Fairweather

r YOu suRe yoU teach hiStory?

Them republicans aint the president or interfering with my life. So, basically, no, I wasn't interested.

[video:youtube]t29E5UpgOqw

Has anyone here checked on Kimmo?

[video:youtube]BrBzBjVlGYU

Prole, I stand corrected. Touche.

Dude, did you read any of my posts? at all?

don't let socrates here you say that! WHY DID HE HATE DEMOCRACY????

Nailed it. You could substitute any other name for "Monsanto", and the issue would still be the same. And, unfortunately, your misguided argument would still be the same. My argument against GMOs (their usurpation of the natural environment) would have presented a stronger case than the one your fear-mongering, dreadlock I-522 friends managed to concoct. Again, do you think mandatory childhood vaccinations are a good idea?

Nailed it.

Dude, he was in another one of his drunken stupors. Can't we cut the guy a little slack here?

Prole fancies himself a keeper of inside knowledge; a sort of meditator perched on a higher shelf. Hence, when any sliver of common ground is acknowledged by those he views as his enemies, he rolls his eyes and sighs loudly "well duuuhuuuuh." But the real secret is this: those he perceives as his lessers are usually far more dialed in than he is--and the lonely shelf he sits on is full of volumes he has never bothered to read.

That pin looks collectible. You should dump it into a large plastic baggie and store it in the freezer.

Source Not to worry. Monsanto also purchased a company that is studying how to stop colony collapse. In 10 years Monsanto will sell plants that kill bees and as a sideline sell the antidote. Can you say Cha-ching $$$$$$$ If you've got money and don't mind ethical controversy buy their stock I don't know if this colony collapse thing is credible enough to stop the machine, but it would be interesting to see the FDA and/or Dept of Agriculture forced into performing an Environmental Assessment or a full-blown EIS under NEPA that considers all of the direct, indirect, and cumulative affects of GM seeds before they issue any more approvals for trials or patents.

Sounds like maybe you're a little too emotionally invested in this thing?

That part was pretty funny. And, after all, what girl wouldn't want that on her resume? Can you describe your responsibilities during your time at SeaWorld? Um, yes, I frolicked in a small tank with kidnapped Orcas. I tossed them fish when they performed prescribed tricks and, on occasion, I gave them supervised handjobs.

This is the correct approach, IMO. The human health/gross-out strategy is just more of the same in a long line of emotional, ideology-driven BS. It has never worked. The way these GMOs can affect the natural world is the way this 522 battle should have been fought.

Respectfully, you seem to be better at asking questions than answering them.

I don't really care for the rhetorical exercise in this case--but I hinted at the reason for this question earlier in the thread. When Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle in 1906, he wasn't really as concerned about the disgusting meat packing practices of the day as he was systemic change on a meta level. As a committed socialist he was hoping to damage or take down the entire capitalist political-economic structure. He admitted as much when he later lamented something along the lines of "I was aiming for American's hearts but I ended up hitting their stomachs instead." One hundred and seven years later, the structure he despised remains firmly in place. I guess I'm just trying to figure out if you're nuanced in any way--or just another Upton Sinclair. edit: I am curious about your thoughts on vaccinations, though.

Kimmo, this is kind of an aside, but I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from and to what degree your position is driven by empiricism vs emotion or a particular world view. What are your thoughts on mandatory childhood vaccinations? Animal rights? Are you a vegetarian? Vegan? I'm ok with your position on 522 and I understand why a lot of folks are pushing for its passage. In fact, Jim makes a good point when he says something along the lines that "if Monsanto is against it, then I'm for it," and I'm tempted to follow this path as well. (Although it's too late; I voted No and mailed it in a few days ago.)

[video:youtube]OapaDPrOYwk

Only when I can't get my backcountry overnight permit because the quota area is loaded up with guided parties.

I'll admit, I haven't read either of them, their works have just been summarized in this study design and stats analysis book I have. But I got them in my Amazon shopping cart right now. The philosophy of science hurts my head a bit. I'd rather be out collecting data than thinking about it, since collecting data for me has meant being outside, and thinking about it has meant being in front of a computer. Good reads, both. Keep in mind while reading Popper that he recanted some of his better-known stuff later in life. Kuhn is more durable, but then again his overall premise isn't really all that deep. Mr. JayB is the real expert on this stuff. Prole says I'm just his waterboy.

My problem with GMO foods isn't that I think they are unhealthy for human consumption. Rather, I think they pose a danger to the natural environment and crops hybridized by more traditional methods. What's more, I think we're heading toward a place where science will have to keep producing ever-new variations of their GMO products just to stay one step ahead of natural selection and its penchant for favoring survivor pests, fungi, etc. When the lab goes dark, the monoculture shit we have left won't hold up. Or, just as bad, the lab owners will hold us hostage. (Which is already happening.)

A good call out--except for the part about deliberate manipulation of facts. The portion I cited was 4c: "Prohibition of Certain Uses." The subsection you cite is part 6 of 4d: "Special Provisions." This portion also says things like the following: (2) Nothing in this Act shall prevent within national forest wilderness areas any activity, including prospecting, for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources, if such activity is carried on in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment... and this: (4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by this Act, (1) the President may, within a specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem desirable, authorize prospecting for water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs, water-conservation works, power projects, transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public interest, including the road construction and maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his determination that such use or uses in the specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and the people thereof than will its denial; and (2) the grazing of livestock, where established prior to September 3, 1964, shall be permitted to continue subject to such reasonable regulations as are deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture. Shall we equate guiding with mining, reservoirs, and power transmission lines? My "worldview" as you put it, sees guiding as a legitimate activity within designated wilderness. And I think the manner with which the language in 4c has been applied to roads and "permanent or temporary structures" by groups like the NCCC is a bunch of bunk. But if the language in 4c is upheld as stand-alone law, unmodified by 4d, then it must stand alone for the prohibition of guiding too, no? This is how one of my environmental attorney friends said she would argue it anyhow--from either side. The post I put up re guiding on the Ptarmigan Traverse was meant to kind of throw up a flag on what could happen if things get out of control because the outdoor press has deemed a certain part of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area the "holy grail" of hiking. There has already been much discussion about wilderness boundaries, exempt corridors, and guiding activities in the now-enclosed Muir corridor--and some of the concerns are legitimate.