olyclimber

HOLY SHIT!!!! THAT IS MY CAT!!!!!

Do you have a cooler to store beer/meat in?

I'm in. Hopefully the people coming up in the car with me are able to hang out too ...

maybe my "position" is inconsistent with your point of view, but not with my own. maybe you think you know what my point of view is, but if you have surmised anything then you must have a pretty simple, black or white view about things. i never brought up nationalized health care...i was just talking about an ethical situation which relates to the guidance one might have to give to a corporation. now excuse me, i have to go to home and dust my Lenin and Hillary posters.

And heck, its even possible to run a profitable company honestly! I'm not sure why these companies are surrounded with controversy, but they are. What if the public company wants too much and the public can't afford it? But of course...how much is your life worth? Shouldn't we be handing them our first born, and signing over the deed to the house? No one wants to bargain on the operating table with the doctor for how much you're going to pay for the life saving operation. I guess I'm just not sold on the idea the corporations can be entirely self regulating. The recent news with the FDA and tainted peanut butter makes me even more skeptical. I need my Nanny State! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4738421.html

Why do you believe this film is not just propaganda? But if the propaganda is really, really effective...he might just be right.

So what do you think about when a corporation possesses the technology to save millions and millions of lives...yet most of those millions and million can't afford to buy that product. Is that just a case of natural selection (i.e. those who manage to find the means to purchase the cure are permitted to live)? That is an aside from the whole idea that the corporation should be awarded monetarily for their innovation.

I don't find the "farmers are dumb and don't know how to evaluate crop strains or make informed judgments concerning how to operate their businesses as well as I do" argument much more persuasive than the "gun to the head" argument. As far as altruism is concerned, whether a company develops a technology out of avarice, greed, malice, or any other motive is considerably less important than the objective benefits of the said technology or innovation. If you had an otherwise incurable disease and someone developed a drug for the sole reason that they wanted to make money, would you refuse it on principle? I know a few doctors that do lifesaving work, yet were at least partly attracted to the field because of the money. Are their contributions to society less valuable as a result of their motivations for entering into the field? Believe it or not, I actually don't have anything against corporations or individuals who wish to make money. I only despise those that do so using deceit or harmful practices. I also don't wear patchouli. I hate the smell of that crap.

The dirty unamerican hippie commies have made a website railing about the Evils of the Corporation. http://www.monsantowatch.org/ Here is a list of no-nothing hippies with mail order degrees in genetics: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/board_of_a.cfm http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/staff_bios.cfm looks to be a bunch of lawyers and liberal arts majors

lets see...the choice is use the high yield genetically modified crop with "special benefits" -or- use the non-modified crop with much lower yields. its a simple equation. yes...the gun is essentially at their heads...use the modified crop or go out of business/lose the farm. Of course, I'm not a crop geneticist, so I'm totally making this up, might not be true. its funny Jay...your arguments are strikingly similar to the ones made in "Thank You for Smoking". Have you seen it? Have you considered a career working for Big Tobacco? Haven't you learned that Corporations are Evil?

Its a part of the package...along with the plant reproduction modifications they do get tangible benefits and are lured down the road of genetically modified (and corporately controlled) crops. obviously people won't by a product unless it purports to have a tangible benefit, which it might...and perhaps along with a few hidden "benefits" (i.e. benefits for Monsanto). at any rate...the point was that genetic modification isn't always done in "our best interest"...its done in the interest of the corporation. historically there are many problems with the product and business practices of these companies, including Monsanto, so why should we trust them now? at anyrate, I'm not arguing for unfounded or nonfactual slamming of frankenfood companies. there is enough historical evidence to validate maintaining a healthy skepticism about the business practices of these companies. and as for the farmers that bought the seed for the "tangible benefits"...well as foolish as it makes them seem for buying the product in the first place, it seems that some of them think they have a court case against Monsanto. who knows how that will turn out.

So they have cameras in the bathroom at your school Ivan?

Who are you trying to kid, beside yourself? The changes occurring worldwide in food production are not motivated simply or primarily by altruistic desires to end world hunger. It's about money. Control. Got to love the cases where genetic modification has nothing to do with improving life or even improving production...but with enforcing control over the product (i.e. genetic modification so that reproduction of the seed is not possible). It truly is about money (understandably so...the motive of a corporation is to make money, not to save the world). Also the stories of genetically modified plants blowing into the neighboring fields resulting in lawsuits by Monsanto, etc against the farmers who own those fields. There is plenty to be paranoid about when it comes to Frankenfood....much of it isn't actually related to just what happens to you when you eat it, but then I'm not qualified to talk about it because I'm not a plant geneticist or crop scientist.

I thought it was pretty good, they played a few song off their upcoming album. Even with earplugs my ears where ringing this morning. Good stuff...like that band Hovercraft but without the movie to go along with the music. The Japanese group was pretty good too...there was also some guy doing a painting up on stage during the show changing colors and brush strokes according to the music.

beer and food? tell me more.

Nice Carl!

THANK GAWD FOR THE INTERNETS I CAN HAVE THIS IN MY HOME!!!

yo nerd, you got the URL wrong

it was unknown...a bacterial infection. they swabbed some staph out of my nose, but were unable to get anything to grow from samples taken from my arm.

side project is herzog, so they can screw around and invent stuff for kinski

but you would live longer

Its just a continuation of the arguement that everything is natural. Nuclear waste, oil spills, etc...all occur naturally. How could anything occur unnaturally, anyway?

someone find and share these!

opening for Mono : Mono are a four-piece instrumental post-rock band from Tokyo. Their names are Tamaki, Taka Goto, Yoda, and Yasunori Takada. They are on a two-month U.S. tour in support their release You Are There. In Japan, their four lauded releases in five years have made them influential and acclaimed. Their performances have turned them into a band that needs to be seen and heard. The post part of their post-rock is wielded with two sides: one, a sledgehammer, and the other, a paint brush. With sheer and massive volume, they put their sledgehammer through the ice of a frozen lake. Overhead, they war with a pterodactyl, and paint the scene. The Mono crescendo is poised and builds precisely. The sledgehammer strikes and the giant prehistoric bird falls hard. The ice breaks and the half-dead animal sinks slowly down through the black depths to the hypothermia of its permanent sleep. Mono didn't want to kill, they had to; the city is safe again.