tvashtarkatena

In what might have been a cut and dry case to begin with, Citizens United was blown completely out of proportion by the conservatives on the court and unnecessarily 'metasticized' into the much broader, more damaging piece of judicial activism it became. Nice New Yorker piece on that here. Nor did the dissenting justices think the case, as it evolved, was the narrow, cut and dry, vacuum sealed narrative you're peddling, but hey, maybe they haven't seen your work on CC.com... Wiki Synopsis: I agree, and that's why I'm voting YES for public financing of council elections as an antidote.

"polls routinely show that 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling" When one digs down, none of these are scientific polls. They were conducted by NPR, the NYT, and similar media, and therefore did not represent a true cross section of voters. FOX does this all the time - One of their polls indicated that close to 90% of respondents opposed Obamacare. Elections are the truest 'polls'. Only 48% of CA voted for GMO labeling with all the issues - cost, scientific evidence, etc - were presented to voters. In WA right now, that number stands at 46% - even lower than CA. The oft parroted 90% meme is complete crap, of course, but 'get with the program' is a groupthink trick used in just about every initiative campaign by one side or the other. When you hear a high number like that, you can bet the question was framed and/or the argument filtered to get a guaranteed YES. On Nov 5th, we'll find out what this 90% number really is - it'll be about 40 points lower than has been advertised.

We're 9 days away from the election. Most recent polls show 46/42 for/against, error 5. This is down from 66 for 6 weeks ago. Not a good trend for 522. Last year CA's prop 37 polled 67 for at this time (9 days before the election). It lost by 3 points. In general, initiative proponents expect at least a margin of error's worth (5 points) of erosion within a week of an election - when most folks vote. This is particularly true when they are outgunned adwise, as is the case with 522. They prefer to go into an election with a large enough buffer to counteract this common phenomenon. 522 clearly doesn't have that luxury right now. Given the rapidly eroding support too many days from the election, the lack of this win buffer, but taking into account WA's slightly more librul voting patterns than CA,I'd bet on a similarly close NO vote, but I wouldn't bet much. It's going to be an interesting photo finish to an issue that is, frankly, a bit of a yawner.

In the end, its just a label. My GF's voting yes, so I can't get too wrapped around the axle about this one.

Be done with what? Be done with the debate because this poster is losing. Groupthink 101 tactic. Remember "Lets roll!" ?

that 90% figure gets trotted out as a groupthink bludgeon when the science inevitably comes up short, but like the science, it, too, is crap. A similar measure failed in CA and is too close to call in WA, so those are the actual numbers when taxpayer and private costs, including the opportunity cost of not doing things that are more important, are considered. Most people will say Sure, why not? if they are mislead into believing its free. Thus figure is just one more junk science data point frim proponents who so far have offered an understandably skeptical public little else. Bad policy and dishonest campaigns do tend to go together. A poll is a prediction based on how the question is framed. if 90% of WA wanted this, then why is it 50/50 right now? Hmmmm. A vote is a decision on the actual initiative-ie, it is reality.

tell you, you mean. buy organic. GMO isnt an ingredient. its a tecnology used to create ingredients which are often indistinguishable nutritionally from their non GMO counterparts. the organic label already covers that pretty well. sorry, this is a hippy pet project attempting to get mandated crowdsource funding.

Onus? What onus? Bragging about how wonderful your product is on the label is standard marketing 101. If there's a rising tide (there is) of GMO labeling as a marketing strategy, what's the problem we need to make every food biz who sells in WA jump through this expensive hoop again? If that's your marketing strategy, cool. If not - you shouldn't be forced to tell everyone that's NOT your marketing strategy. Very weird logic at work here. Let's make everyone in the world jump through a hoop to support a marketing strategy for 5% of producers. Hmmmm...not a good use of state power, tax dollars, or private money IMO. I know a lot of small business owners. An overly complex regulatory and taxation system is killing them. Automation isn't the only thing slowing our economic growth. Government dysfuction is also a leading cause. In general, I'm always for the least draconian solution to every problem. If the solution is trending upward naturally already, let continue and be happy.

People who demand that their food be produced in a relatively sustainable way already have the Organic Label. 100% Organic requires zero GMO already. Any product can voluntary label itself GMO Free. No need for this waste of time and money - which, after all, hurts smaller producers the most. Monsanto isn't even gonna notice.

It is very much a warning label. If it wasn't, the initiative would have simply required that it be appended to existing FDA labeling, instead of appearing prominently on the package front. The Debbilz in the Detailz.

