tvashtarkatena

The objects depicted certain look like something one could philate if so inclined. Preferably not during a re-entry burn.

Touche LOL

The animal rights debate will become stickier in the future. That might be good practice for the inevitable sentient machine rights debate.

You were, indeed, exposed here. Humans see animal intelligence and emotional range through a very narrow lens. We don't see most of what they do in the wild, our experiments are simplistic, and we've only crudely deciphered a tiny fraction of their languages. Adaption, nature's analog for distributed artificial intelligence, can seem like cognitive prowess - during his recent visit my biologist nephew told me of a spider that preys on other spiders than can mimic over 50 different kinds of prey when pretending to be stuck in its prey's web. Even a polar bear, the most imaginative predator in the world, hasn't been observed to have as many tricks up its sleeve (although it comes close). Adaption sans higher intellect falls pretty short, however, when you observe, as I did in Vancouver several years back, 3 orcas after a marine show delicately balancing their last fish on their lower lip so they can tease the seagulls - presenting the fish, fading back - before gifting those fish to the seagulls in the end. It was the last part that really got me - lots of species play, but these animals have a strong sense of fairness that extends across the boundary of species - even a prey species no less. That's amazing. Or, perhaps, those orcas were practicing some less than amazing seagull catch and release because they weren't hungry and had some time to kill. Maybe they were inviting those seagulls to become lunch next time. It would be great to be able to ask them. We will eventually figure out how to communicate with orcas and the like. It will be interesting to hear their thoughts on their captivity and circus stardom.

Fuck all this tired bullshit, my niece just got engaged to a really great guy!

and opinions are like assholes

Labeling requirements constitute compelled commercial speech, and have been at the center of several free speech cases. Here's a piece about the FDA's new requirement to add graphio anti smoking warnings on ciggies: linky From Citizens United to this, folks often don't consider the idea that the government must provide some proof of harm when attempt to either restrict or compel speech. Regardless of how you feel about corporate campaign spending or smoking, you really want to think carefully before wishing for a world where the government can so limit speech without having to provide a compelling reason, with supporting data, for that action. Think about that world for a bit.

There's a seat in Congress waiting for him.

This is not true, and there have been no libel challenges to GMO Free labeling to date. Such a challenge would be unlikely - given that 'peanut free' and a host of other 'xxxx free' labels are commonplace, and that such labels make no direct critic or health claims against producers or their products. Currently, a minority of the states have food disparagement laws. That's not to say such laws should not be a concern. Any law which limits free speech should be considered very carefully. Our food industy's impact on the environment is as big a disaster as our current state of health - largely caused by same, so I would expect that industry to use every means to defend itself against this emerging realization. Suing for a GMO Free label probably won't be one of these action, IMO.

THere's a storm a-comin... Take Shelter! And to think this poor guy just thought he was sprucing up an anchor rather than inciting the Hate State of Ah Rea'y Gone to secede from the Climbing Union. The usual tempest in an herbal tea cup. Ah, life in a pampered country!

Not lighting them on fire just before dropping them was a missed opportunity.

Is this, like, 7th grade? Later, my brother.

I enjoy it. But hey, this is no time for drama, cuz There's a storm a-comin! You cannot make this shit up. The general public doesn't give two shits about what climbers do. Whatever storm you're going on about is hawt climber on climber action. That's some new school shit right there, man.

I'm not judging you, but you do act like a tool on occasion - like now, for example. I don't really give a shit if you Oregon boys shut every one of your climbing areas down for good, frankly. Cockblock each other at will. That seems to be more important than climbing to you southerners. Knock yourselves out. The granite's all up here anyway.

Yes, long after the Smiffholes have cockblocked the place for other climbers, Dtown will still be WA STYLE GOOD TIMES.

WTF is in the water down there, anyway? Jaysus.

storms can blow both ways.

There was this kid named Rudy Campodonica in High School who had a substantial learning disability. Poor kid got caught by some jocks in the locker room shower chocking it, and from then on he was known as Rudy Campobeatica. Now, every time I hear the name Rudy....

Actually, a farmer that purchases patented seeds that CAN be reproduced cannot subsequently plant those seeds to create a self sustaining supply without a specific contract allowing him to do so. Recent, interesting case in the midwest: The farmer purchased seed for feed, some of which he knew from experience contained patented Roundup Ready seeds. Rather than use them for feed, he planted, then Roundupped the shit out them. Only the Roundup Ready plants survived to produce more seeds. No contract with Monsanto, however. He was therefore shutdown in court.

