So believing that Germany persecuted leftists , socialists and communists is now a form of indoctrination. Now the most basic, verifiable and proven facts of history- which are still alive in some witnesses' minds -are something in dispute along with AGW
I never made such a claim. The comment of mine you quoted applied to your whole post, obviously, not anything specific. So this is nothing but a straw man.
This is what deniers are; mindlessly and pointlessly combative, ego dysfunctional, partisan, intransigent, power seeking idiots with an unlimited capacity for self-deception whose self esteem is so low that the possibility of admitting error simply does not exist, regardless of how basic the fact are that they've maligned.
There are so many fallacies in here I don't know where to begin. Let's just go with your accusation of me as a "denier" - very similar to the Nazi's and other warhawks' technique of classifying enemies into a generic group of antagonists, despised by the great majority of the populace, and thus dehumanizing them to create targets for blame and hatred. The classification is entirely unjustified, as there is nothing proven or scientifically sound that I have rejected, all I have done is criticize the proposed solutions, and for rational reasons, expounded on by me but ignored by you.
Your next argument is a similar "guilt by association" argument, and one in which there is entirely no evidence or even hint that the association is valid, or anywhere even implied.
Who is going to stop the zombie army?
Well that's what I'm trying to do - by educating people about the agenda, the end goal, and the inevitable death and destruction that will result if the fake environmentalists are able to succeed in co-opting the movement to implement their plans.
And at what cost to our nation and how much blood is going to be spilled
Well this is back to your original view that the US should become like most of the 3rd world, and revert to a system where the ones with the best armaments should just kill and imprison any that oppose their rule. I don't think that after over 150 years of peaceful transitions of governmental power and influence that the system is so unresponsive (yet) that we should simply revert to violent suppression of 15 - 20% of the population based on the ideology of the ruling class. Unfortunately, I can see the US government headed quickly in that direction, with the NDAA's authorization of indefinite detention of citizens, the planned 30,000 drones performing surveillance throughout the US, signed recently into law by Obama, and the vast amount of funding being pumped into a growing police state.
disabuse the conservatives of the notion that living within the dictates of reality is some form of oppression upon them and their freedoms ?
I think this argument is irrelevant. Education of the populace on issues is a failure. Most are either uninvolved or apathetic to a degree that they can't take the time to understand the issues. The vast majority is ill equipped, by choice, to influence policy. But there are many that are not. And politicians react so predictably to the right positive and negative reinforcement that it only takes a small majority to control the environment. The problem is it takes lots of bodies at the grassroots to overwhelm the money from the corporations, academics, and global multinationalists at the top. So the inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole and simplistic framing of policy issues into talking points is what sways the masses to apply pressure. And that still works. So unlike you I'm unwilling to resort to killing my fellow countrymen, even if they are political enemies.
Yes, sometimes religion promotes good ideas, sometimes it promotes bad ideas. Meaning it should not be interfered with by government, but also shouldn't have have influence on government unless its ideas are supported by the rest of society, too.
It's both a discussion of the rule-making process AND the rule itself. Read it again. The rules are there, as well as the justification for them. Note the document is titled "National Organic Program; Final Rule".
Wow I see you've been thoroughly indoctrinated. Good luck with your black/white, good/evil worldview. Eventually you may get out of school and start to learn a few things about the real world. Study a little history when you do - you're obviously getting a pretty skewed version of it now.
I can draw further analogies, all apropo, about how a significant part of the US polity was FOR Nazi Germany and fascism , and how that part of the demographic was nearly the same crowd as the deniers today- conservative Catholics (Father Conklin et al "the one good thing Hitler is doing is killing the Jews..." ) and the conservative isolationists and xenophobes which are today's Tea Party.
And I can draw even more credible analogies that the supporters of Nazi Germany and fascism are the same ones now promoting climate change alarmism and global governance of resources. In fact the true grass roots of the Tea Party (NOT the establishment GOP big-government types that have co-opted it) are the same libertarian voices that were opposed to the big-government corporatism exemplified by the fascist policies.
During the era you refer to, all the biggest and most important players within the fascist movement came from the socialists. It was a threat to the socialists because it was the most appealing political vehicle for the real-world application of the socialist impulse. Socialists crossed over to join the fascists en masse. Mussolini was heralded in scholarly collections as an exemplar of the type of leader we needed in the age of the planned society. The academics, the New York Times editorial staff, and the Progressives were all part of this praise of the Fascist way - the same group that you belong to decrying "denialists" for getting in the way of the "progress" on a new system of global governance.