Reread the thread. It's all there. All I've got, anyway. The range of technologies is specifically listed in the initiative. You've read the initiative, of course. The harms are listed, too - they're just not supported by credible evidence. To me, the larger issue is Factory Farming and monoculture - too resource (oil) intensive and too hard on the topsoil (poisons and erosion). The agricultural industry is actually working hard to address these issues. That said, the specifics of farming is way beyond my pay grade. Some obvious reforms do come to mind, however: End schedule crop subsidies End schedule crop subsidies End schedule crop subsidies being my top 3. Also - end gov. involvement with corn based biofuels - subsidize the development of sustainable cellulose based bio fuels instead. Hemp seed comes to mind. Tax incentives for sustainable agriculture. Examples include rotating pasture dairy farms, and the development of perennial crops over annuals (this is well under way - 30% of our crops are already perennial). Reforming city council election systems to eliminate at large elections (how many Mexican Americans are on the Yakima City Council, exactly?) so that communities, not corporations, have local control over their land and environment. These reforms seem to be more to the point regarding sustainability to me. GMO is just another sideshow IMO.

This issue reminds me of the monorail, when well meaning initiative authors thought it would be a good idea for millions of Washingtonians to take sides on the efficacy of a specific technology, rather than vote for policies that address the broader issue (moving people efficiently from A to B, in that case). I gleefully voted no on the monorail, and we got an on time, on budget light rail system designed and managed by talented professionals - the way it should be. Its REPRESENTATIVE government, after all. Now, initiative authors are asking us to vote for a warning label (that's what it is, not an ingredients label) for a whole range of technologies few of them seem to understand - and waste an enormous amount of precious (unfunded) public money - and far more private money in a faltering economy - to do what, exactly? If activists need not provide proof of harm for their expensive pet projects, and lets face it, that's what this is, where is this going to go? Regarding the actual label or lack thereof, aside from the principle and precedent involved - if my next bag of caramel Bugles has a GMO Inside sticker on the front - andd my nexst box of Nature's HandJob Organic Gojiberry and refined cane juice breafast cereal has GMO Free plastered all over it (newsflash - if you buy 100% Organic, its ALREADY GMO free) I'll...I'll...yawn.

Pasternak had nothing to do with the directors choice there, but it seemed like the message was that Laras spirit lived on thru her daughter. more personal than political IMO. Pasternaks was,after all, a love story, and this was the final punctuation to K's redemption as a result of that love. Plus, the sweeping shot of the dam made a fine segue for the musical score.

Oh, I don't know. Pasternak didn't treat Pasha very kindly "It will be the beginning of his happiness and the end of hers"

At some level, I think the Soviet leadership knew Kennedy was one crazy fucker - and they were right. The guy was a big ole nuclear bag of really shitty judgement - save nailing MM, perhaps. My view of the Soviets hailed primarily from Catholic school. The only thing I remember was a textbook image of some big bad communist with his mean people face on pointing at a blackboard in front of a crying schoolgirl that read "There is no God!" Little did I know those mean old commies were actually trying to do me a favor. The Catholics are largely out of the anti-communist business, but heavily into the anti choice, contraception, and death with dignity business. They own 20% of hospital beds nationwide, and a whopping 45% in WA. Need family planning or end of life services? Take it on down the road, pal. Live in a rural community with no other option? Suck on this Hail Mary. This is a particularly tough nut to crack, because tax exempt status gives the Papists a huge bidness advantage - hence their successful plan of gobbling up every secular health care facility they can find. What is really needed is to eliminate religious tax exemption (an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment, but whatev). Not so easy, and neither are the more realistic options to beat this thing back into the unholy Sacristie from which it came. Tough fight.

I had the required Apollo models - Command module and LEM. One day my little brother just came over and smashed it. He came pretty close to not getting any older. I watched Neil Armstrong do his thing like everybody else, but strangely, I have no memories of Apollo 13. The movie was the first time I think I was even aware the near disaster had happened. I will say that I prefer the new world, however uncertain. I just read an article about how a B52 broke up mid flight over N Carolina in 1961. It dropped its payload of 2 Mark 39 2+ megaton thermonukes over N. Carolina. On bomb thought it was a live fire exercise - 3 of its 4 fail safe switches didn't fail safe - the last one, a single low voltage switch, prevented detonation. No thanks.

I agree with Jay here. The GMO issue is similar to Citizens United in that we should rely on credible data to support any government mandate or restriction of any kind. We've been fighting a disastrous Drug War for 42 years now based on shitty, baseless ideas. Do we really want more of the same kind of governing process? Many folks who support GMO labeling rail against conservatives for abandoning, and even attacking, science in their decisions making. Well, you can't have it both ways. "More information is better than less" is the most common argument I hear. That statement makes several very important assumptions. 1) The information comes for free. This certainly won't. It's may be entirely unfunded (a classic cynical move to get it passed). 'a small, up front cost'...for every single food producer that does business in WA. Please. 3) The information therefore comes without an opportunity cost. Unfunded means the substantial costs of implementation and enforcement will come out of the general fund in a state with a huge deficit. Do we really need this new hippy toy (and, let's face it, that's exactly what this is) when we can't even pay for education? I don't think so. 2) The information is substantiated and therefore useful enough for a mandate - ie, the harms are significant to warrant such draconian action. Give the actual science here...um...no.

