wrong). If it is correct, are you
> saying that persistance hunters being replaced by agriculturalists is
> evidence that we evolved to be coerced by government, but not evidence that
> we evolved to eat grains?"

> You're correct. That's why my blog is called "Yelling Stop", and not
> "Charge Ahead!"  I said I didn't like it...

> "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is
> inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223549/our-mission-statement/w...
> #

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Interesting points. Still hung up over the use of the world evolved.
>> Seems like it's being used in the non-scientific sense:

>> "In grade school I listened to green day and nirvana but since then my
>> musical tastes have evolved"

>> Scientific evolution would mean there are measurable traits that have
>> developed in our species. For example with running we have the
>> achilles, the arch and other things people point to as evidence that
>> we evolved to run.

>> What I'm trying to understand is *how* we evolved to be coerced by
>> government. What are the traits we possess that indicate we evolved to
>> be coerced? Did someone study the brain and find that our ability to
>> think critically is getting worse (wouldn't be surprised). Is our
>> ability to make decisions for ourselves getting more and more limited?
>> Or better yet, is our ability to take marching orders from the gov
>> getting better? I understand we evolved to work together in groups and
>> help each other. It's a huge leap to say we evolved to be forced into
>> things by government.

>> As you note in your blog, this is a very slippery slope. I personally
>> don't buy that we evolved to be coerced by government. I think we
>> evolved to be free thinkers, decision makers, and masters of our own
>> bodies and minds.

>> Also, Tuck, aren't you not a fan of agriculture in general? Do you
>> think we evolved to eat grains? You are a paleo guy correct? (not
>> sure, but I think this is accurate, please correct if wrong). If it is
>> correct, are you saying that persistance hunters being replaced by
>> agriculturalists is evidence that we evolved to be coerced by
>> government, but not evidence that we evolved to eat grains?

>> I see what you are getting at, but again, how is that scientific
>> evolution? What are the adaptive traits?

>> On Jun 8, 3:13 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "Only point there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an
>> > article about politics, so I talked politics."

>> > Pete posted it because it was about diet and Lieberman.  But, as you
>> > observe, you wouldn't know that cause you're not an old-timer here.
>>  That's
>> > fine, no harm.

>> > http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/08/ny-times-unsett.
>> ..
>> > ""We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
>> > government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?"

>> > Ask all the hunter-gatherers who didn't need a government.  Oh, that's
>> > right, you can't.  They're almost all dead.

>> > "There's a long-standing debate in the anthropology community over how
>> > agriculture spread throughout Europe. One camp proposes that agriculture
>> > spread by a cultural route, and that European hunter-gatherers simply
>> > settled down and began planting grains. The other camp suggests that
>> > European hunter-gatherers were replaced (totally or partially) by waves
>> of
>> > agriculturalist immigrants from the Middle East that were culturally and
>> > genetically better adapted to the agricultural diet and lifestyle."

>> > http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/04/beyond-otzi-european-ev.
>> ..

>> > (See, even tied that back into diet, so we could stay at least somewhat
>> OT.
>> > :)

>> > That lifestyle includes a large, coercive government.

>> > We had a discussion a while ago about persistance hunting.  This is
>> likely
>> > the behavior that led people to being what we are today, and also led to
>> > the extinction of most of the large mammals on earth.  It's how we
>> evolved
>> > as runners.

>> > Persistence hunters didn't have governments, they didn't need anything
>> more
>> > than a chief of their tribe.  There are, today, a handful of persitence
>> > hunters.  They've been, to use a round number, 100% replaced by
>> > agriculturalists with coercive governments.

>> > I don't like it, but them's the facts.

>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Ok, not going to argue on what the group does and doesn't discuss. I'm
>> > > a random visitor/poster...don't follow all the topics. My Only point
>> > > there was you said don't talk politics yet Pete posted an article
>> > > about politics, so I talked politics. Personally, I find it
>> > > fascinating and despite me being over the top, I do respect the
>> > > opinions put forth here. Also, I don't really care about talking about
>> > > the actual politics, I want to analyze the claim "we evolved to need
>> > > coercion" with "by government" heavily implied in the article.

>> > > Your second point - I don't follow you here. Are you saying that
>> > > simply because we are currently under tyranny and trending towards
>> > > more, that we evolved to be that way? I get that you are saying you
>> > > don't really know. The way I'm reading it, it sounds like you are
>> > > saying anything that happens is because of evolution.

>> > > Most runners currently wear high heeled shoes. Did they evolve to run
>> > > in those shoes?
>> > > Most people eat grains and processed sugar. Did they evolve to eat
>> > > that stuff?
>> > > Did we evolve to watch T.V.?
>> > > Did we evolve to smoke cigarrettes?

>> > > What does "we evolved to..." even mean?

>> > > "We evolved to need coercion" - how is needing to be coerced (by
>> > > government - as the article implies) an adaptive survival trait?
>> > > Evolution involves species adapting to their environment in ways that
>> > > increase the chance of survival for said species. How does being
>> > > coerced by a cabal of mass murdering, pathological lying, incompetent
>> > > technocrats increase our chance for survival? I don't get it. What
>> > > evidence is there that we evolved to be coerced by government? Again,
>> > > not evidence that we are being coerced as I'm already convinced of
>> > > that ;) wondering about evidence that we EVOLVED to be coerced.

>> > > Sure, we are constantly being coerced by the government, I just don't
>> > > understand what evolution (supposed to strengthen a species) has to do
>> > > with it? Especially considering having the government tell you what to
>> > > eat, drink, and think are all great signs of the species getting
>> > > WEAKER, not stronger.

>> > > On Jun 8, 2:22 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
>> > > > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
>> > > > paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also
>> discuss
>> > > > all the time.

>> > > > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we
>> evolved to
>> > > > need coercion"..."

>> > > > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.
>>  I
>> > > hope
>> > > > he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly
>> evolving in
>> > > > that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our
>> future
>> > > is
>> > > > most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

>> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is
>> obviously
>> > > > > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with
>> barefoot/minimalist
>> > > > > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't
>> want to
>> > > > > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it,
>> based
>> > > > > on my completely shocked response at the article.

>> > > > > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
>> > > > > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science
>> comment
>> > > > > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

>> > > > > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
>> > > > > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing
>> evolution?
>> > > > > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an
>> opinion
>> > > > > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
>> > > > > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to
>> need
>> > > > > coercion"

> i am assuming that we have a lot of engineers on this group, and
> i am constantly hearing that the science and engineering community backs
> up
> the govts story on the nine eleven stuff about the buildings
> falling....i'm
> just curious,...just wonderin if what i hear is true, that the science
> community
> backs the govts story..no explanation required, just yea , or
> neah.........

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oblinkin" <oblinki...@gmail.com>
> To: "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes"
> <huaraches@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:17 PM
> Subject: [Minimalist Runner:111053] Re: Evolution's Sweet Tooth -
> Lieberman
> Article in NY Times

> +1 um, yeah...

> On Jun 7, 4:12 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK...

> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I continue to have this discussion with now hundreds of people, and
> > > still, nobody can answer my very simple questions.

> > > We know the government is full of habitual liars and scam artists.
> > > This is a proven fact that is not up for date. (meaning the liars
> > > themselves come out later and admit the lies)

> > > My question: How is believing known habitual liars scientific?

> > > It's the equivalent of saying "I'm going to throw this ball straight
> > > up in the air and it will continue to go upwards forever, never
> > > returning to the earth" - In other words, it's the opposite of what we
> > > know to be true.

> > > Question 2: When has a ban ever lead to a decrease in the consumption
> > > of what was banned?

> > > All the data I've seen would indicate the opposite - prohibition VERY
> > > clearly details that when alcohol was banned there was HUGE spikes in
> > > consumption. Also see the miserable war on drugs failure for more
> > > data.

> > > Question 2 part 2: If bans lead to an increase in consumption
> > > (according to the data), how is believing the opposite scientific?

> > > Like all of you, I like science. But the sad truth is you will only
> > > rise to the top if you play ball with the power elite. Again, this is
> > > not up for debate, there is mountains and mountains of evidence. This
> > > is no longer "fringe conspiracy theory" it's fact.

> > > Take a look at the scientific "skeptic" movement, led by Michael
> > > Shermer. Watch his youtube videos and the hypocrisy and defense of
> > > government is astounding. This defense of government comes in contrast
> > > to his projected image as a libertarian.

> > > Regarding 9/11 attacks, Shermer states that it can't be a conspiracy
> > > because it worked, and that since the government is full of bumbling
> > > idiots, we know they had nothing to do with it. (I'm not taking sides
> > > or saying the gov did or did not have involvement and have no interest
> > > in that particular discussion). He also states it was too large of a
> > > conspiracy to keep secret. This gets a good laugh from the audience,
> > > but has nothing to do with reality. The government has had SEVERAL
> > > very large projects that were kept secret, including the manhattan
> > > project which had over 100,000 people working on it. Of course,
> > > despite it being OBVIOUS that the government is fully capable of
> > > secret projects, Shermer contradicts himself:

> > > Regarding the roswell "alien" crash (again not saying it was or wasn't
> > > aliens), Shermer states that it couldn't have been an alien space
> > > craft (he gives no reason why) and that the likely explanation was
> > > that it was a top secret government project. Do you see how he twists
> > > things around for his convenience? When he needs to debunk the 9/11
> > > conspiracy - the government is full of bumbling idiots who can't get
> > > out of their own way. When he needs to debunk an alien space craft
> > > conspiracy - it must have been a top secret mission from the same
> > > bumbling idiots? So the government is smart enough to build and fly
> > > planes that look like spaceships but not smart enough to fly planes
> > > into buildings?

> > > Look, I'm not knocking low-level scientists or people who are
> > > interested in science. But to think that most of these elite
> > > institutions are not completely infiltrated by the power elite is
> > > really foolish. There is a huge, HUGE agenda in the scientific
> > > community. The fact that so many "scientists" willfully put their head
> > > in the sand to this, while at the same time thinking they are
> > > "intellectually elite" is laughable.

> > > On Jun 7, 3:26 pm, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I really doubt that Lieberman is taking his marching orders from the
> > > > government...everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, even if
> > > > we might not agree with it. And don't conflate all of science with
> the
> > > > opinion of a single scientist, those are two very different things.
> > > > I'm rather sure that the scientific community would not form a
> united
> > > > front on this issue, in fact I happen to know a scientist who thinks
> > > > banning soda to fight obesity is a misguided idea.

> > > > On Jun 7, 9:39 am, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > Thanks Doug! You took the words right out of my mouth. These
> > > > > articles
> > > > > really speak to the arrogance and pretentiousness of the
> scientific
> > > > > community. You summed it up perfectly, they think we are all too
> > > > > stupid to make decisions on our own behalf. Unfortunately, the
> > > > > governments track record is awful when it comes to
> health/nutrition.
> > > > > On top of that, they are known pathological liars. Nobody denies
> > > > > that
> > > > > politicians are habitual liars, yet the scientific community
> chooses
> > > > > to believe them when they say they are regulating things for our
> own
> > > > > good?