In 1933 and 1934, the American Left had to make a choice. Would they embrace the corporatism and regimentation of the New Deal or take a principled stand on their old liberal values? In other words, would they accept fascism as a halfway house to their socialist utopia? A gigantic battle ensued in this period, and there was a clear winner. The New Deal made an offer the Left could not refuse. And it was a small step to go from the embrace of the fascistic planned economy to the celebration of the warfare state that concluded the New Deal period.
The anthropogenic global warming craze, which began as a scientific inquiry as to what role Mankind plays in any perceived warming, was hijacked by the Left, the Progressives, who practice what Jonah Goldberg calls “nice fascism”. They were never concerned with any increases in temperatures or sea levels, they were concerned with how to control people and countries.
Yes, it does, Mr. Pendantic. Where do your rights come from? More likely than not, my "carbon footprint" is smaller than yours. Are you going to pay me my reparations now?
Dude, if you follow my link above, the linked post quotes the relevant part of the rules, and has a link to the entire rule. The law doesn't need specifics, the USDA defines the specifics based on the law.
Well according to the USDA, it's a lot more than that. They won't certify anything genetically modified by any laboratory methods as "organic". Check out my other post.
The "synthetic chemicals" part has to do with adjuncts added to the soil, not the growing seed, so I don't think that would apply. But, as I'm reminded, Federal bureaucrats always provide their own interpretations of laws in the Federal Register, and enforce the law based on those rules, not the way consumers or businesses interpret them. The applicable version is found here, and states, in part:
A variety of methods used to
genetically modify organisms or
influence their growth and development
by means that are not possible under
natural conditions or processes and are
not considered compatible with organic
production. Such methods include cell
fusion, microencapsulation and
macroencapsulation, and recombinant
DNA technology (including gene
deletion, gene doubling, introducing a
foreign gene, and changing the position
of genes when achieved by recombinant
DNA technology). Such methods do not
include the use of traditional breeding,
conjugation, fermentation,
hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or
tissue culture.’’
So I'm convinced that the USDA will exclude any kind of GMO crop from certification as "organic".
A simple carbon emission tax would be much better.
And "carbon offsets" too, right? Because indulgences worked so well in the past.
See, you have this total blindness in your worldview, where you think there is some ideal way of "leveling the playing field", which is really just a way to consolidate power. After all, somebody will have to be the one to decide what all the "externalities" cost - and I think I know the conclusion: it's more than any working person can possibly afford. So it all requires eliminating private property, and the same somebody controlling all the resources and distributing them as they see fit (taking a bit off the top, of course, required for all the private jets and vehicles and opulent meeting places required for the hard work of running the new command economy). Just like those altruistic folks making so many sacrifices for their vital role in keeping the European economy running so smoothly.
All you need to do is take a look around at all the "common areas" and areas preserved as "conservation easements" all over California to see how this really works out. Compare it to areas of privately owned land and you can see where the real environmental disasters occur - because people consistently take better care of their own land than anybody else's. And when nobody is responsible for it, it gets trashed pretty quickly. And all those roving merchants than come in and set up markets for a day or two and leave the trash everywhere don't even pay all the fees and taxes California says they should, because the next day they're all packed up and gone, and they couldn't afford it anyway.
I think you mean "invisible hand" of the free market. And if you think that's bad, you should see the waste that goes on when the people in charge don't care how much anything costs, because it's somebody else working for it.
Right. So your real problem is not science at all, it's politics. You don't like the people on the side of science, so you're happy take the side of those that deny science.
You can look at it that way if you want to, but of course you're claiming that "science" has a "side" which means that you're taking an anti-science stance yourself. I've never been accused of supporting the status-quo, which I think what Heartland's agenda is all about, so I can't say I'm taking their side either. What I do know is that many of the solutions proposed by the UN and academics all involve a massive consolidation of power and control of resources on global scale, which can only lead to untold suffering and death for all but those at the very top of the power structure, as is clear from history. If they were advocating more of a planning for change, working on migration plans, transitions to different crop varieties, development of new resources and commerce routes, they might have some credibility, but that's never the case - it's always about controlling behavior and increasing conformity.
Thank you for pointing out the prevailing attitude of the AGW alarmist crowd. They don't value freedom, they value top-down command economies. And as the OP pointed out, their plans to implement it will be certain to kill and disadvantage as many people as the climate change that they purportedly want to stop, just in different ways. But their utopian vision of a benevolent global control structure is so compelling to them, in spite of impossible odds that such a concentration of power could ever be "benevolent", that they will justify any means to achieve their ends.
Loss of liberty, of freedom, the history of suffering at the hands of dictators throughout history is nothing to them.
Actually, there are none. Unless you count computer models, which is just confirmation that math works, not that it has anything to do with accurate predictions of physical systems in the real world.