I strongly support this one. Publicly funded elections are probably the only constitutional antidote to a post Citizens United world. Many studies have shown that being far more heavily funded than your opponent often does not provide an overwhelming advantage - 60 millino in shitty commercials doesn't seem to help any more than 20 million of same. Being underfunded - below a certain critical threshold, very often guarantees defeat, however. The idea is to provide all candidates that minimum ticket to ride. perhaps paradoxically, I also strongly agree with the Citizens United decision. Unlike the way its been popularly characterized - it was a classic, cut and dry free speech case. At issue was about an uncoordinated (with any campaign) non profit that showed a movie about Hilz (it could have been made for free and the case wouldn't have changed) within a 'blackout' period specified by McCain Feingold - within 3 months of an election. The problem is that Congress didn't even bother to attempt to show harm when it restricted this kind of speech in passing McCain Feingold. Well, our constitution requires that test to be given if speech is to be restricted, and we should want to keep it that way. Otherwise, Congress can restrict speech as it sees fit - based on any crazy theory, without showing proof of harm. It's done it in the past - so there's plenty of reason to be wary of granting that or any governing body such power over our expression. The consequences of Citizens United, intended or unintended, require not introduction. Publicly financed elections are probably the best cure for too much concentration of influence regarding elections.

The fish gift is a seemingly unique behavior I've not seen before among wild animals. I have seen plenty of animals play with their food, including us, and cats and dogs do leave use presents now and then, but we aren't one of their typical prey species (well, not often, anyway). As for just playing with food - I once saw a raven with a mouse in his beak do the following near one of the Gorge's windy ridges: He swooped up from the leeward side and into the slipstream, which tumbled him in a backwards somersault - during which he transferred the mouse from beak to talon, then dove whole transferring the mouse back to his beak. He repeated this over and over again. The mouse probably didn't enjoy the ride as much as his air frame did. There is a general principle here: we don't know as much as we think we might about the world. We would do well to keep this in mind when taking actions that will have a significant impact on it. We also don't know as much about each other as we may think - even the people closest to us. As pattern recognition machines, fighting the urge to fill in the blanks is a necessary but difficult part of achieving a truer understanding of the world around us.

Lots of pack predators cooperate similarly. Tag team hunting. Bubble nets. Once you've got a language ginned up, mealtimes come more often for those animals who can't rely on more basic means of communication and organization like chemicals and whatnot.

I was the second person in my extended family to visit our relatives in Ireland (the other branch of a family that has had no contact in two generations). My Irish relatives were shockingly similar in behavior and emotional makeup to their US counterparts, despite no contact and having been raised in very different environments (Irish - originally small farmers, with the Yanks starting out as NYC tenement dwellers) an ocean apart. I used to be an all nurture, not-much-nature person regarding humans. Not any longer. That was too much data to ignore, however anecdotal. Cultural persistence didn't come close to explaining such remarkable similarities for me. We haven't a clue how the consciousness works yet, so this is all parlor discussion at this point, really. Reckon we'll find out eventually. Then we'll be faced with the age old question of just how perfect we really want to be, who defines that perfection, and what we're willing to do to each other and ourselves to realize that.

Regarding the orca and seagull, the answer may well be 'none of the above'. And given our propensity for misunderstanding, despite language, science, and all the rest, I'd wager we'll increasingly find that our behavior is more pre-programmed than many of us would like to think.

Kruger National Park sells elephant jerky in the gift shop. I asked a ranger about it. He told me that, while all large animal populations in the park are controlled to prevent environmental degradation, elephants must be culled by family group, rather than individual. This is part mercy, part safety, he explained. Elephants really don't forget, and after a period of mourning, they become angry and very dangerous. I went on a four day guided walk in Umfolozi - another SA NP. Before heading out, we were instructed on what to do if we were charged by an animal - rhino (slowly move towards a large visual object like a tree - don't move as they (hopefully) run past you), cape buffalo (climb a tree, even if its an acacia with 3 inch thorns), lion (stand your ground), hippos (don't camp on riverbanks and, for gods sake, swim elsewhere), etc. "You didn't mention elephant" I commented. "Don't piss an elephant off" he replied. Apparently, there is no escape from an elephant if it wants a piece of you and you don't happen to have 2 well trained guys with .458s handy to even the playing field.

The fun will really begin when we make contact with another advanced apex predator.

1000+ extra solar planets and rising is kinda cool, too. We'll find extraterrestrial life within 3 or 4 years, but it won't be on Mars, or anywhere else in our solar system. It'll take a bit longer for that.