> > > > > How is believing habitual liars scientific??? Seems like the
> > > > > opposite
> > > > > of scientific to me...This group has been proven time and time
> again
> > > > > to be completely incapable of telling the truth on any issue, yet
> > > > > the
> > > > > scientists believe them.

> > > > > Time to face facts...there are very few REAL scientists left. Sure
> > > > > Lieberman did some cute stuff with barefoot running. Now he shows
> > > > > his
> > > > > true colors. Typical government shill like the majority of these
> > > > > other
> > > > > FAITH BASED PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS.

> > > > > On Jun 7, 9:24 am, Doug Sims <wdsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Sorry, this is kind of rambling, but I edited it down as much as
> > > possible.

> > > > > > I think this paragraph tells us everything he is about, which
> is,
> > > > > > people are stupid, so the government needs to get involved to
> save
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > from our stupidity.
> > > > > > "...Youngsters can�t make rational, informed decisions about
> their
> > > > > > bodies, and our society agrees that parents don�t have the
> right
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > make disastrous decisions on their behalf. Accordingly, we
> require
> > > > > > parents to enroll their children in school, have them immunized
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > make them wear seat belts. We require physical education in
> > > > > > school,
> > > > > > and we don�t let children buy alcohol or cigarettes. If these
> are
> > > > > > acceptable forms of coercion, how is restricting unhealthy doses
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > sugary drinks that slowly contribute to disease any different?"

> > > > > > This is absolute rubbish. The government is the one telling us
> to
> > > > > > eat
> > > > > > a diet low in saturated fat, and high in grains/starches. How
> does
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > think they will do any better with more legislation. This is
> just
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > political argument, and a one-sided argument at that. What does
> he
> > > > > > think a "Stone Age" man ate? Fiber? Yeah, that's a high calorie
> > > source
> > > > > > (/sarcasm). No, it was fat. How does he miss this in the entire
> > > > > > article? He is arguing for a better diet, but assuming that the
> > > > > > government can provide that (or even knows what that is). I
> think
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > should evaluate the governments current track record in
> > > > > > recommending
> > > a
> > > > > > healthy diet first.

> > > > > > I think a ban on soft drinks (or a tax on them) is a horrible
> > > > > > idea.
> > > > > > The government needs to get out of regulating private
> businesses.
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > fine with removing soft drinks from schools, but they also need
> to
> > > > > > remove flavored milk. (good luck with that) Flavored milk
> > > > > > (chocolate
> > > > > > and strawberry usually) has as much or more sugar than a soft
> > > > > > drink,
> > > > > > but those are given to the kids right beside their pizza and
> > > > > > chicken
> > > > > > nuggets (which have "zero" trans fat in them).

> > > > > > Again. Stupid law and I think it reflects very poorly on Dr.
> > > Lieberman
> > > > > > for supporting it.

> > > > > > One more thing:
> > > > > > "If these are acceptable forms of coercion, how is restricting
> > > > > > unhealthy doses of sugary drinks that slowly

>> Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
>> a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
>> running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
>> talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
>> on my completely shocked response at the article.

>> And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
>> question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
>> that "we evolved to need coercion"...

>> That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
>> scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
>> Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
>> piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
>> respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
>> coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
>> government mandates.

>> On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "And I'm aggressive???"

>> > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
>> are
>> > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
>> > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
>> > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
>> > climate-change forum, or anything else.

>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
>> > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

>> > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
>> > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
>> > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
>> > > " " how much soda you can drink
>> > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
>> > > " " regulates salt intake
>> > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
>> > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
>> > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
>> > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
>> > > us about the environment
>> > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
>> > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
>> > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
>> > > instantly decimate the environment)
>> > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
>> > > families

>> > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

>> > > And I'm aggressive???

>> > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
>> your
>> > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the
>> point of
>> > > being
>> > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
>> you.

>> > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
>> nut,
>> > > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends
>> who is a
>> > > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
>> > > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
>> slaves
>> > > > etc etc):

>> > > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

>> > > --
>> > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
>> Ted

>> > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

>> > --
>> > _________________________________
>> > Tucker

>> --
>> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

>> Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> --
> _________________________________
> Tucker

On Friday, June 8, 2012 2:22:22 PM UTC-4, Tuck wrote:

> "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
> paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also discuss
> all the time.

> "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
> need coercion"..."

> Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I hope
> he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving in
> that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future is
> most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
>> a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
>> running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
>> talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
>> on my completely shocked response at the article.

>> And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
>> question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
>> that "we evolved to need coercion"...

>> That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
>> scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
>> Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
>> piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
>> respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
>> coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
>> government mandates.

>> On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "And I'm aggressive???"

>> > No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
>> are
>> > other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
>> > barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
>> > endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
>> > climate-change forum, or anything else.

>> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
>> > > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

>> > > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
>> > > " " decides who can drink raw milk
>> > > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
>> > > " " how much soda you can drink
>> > > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
>> > > " " regulates salt intake
>> > > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
>> > > for an ADMITTED example of this)
>> > > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
>> > > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
>> > > us about the environment
>> > > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
>> > > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
>> > > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
>> > > instantly decimate the environment)
>> > > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
>> > > families

>> > > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

>> > > And I'm aggressive???

>> > > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
>> your
>> > > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the
>> point of
>> > > being
>> > > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
>> you.

>> > > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
>> nut,
>> > > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends
>> who is a
>> > > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
>> > > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
>> slaves
>> > > > etc etc):

>> > > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

>> > > --
>> > > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
>> Ted

>> > > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

>> > --
>> > _________________________________
>> > Tucker

>> --
>> "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot Ted

>> Membership Options: http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> --
> _________________________________
> Tucker

>> Because it might be correct...

> Let's push this to n=infinity.... is there a difference between fascism

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> on my completely shocked response at the article.