Most likely all the same arguments we see in this campaign were used abroad. There is a dearth of scientific support for the assertion that GMOs are unhealthy. If you buy whole foods anyway, it's not much of an issue. If you buy lots of processed foods, um *cough*, GMOs should be the least of your concern. The effect of GMOs on the environment is the real issue - one that is, unfortunately, fantastically complicated and unsettled - and therefore not cut and dry. I'm for moving away from factory monoculture to more sustainable food production for about 100 reasons. This seems like a poorly crafted hippy sideshow to me, however, and one that brings little advantage to a voluntary labeling approach to providing consumers choice and information. Why would a GMO Free company NOT put that on their label to gain a competitive advantage?

I522's requirement not to simply append existing FDA labeling, but instead require what is essentially a warning label on the product front very much implies that GMOs are bad. Classic overreach, and one that will kill the entire project should it pass. This is about punishment, not 'providing information'. Talk to its supporters - its an insult a minute once you start asking salient questions. It all boils down to punishing agribusiness, not 'providing choice'. If it was, voluntary GMO FREE labels would be the direction for offering that choice.

I agree. And face it, the people that care the most about this will be better served - you can seek out the foods labeled "GMO-free", and companies can cater to you. The rest of us will just ignore the "GMO inside" labels. I agree. No 1st Amendment clusterfuck required. I might have just voted for this bowser cuz lots of my cool friends are and Monsanto Is Bad and PCC is Good (I'm not joking - one women posted "If I522 is bad, why are all these companies supporting it? LOL", but the religiousity of its supporters and lack of specifics as to why, exactly, they think this specific law will make the world a better place caused by to research it further. Not a single farming organization has endorsed 522. Do they all just suck, or might they have legitimate concerns, as I do? On the flip side, plenty of individual organic farms have. Fine - their free to add a GMO FREE label anytime they like. Two solutions - one costly to the public and smaller businesses, complicated, and mandatory, the other completely voluntary. Both do exactly the same thing - allow consumers who give a rip to choose GMO free products. Hmmm....is this a trick question?

I've decided to vote NO for the following reasons: 1) "The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal." I522 doesn't even come close to doing this. Given that the smoking warning requirement in WA was just struck down based on this flaw, I don't see I522 - which has a far weaker case than smoking, will survive a 1st Amendment challenge. Had I522's authors not overstepped their bounds in requiring a new warning label rather than an addendum to existing food labeling, it might have squeeked past a constitutional challenge. This won't, and it will be a huge waste of money and time until it is inevitably kilt in court. 2) I522 is unfunded in a time of huge deficits. It also has no GMO testing provision. 3) Factory food producers will simply slap a generic "May Contain Some GMO" labell on everything - just like the peanut thing, but smaller business will disproportionately suffer under the cost and (very high) penalty burden. 4) This labeling will hurt WA farmers who export to GMO free or restricted nations, not help them. 5) Finally, we already have an Organic designation for folks who want to eat healthier food. I would love to see a shift towards more sustainable, healthier food production, but I can't get from A to B regarding why this is one of the best approaches to doing that, particularly WA's budgetary triage right now. I will vote no. My friends may scream a bit, but that's the way of it. I have other reasons, but the first one is a fatal error - and probably one that could have been avoided had the proponents of this thing not overreached. They had no excuse to do so - given that the initiative's CA predecessor died, in part, because it, too, probably would have been ruled a 1st Amendment violation because it attempted to regulate the word 'natural'. To date, no one has given me a credible reason to vote for it, other than Monsanto is bad. Well, there are principles and there are players. The NAZIs are bad, but they still get to march. That Monsanto is against this and PCC is for it does not make it good policy. I522 isn't IMO. I522 will cost a lot of money, despite being unfunded, have little to no real positive effect, have many unintended consequences for smaller healthy food producers, and be quickly killed in court. In a state with a huge deficit and many other more worthy projects to work on, this one doesn't even come close to making the cut.

I've been to the respective main websites, read the initiative, but would love to hear at least on farmer's perspective, as well as other viewpoints. I'm familiar with the whole Roundup Ready crop thing, and the problems with our factory food production. I'm still left wondering what the positive impact is supposed to be here and whether or not its worth the cost. I'm also wondering what that cost - to industry, consumers, and the state, will be. Haven't been able to find an estimate (the Sec of State's estimate is what I'm looking for. This is the best analysis of the initiative I've been able to find so far (it's against): linky I have not been able to find a similar quality 'for' analysis to date. Would love to read one.

Pete, I like you, but you bicker for the sake of bickering and rarely take the risk of adding substantively to any discussion. You don't bother to read my posts before commenting on them (if you had, you'd realize I just made the very same point you did) You've become boring and predictable, but I sense you could offer a lot more with your smarts and sense of humor. It would be cool to see more of you and less of the tit for tat. Hell, we could even go on a trip sometime together. In a brave new world where FW and Tvash agree on something, this one seems easy. I love ya lots and hate ya little. For the record, I never fail to enjoy The Commander's posts. He's actually one of my faves. Just sayin...