> And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> government mandates.

> On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "And I'm aggressive???"

>> No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
are
>> other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
>> barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
>> endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
>> climate-change forum, or anything else.

>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
>> > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

>> > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
>> > " " decides who can drink raw milk
>> > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
>> > " " how much soda you can drink
>> > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
>> > " " regulates salt intake
>> > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
>> > for an ADMITTED example of this)
>> > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
>> > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
>> > us about the environment
>> > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
>> > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
>> > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
>> > instantly decimate the environment)
>> > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
>> > families

>> > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

>> > And I'm aggressive???

>> > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
your
>> > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the point
of
>> > being
>> > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
you.

>> > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
nut,
>> > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends who
is a
>> > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
>> > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
slaves
>> > > etc etc):

>> > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

>> > --
>> > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
Ted

>> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

>> --

> On Friday, June 8, 2012 2:22:22 PM UTC-4, Tuck wrote:

> "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the

> "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
need coercion"..."

> Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I

> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> on my completely shocked response at the article.

> And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> government man

> Not sure if this has been posted here, figured it would be of interest
> to this crowd!:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html...

> No clue how being an engineer qualifies me as belonging to a bigger
> "science community" but since you asked:

> "yea", the conspiracy theory sounds way too far fetched.

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Oblinkin" <oblinki...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes"
> > <huaraches@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:17 PM
> > Subject: [Minimalist Runner:111053] Re: Evolution's Sweet Tooth -
> > Lieberman
> > Article in NY Times

> > +1 um, yeah...

> > On Jun 7, 4:12 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > OK...

> > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I continue to have this discussion with now hundreds of people, and
> > > > still, nobody can answer my very simple questions.

> > > > We know the government is full of habitual liars and scam artists.
> > > > This is a proven fact that is not up for date. (meaning the liars
> > > > themselves come out later and admit the lies)

> > > > My question: How is believing known habitual liars scientific?

> > > > It's the equivalent of saying "I'm going to throw this ball straight
> > > > up in the air and it will continue to go upwards forever, never
> > > > returning to the earth" - In other words, it's the opposite of what we
> > > > know to be true.

> > > > Question 2: When has a ban ever lead to a decrease in the consumption
> > > > of what was banned?

> > > > All the data I've seen would indicate the opposite - prohibition VERY
> > > > clearly details that when alcohol was banned there was HUGE spikes in
> > > > consumption. Also see the miserable war on drugs failure for more
> > > > data.

> > > > Question 2 part 2: If bans lead to an increase in consumption
> > > > (according to the data), how is believing the opposite scientific?

> > > > Like all of you, I like science. But the sad truth is you will only
> > > > rise to the top if you play ball with the power elite. Again, this is
> > > > not up for debate, there is mountains and mountains of evidence. This
> > > > is no longer "fringe conspiracy theory" it's fact.

> > > > Take a look at the scientific "skeptic" movement, led by Michael
> > > > Shermer. Watch his youtube videos and the hypocrisy and defense of
> > > > government is astounding. This defense of government comes in contrast
> > > > to his projected image as a libertarian.

> > > > Regarding 9/11 attacks, Shermer states that it can't be a conspiracy
> > > > because it worked, and that since the government is full of bumbling
> > > > idiots, we know they had nothing to do with it. (I'm not taking sides
> > > > or saying the gov did or did not have involvement and have no interest
> > > > in that particular discussion). He also states it was too large of a
> > > > conspiracy to keep secret. This gets a good laugh from the audience,
> > > > but has nothing to do with reality. The government has had SEVERAL
> > > > very large projects that were kept secret, including the manhattan
> > > > project which had over 100,000 people working on it. Of course,
> > > > despite it being OBVIOUS that the government is fully capable of
> > > > secret projects, Shermer contradicts himself:

> > > > Regarding the roswell "alien" crash (again not saying it was or wasn't
> > > > aliens), Shermer states that it couldn't have been an alien space
> > > > craft (he gives no reason why) and that the likely explanation was
> > > > that it was a top secret government project. Do you see how he twists
> > > > things around for his convenience? When he needs to debunk the 9/11
> > > > conspiracy - the government is full of bumbling idiots who can't get
> > > > out of their own way. When he needs to debunk an alien space craft
> > > > conspiracy - it must have been a top secret mission from the same
> > > > bumbling idiots? So the government is smart enough to build and fly
> > > > planes that look like spaceships but not smart enough to fly planes
> > > > into buildings?

> > > > Look, I'm not knocking low-level scientists or people who are
> > > > interested in science. But to think that most of these elite
> > > > institutions are not completely infiltrated by the power elite is
> > > > really foolish. There is a huge, HUGE agenda in the scientific
> > > > community. The fact that so many "scientists" willfully put their head
> > > > in the sand to this, while at the same time thinking they are
> > > > "intellectually elite" is laughable.

> > > > On Jun 7, 3:26 pm, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I really doubt that Lieberman is taking his marching orders from the
> > > > > government...everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, even if
> > > > > we might not agree with it. And don't conflate all of science with
> > the
> > > > > opinion of a single scientist, those are two very different things.
> > > > > I'm rather sure that the scientific community would not form a
> > united
> > > > > front on this issue, in fact I happen to know a scientist who thinks
> > > > > banning soda to fight obesity is a misguided idea.

> > > > > On Jun 7, 9:39 am, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > Thanks Doug! You took the words right out of my mouth. These
> > > > > > articles
> > > > > > really speak to the arrogance and pretentiousness of the
> > scientific
> > > > > > community. You summed it up perfectly, they think we are all too
> > > > > > stupid to make decisions on our own behalf. Unfortunately, the
> > > > > > governments track record is awful when it comes to
> > health/nutrition.
> > > > > > On top of that, they are known pathological liars. Nobody denies
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > politicians are habitual liars, yet the scientific community
> > chooses
> > > > > > to believe them when they say they are regulating things for our
> > own
> > > > > > good?

> > > > > > How is believing habitual liars scientific??? Seems like the
> > > > > > opposite
> > > > > > of scientific to me...This group has been proven time and time
> > again
> > > > > > to be completely incapable of telling the truth on any issue, yet
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > scientists believe them.

> > > > > > Time to face facts...there are very few REAL scientists left. Sure
> > > > > > Lieberman did some cute stuff with barefoot running. Now he shows
> > > > > > his
> > > > > > true colors. Typical government shill like the majority of these
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > FAITH BASED PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS.

> > > > > > On Jun 7, 9:24 am, Doug Sims <wdsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Sorry, this is kind of rambling, but I edited it down as much as
> > > > possible.

> > > > > > > I think this paragraph tells us everything he is about, which
> > is,
> > > > > > > people are stupid, so the government needs to get involved to
> > save
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > from our stupidity.
> > > > > > > "...Youngsters can�t make rational, informed decisions about
> > their
> > > > > > > bodies, and our society agrees that parents don�t have the
> > right
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > make disastrous decisions on their behalf. Accordingly, we
> > require
> > > > > > > parents to enroll their children in school, have them immunized
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > make them wear seat belts. We require physical education in
> > > > > > > school,
> > > > > > > and we don�t let children buy alcohol or cigarettes. If these
> > are
> > > > > > > acceptable forms of coercion, how is restricting unhealthy doses
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > sugary drinks that slowly contribute to disease any different?"

> > > > > > > This is absolute rubbish. The government is the one telling us
> > to
> > > > > > > eat
> > > > > > > a diet low in saturated fat, and high in grains/starches. How
> > does
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > think they will do any better with more legislation. This is
> > just
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > political argument, and a one-sided argument at that. What does
> > he
> > > > > > > think a "Stone Age" man ate? Fiber? Yeah, that's a high calorie
> > > > source
> > > > > > > (/sarcasm). No, it was fat. How does he miss this in the entire
> > > > > > > article? He is arguing for a better diet, but assuming that the
> > > > > > > government can provide that (or even knows what that is). I
> > think
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > should evaluate the governments current track record in
> > > > > > > recommending
> > > > a
> > > > > > > healthy diet first.

> > > > > > > I think a ban on soft drinks (or a tax on them) is a horrible
> > > > > > > idea.
> > > > > > > The government needs to get out of regulating private
> > businesses.
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > fine with removing soft drinks from schools, but they also need
> > to
> > > > > > > remove flavored milk. (good luck with that) Flavored milk
> > > > > > > (chocolate
> > > > > > > and strawberry usually) has as much or more sugar than a soft
> > > > > > > drink,
> > > > > > > but those are given to the kids right beside their pizza and

> No, not to the victims.

On Friday, June 8, 2012, Luis Manuel <lmci...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Because it might be correct...

> > Let's push this to n=infinity.... is there a difference between fascism
> and totalitarian communism?. It gets  muddier in modern (provided you chose
> your parents (or country..) carefully...) times: corporate vs government
> tyranny?
> > I'm with Liberman on this one.

> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > government mandates.

> > On Jun 8, 11:51 am, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "And I'm aggressive???"

> >> No, you're inappropriate.  This list is not about those topics.  There
> are
> >> other places where you can discuss them.  We try to keep this list to
> >> barefoot/minimalist running, and topics associated with success in that
> >> endeavor.  We don't want this to be turned into a political forum, or a
> >> climate-change forum, or anything else.

> >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I need to be extreme because we are facing extreme tyranny. Its a
> >> > slow, creeping tyranny. The reality is this:

> >> > the government decides what your kids can and can't have for lunch
> >> > " " decides who can drink raw milk
> >> > "" mandates vaccines - lies and says it's the law to be vaccinated
> >> > " " how much soda you can drink
> >> > " " whether or not you can have saturated fat
> >> > " " regulates salt intake
> >> > " " creates false flags as justification for war (see gulf of tonkin
> >> > for an ADMITTED example of this)
> >> > " " subsidizes corn industry than says you can't have too much soda
> >> > " " spreads depleted uranium across the middle east and then lectures
> >> > us about the environment
> >> > " " spreads propaganda about global warming to force the people to pay
> >> > taxes to a world bank (I'm bad for breathing CO2 but the gov is fine
> >> > despite spreading DU and all other types of chemical weapons that
> >> > instantly decimate the environment)
> >> > " " signs the people as collateral on debt owed to mega rich banking
> >> > families

> >> > All of the above is on record and publicly admitted by the elite.

> >> > And I'm aggressive???

> >> > On Jun 8, 11:37 am, Joe Wrigley <joe.wrig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > He's making jokes (actually, I started the joking) because while
> your
> >> > > > position has a kernal of truth in it, you've taken it to the
> point of
> >> > being
> >> > > > ridiculous.  That's probably why no one wants to discuss it with
> you.

> >> > > The language and tone are too close to the ravings of a conspiracy
> nut,
> >> > > unfortunately. Reminded me of a recent post by one of my friends
> who is a
> >> > > full-on conspiracy crazy (911 is a big coverup, the illuminati run
> >> > > everything, the UK is operating under maritime law and we are all
> slaves
> >> > > etc etc):

> >> > > WAKE UP! because denial isn't a river in Egypt (...)

> >> > --
> >> > "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes..."  hosted by Barefoot
> Ted

> >> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe

> >> --

> > On Friday, June 8, 2012 2:22:22 PM UTC-4, Tuck wrote:

> > "Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman..."
> > Who we post about all the time.  And he's a world-wide expert on the
> paleolithic period and human evolutionary biology, which we also discuss
> all the time.

> > "why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment that "we evolved to
> need coercion"..."

> > Because it might be correct, in the narrow sense that he meant it.  I
> hope he's wrong, but I'm not sure that he's wrong.  We're clearly evolving
> in that direction, like it or not.  If current trends continue, our future
> is most likely going to be something like an ant or a naked mole rat...

> > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Confusing. Pete posts an opinion piece by Lieberman which is obviously
> > a can of worms, obviously has nothing to do with barefoot/minimalist
> > running, is very clearly about politics, but the group doesn't want to
> > talk politics? I didn't start the thread, just responded to it, based
> > on my completely shocked response at the article.

> > And again, Tuck, I read your blog post...great analysis. My only
> > question would be why not call out the blatant pseudo science comment
> > that "we evolved to need coercion"...

> > That really jumped out at me. Shouldn't we hold an evolutionary
> > scientist to a higher standard when it comes to discussing evolution?
> > Just casually throwing "we evolved to need coercion" into an opinion
> > piece is...well....pseudo science. I'm sure you can see how a well
> > respected scientist from a top university saying "we evolved to need
> > coercion" would influence people towards accepting more and more
> > government man

> --
> _________________________________
> Tucker

> Great article, thanks! We've had a similar issue where I live,
> where the city council banned soda machines in all public buildings.
> Caused an uproar of course, but personally I think it's a good thing.
> As long as people can't control their sugar cravings we need restrictions.
> Besides, tempting the kids with sugar beverages in sports halls doesn't
> make any sense anyway.

> On Thursday, June 7, 2012 5:07:04 AM UTC+2, Oblinkin wrote:

>> Not sure if this has been posted here, figured it would be of interest
>> to this crowd!:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html...

On Saturday, June 9, 2012 8:24:40 AM UTC-4, pøbel wrote:

> Great article, thanks! We've had a similar issue where I live,
> where the city council banned soda machines in all public buildings.
> Caused an uproar of course, but personally I think it's a good thing.
> As long as people can't control their sugar cravings we need restrictions.
> Besides, tempting the kids with sugar beverages in sports halls doesn't
> make any sense anyway.

> On Thursday, June 7, 2012 5:07:04 AM UTC+2, Oblinkin wrote:

>> Not sure if this has been posted here, figured it would be of interest
>> to this crowd!:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html...

>  What sounds far fetched to you?

> > No clue how being an engineer qualifies me as belonging to a bigger
> > "science community" but since you asked:

> > "yea", the conspiracy theory sounds way too far fetched.

> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Oblinkin" <oblinki...@gmail.com>
> > > To: "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes"
> > > <huaraches@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:17 PM
> > > Subject: [Minimalist Runner:111053] Re: Evolution's Sweet Tooth -
> > > Lieberman
> > > Article in NY Times

> > > +1 um, yeah...

> > > On Jun 7, 4:12 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > OK...

> > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > I continue to have this discussion with now hundreds of people,
> and
> > > > > still, nobody can answer my very simple questions.

> > > > > We know the government is full of habitual liars and scam artists.
> > > > > This is a proven fact that is not up for date. (meaning the liars
> > > > > themselves come out later and admit the lies)

> > > > > My question: How is believing known habitual liars scientific?

> > > > > It's the equivalent of saying "I'm going to throw this ball
> straight
> > > > > up in the air and it will continue to go upwards forever, never
> > > > > returning to the earth" - In other words, it's the opposite of
> what we
> > > > > know to be true.

> > > > > Question 2: When has a ban ever lead to a decrease in the
> consumption
> > > > > of what was banned?

> > > > > All the data I've seen would indicate the opposite - prohibition
> VERY
> > > > > clearly details that when alcohol was banned there was HUGE spikes
> in
> > > > > consumption. Also see the miserable war on drugs failure for more
> > > > > data.

> > > > > Question 2 part 2: If bans lead to an increase in consumption
> > > > > (according to the data), how is believing the opposite scientific?

> > > > > Like all of you, I like science. But the sad truth is you will
> only
> > > > > rise to the top if you play ball with the power elite. Again, this
> is
> > > > > not up for debate, there is mountains and mountains of evidence.
> This
> > > > > is no longer "fringe conspiracy theory" it's fact.

> > > > > Take a look at the scientific "skeptic" movement, led by Michael
> > > > > Shermer. Watch his youtube videos and the hypocrisy and defense of
> > > > > government is astounding. This defense of government comes in
> contrast
> > > > > to his projected image as a libertarian.

> > > > > Regarding 9/11 attacks, Shermer states that it can't be a
> conspiracy
> > > > > because it worked, and that since the government is full of
> bumbling
> > > > > idiots, we know they had nothing to do with it. (I'm not taking
> sides
> > > > > or saying the gov did or did not have involvement and have no
> interest
> > > > > in that particular discussion). He also states it was too large of
> a
> > > > > conspiracy to keep secret. This gets a good laugh from the
> audience,
> > > > > but has nothing to do with reality. The government has had SEVERAL
> > > > > very large projects that were kept secret, including the manhattan
> > > > > project which had over 100,000 people working on it. Of course,
> > > > > despite it being OBVIOUS that the government is fully capable of
> > > > > secret projects, Shermer contradicts himself:

> > > > > Regarding the roswell "alien" crash (again not saying it was or
> wasn't
> > > > > aliens), Shermer states that it couldn't have been an alien space
> > > > > craft (he gives no reason why) and that the likely explanation was
> > > > > that it was a top secret government project. Do you see how he
> twists
> > > > > things around for his convenience? When he needs to debunk the
> 9/11
> > > > > conspiracy - the government is full of bumbling idiots who can't
> get
> > > > > out of their own way. When he needs to debunk an alien space craft
> > > > > conspiracy - it must have been a top secret mission from the same
> > > > > bumbling idiots? So the government is smart enough to build and
> fly
> > > > > planes that look like spaceships but not smart enough to fly
> planes
> > > > > into buildings?

> > > > > Look, I'm not knocking low-level scientists or people who are
> > > > > interested in science. But to think that most of these elite
> > > > > institutions are not completely infiltrated by the power elite is
> > > > > really foolish. There is a huge, HUGE agenda in the scientific
> > > > > community. The fact that so many "scientists" willfully put their
> head
> > > > > in the sand to this, while at the same time thinking they are
> > > > > "intellectually elite" is laughable.

> > > > > On Jun 7, 3:26 pm, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I really doubt that Lieberman is taking his marching orders from
> the
> > > > > > government...everyone is entitled to their personal opinion,
> even if
> > > > > > we might not agree with it. And don't conflate all of science
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > opinion of a single scientist, those are two very different
> things.
> > > > > > I'm rather sure that the scientific community would not form a
> > > united
> > > > > > front on this issue, in fact I happen to know a scientist who
> thinks
> > > > > > banning soda to fight obesity is a misguided idea.

> > > > > > On Jun 7, 9:39 am, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Thanks Doug! You took the words right out of my mouth. These
> > > > > > > articles
> > > > > > > really speak to the arrogance and pretentiousness of the
> > > scientific
> > > > > > > community. You summed it up perfectly, they think we are all
> too
> > > > > > > stupid to make decisions on our own behalf. Unfortunately, the
> > > > > > > governments track record is awful when it comes to
> > > health/nutrition.
> > > > > > > On top of that, they are known pathological liars. Nobody
> denies
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > politicians are habitual liars, yet the scientific community
> > > chooses
> > > > > > > to believe them when they say they are regulating things for
> our
> > > own
> > > > > > > good?

> > > > > > > How is believing habitual liars scientific??? Seems like the
> > > > > > > opposite
> > > > > > > of scientific to me...This group has been proven time and time
> > > again
> > > > > > > to be completely incapable of telling the truth on any issue,
> yet
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > scientists believe them.

> > > > > > > Time to face facts...there are very few REAL scientists left.
> Sure
> > > > > > > Lieberman did some cute stuff with barefoot running. Now he
> shows
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > true colors. Typical government shill like the majority of
> these
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > FAITH BASED PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS.

> > > > > > > On Jun 7, 9:24 am, Doug Sims <wdsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > Sorry, this is kind of rambling, but I edited it down as
> much as
> > > > > possible.

> > > > > > > > I think this paragraph tells us everything he is about,
> which
> > > is,
> > > > > > > > people are stupid, so the government needs to get involved
> to
> > > save
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > from our stupidity.
> > > > > > > > "...Youngsters can�t make rational, informed decisions
> about
> > > their
> > > > > > > > bodies, and our society agrees that parents don�t have the
> > > right
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > make disastrous decisions on their behalf. Accordingly, we
> > > require
> > > > > > > > parents to enroll their children in school, have them
> immunized
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > make them wear seat belts. We require physical education in
> > > > > > > > school,
> > > > > > > > and we don�t let children buy alcohol or cigarettes. If
> these
> > > are
> > > > > > > > acceptable forms of coercion, how is restricting unhealthy
> doses
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > sugary drinks that slowly contribute to disease any
> different?"

> > > > > > > > This is absolute

     What sounds far fetched to you?

  That the "official story" is both simple and elegant. Here are the ingredients:

  1- Brilliant and crooked mind(s) to come up with a plan. Easy (see Mussolini malignant narcissist post above..). check
  2- Four (small) groups of fanatics willing to put everything in the line for a perceived greater good. Harder, but not really..... check

  Once you got those two the rest IMHO was even easier, airport security was a joke in those days and had been like that for decades...

  The couple of "unofficial stories" I've come across are way too convoluted, the Manhattan project (again IMVHO) was even easier to keep somewhat hidden. I fully admit that I am hardly an expert on these matters...

    The controlled demolition part?

  That too, I think ramming commercial planes filled with jet fuel at full speed into the buildings was more than enough to bring down the towers. No need for controlled demolition.

    On Jun 8, 10:00 pm, Luis Manuel <lmci...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > i am assuming that we have a lot of engineers on this group, and
    > > i am constantly hearing that the science and engineering community backs
    > > up
    > > the govts story on the nine eleven stuff about the buildings
    > > falling....i'm
    > > just curious,...just wonderin if what i hear is true, that the science
    > > community
    > > backs the govts story..no explanation required, just yea , or
    > > neah.........

    > No clue how being an engineer qualifies me as belonging to a bigger
    > "science community" but since you asked:

    > "yea", the conspiracy theory sounds way too far fetched.

    > > ----- Original Message -----
    > > From: "Oblinkin" <oblinki...@gmail.com>
    > > To: "Minimalist Runner - Barefoot, Sandals, Shoes"
    > > <huaraches@googlegroups.com>
    > > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 3:17 PM
    > > Subject: [Minimalist Runner:111053] Re: Evolution's Sweet Tooth -
    > > Lieberman
    > > Article in NY Times

    > > +1 um, yeah...

    > > On Jun 7, 4:12 pm, Tuck <tuck...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > OK...

    > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > I continue to have this discussion with now hundreds of people, and
    > > > > still, nobody can answer my very simple questions.

    > > > > We know the government is full of habitual liars and scam artists.
    > > > > This is a proven fact that is not up for date. (meaning the liars
    > > > > themselves come out later and admit the lies)

    > > > > My question: How is believing known habitual liars scientific?

    > > > > It's the equivalent of saying "I'm going to throw this ball straight
    > > > > up in the air and it will continue to go upwards forever, never
    > > > > returning to the earth" - In other words, it's the opposite of what we
    > > > > know to be true.

    > > > > Question 2: When has a ban ever lead to a decrease in the consumption
    > > > > of what was banned?

    > > > > All the data I've seen would indicate the opposite - prohibition VERY
    > > > > clearly details that when alcohol was banned there was HUGE spikes in
    > > > > consumption. Also see the miserable war on drugs failure for more
    > > > > data.

    > > > > Question 2 part 2: If bans lead to an increase in consumption
    > > > > (according to the data), how is believing the opposite scientific?

    > > > > Like all of you, I like science. But the sad truth is you will only
    > > > > rise to the top if you play ball with the power elite. Again, this is
    > > > > not up for debate, there is mountains and mountains of evidence. This
    > > > > is no longer "fringe conspiracy theory" it's fact.

    > > > > Take a look at the scientific "skeptic" movement, led by Michael
    > > > > Shermer. Watch his youtube videos and the hypocrisy and defense of
    > > > > government is astounding. This defense of government comes in contrast
    > > > > to his projected image as a libertarian.

    > > > > Regarding 9/11 attacks, Shermer states that it can't be a conspiracy
    > > > > because it worked, and that since the government is full of bumbling
    > > > > idiots, we know they had nothing to do with it. (I'm not taking sides
    > > > > or saying the gov did or did not have involvement and have no interest
    > > > > in that particular discussion). He also states it was too large of a
    > > > > conspiracy to keep secret. This gets a good laugh from the audience,
    > > > > but has nothing to do with reality. The government has had SEVERAL
    > > > > very large projects that were kept secret, including the manhattan
    > > > > project which had over 100,000 people working on it. Of course,
    > > > > despite it being OBVIOUS that the government is fully capable of
    > > > > secret projects, Shermer contradicts himself:

    > > > > Regarding the roswell "alien" crash (again not saying it was or wasn't
    > > > > aliens), Shermer states that it couldn't have been an alien space
    > > > > craft (he gives no reason why) and that the likely explanation was
    > > > > that it was a top secret government project. Do you see how he twists
    > > > > things around for his convenience? When he needs to debunk the 9/11
    > > > > conspiracy - the government is full of bumbling idiots who can't get
    > > > > out of their own way. When he needs to debunk an alien space craft
    > > > > conspiracy - it must have been a top secret mission from the same
    > > > > bumbling idiots? So the government is smart enough to build and fly
    > > > > planes that look like spaceships but not smart enough to fly planes
    > > > > into buildings?

    > > > > Look, I'm not knocking low-level scientists or people who are
    > > > > interested in science. But to think that most of these elite
    > > > > institutions are not completely infiltrated by the power elite is
    > > > > really foolish. There is a huge, HUGE agenda in the scientific
    > > > > community. The fact that so many "scientists" willfully put their head
    > > > > in the sand to this, while at the same time thinking they are
    > > > > "intellectually elite" is laughable.

    > > > > On Jun 7, 3:26 pm, Oblinkin <oblinki...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > > > > I really doubt that Lieberman is taking his marching orders from the
    > > > > > government...everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, even if
    > > > > > we might not agree with it. And don't conflate all of science with
    > > the
    > > > > > opinion of a single scientist, those are two very different things.
    > > > > > I'm rather sure that the scientific community would not form a
    > > united
    > > > > > front on this issue, in fact I happen to know a scientist who thinks
    > > > > > banning soda to fight obesity is a misguided idea.

    > > > > > On Jun 7, 9:39 am, Dave K <davekar...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > > > > > Thanks Doug! You took the words right out of my mouth. These
    > > > > > > articles
    > > > > > > really speak to the arrogance and pretentiousness of the
    > > scientific
    > > > > > > community. You summed it up perfectly, they think we are all too
    > > > > > > stupid to make decisions on our own behalf. Unfortunately, the
    > > > > > > governments track record is awful when it comes to
    > > health/nutrition.
    > > > > > > On top of that, they are known pathological liars. Nobody denies
    > > > > > > that
    > > > > > > politicians are habitual liars, yet the scientific community
    > > chooses
    > > > > > > to believe them when they say they are regulating things for our
    > > own
    > > > > > > good?

    > > > > > > How is believing habitual liars scientific??? Seems like the
    > > > > > > opposite
    > > > > > > of scientific to me...This group has been proven time and time
    > > again
    > > > > > > to be completely incapable of telling the truth on any issue, yet
    > > > > > > the
    > > > > > > scientists believe them.

    > > > > > > Time to face facts...there are very few REAL scientists left. Sure
    > > > > > > Lieberman did some cute stuff with barefoot running. Now he shows
    > > > > > > his
    > > > > > > true colors. Typical government shill like the majority of these
    > > > > > > other
    > > > > > > FAITH BASED PSEUDO SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS.

    > > > > > > On Jun 7, 9:24 am, Doug Sims <wdsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > > > > > > Sorry, this is kind of rambling, but I edited it down as much as
    > > > > possible.

    > > > > > > > I think this paragraph tells us everything he is about, which
    > > is,
    > > > > > > > people are stupid, so the government needs to get involved to
    > > save

> Not sure if this has been posted here, figured it would be of interest
> to this crowd!:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html...

> "The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age
> bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar
> is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us
> gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a
> valuable, tasty and once limited resource."