Gold is no less fake a currency than Federal Reserve Notes.
Repeating this lie over and over won't make it true. Gold is limited, unlike fiat money which is created out of thin air (currency costs a little more to print, but not by enough to matter). That's what makes fiat money "fake" and money backed by limited commodities "real". And it's why the US "dollar" is now worth about 4 cents, compared to its value when the Federal Reserve was created.
You're not counting everything. You don't sanitize your workspace? You don't clean your primary and secondary fermentor? How about your bottles (or kegs or keg fittings, etc.)? I'm probably over-estimating a bit, But I know it takes 4 1/2 gallons to sanitize a keg, the kegerator, and fittings, which I do at least every other batch. I also rinse everything after sanitizing.
I know it, due to a recent dispute with the city over our water bill (they once claimed we used about 60,000 gallons in a 28 day period). The actual figure comes out to about 4,200 gallons a month for 2 adults, 4 pets, and twice-per-week visits from the college kid. But, I make a lot of beer, which consumes 20 gallons of water for each 5 gallons of beer.
Converted to liters and annualized, a rough figure is 190,000 liters. That's less than 10% of the article's figure. For 2 people, not one. So while it didn't seem like much to me, as you point out, it's quite a lot.
Another indication this article is complete bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
So believing that Germany persecuted leftists , socialists and communists is now a form of indoctrination. Now the most basic, verifiable and proven facts of history- which are still alive in some witnesses' minds -are something in dispute along with AGW
I never made such a claim. The comment of mine you quoted applied to your whole post, obviously, not anything specific. So this is nothing but a straw man.
This is what deniers are; mindlessly and pointlessly combative, ego dysfunctional, partisan, intransigent, power seeking idiots with an unlimited capacity for self-deception whose self esteem is so low that the possibility of admitting error simply does not exist, regardless of how basic the fact are that they've maligned.
There are so many fallacies in here I don't know where to begin. Let's just go with your accusation of me as a "denier" - very similar to the Nazi's and other warhawks' technique of classifying enemies into a generic group of antagonists, despised by the great majority of the populace, and thus dehumanizing them to create targets for blame and hatred. The classification is entirely unjustified, as there is nothing proven or scientifically sound that I have rejected, all I have done is criticize the proposed solutions, and for rational reasons, expounded on by me but ignored by you.
Your next argument is a similar "guilt by association" argument, and one in which there is entirely no evidence or even hint that the association is valid, or anywhere even implied.
Who is going to stop the zombie army?
Well that's what I'm trying to do - by educating people about the agenda, the end goal, and the inevitable death and destruction that will result if the fake environmentalists are able to succeed in co-opting the movement to implement their plans.
And at what cost to our nation and how much blood is going to be spilled
Well this is back to your original view that the US should become like most of the 3rd world, and revert to a system where the ones with the best armaments should just kill and imprison any that oppose their rule. I don't think that after over 150 years of peaceful transitions of governmental power and influence that the system is so unresponsive (yet) that we should simply revert to violent suppression of 15 - 20% of the population based on the ideology of the ruling class. Unfortunately, I can see the US government headed quickly in that direction, with the NDAA's authorization of indefinite detention of citizens, the planned 30,000 drones performing surveillance throughout the US, signed recently into law by Obama, and the vast amount of funding being pumped into a growing police state.
disabuse the conservatives of the notion that living within the dictates of reality is some form of oppression upon them and their freedoms ?
I think this argument is irrelevant. Education of the populace on issues is a failure. Most are either uninvolved or apathetic to a degree that they can't take the time to understand the issues. The vast majority is ill equipped, by choice, to influence policy. But there are many that are not. And politicians react so predictably to the right positive and negative reinforcement that it only takes a small majority to control the environment. The problem is it takes lots of bodies at the grassroots to overwhelm the money from the corporations, academics, and global multinationalists at the top. So the inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole and simplistic framing of policy issues into talking points is what sways the masses to apply pressure. And that still works. So unlike you I'm unwilling to resort to killing my fellow countrymen, even if they are political enemies.
Thanks! Can we call you "buzzkill"?
Yes, sometimes religion promotes good ideas, sometimes it promotes bad ideas. Meaning it should not be interfered with by government, but also shouldn't have have influence on government unless its ideas are supported by the rest of society, too.
It's both a discussion of the rule-making process AND the rule itself. Read it again. The rules are there, as well as the justification for them. Note the document is titled "National Organic Program; Final Rule".
It's a direct product of decades of Bible Thumper effort.
... as is abolitionism.
Wow I see you've been thoroughly indoctrinated. Good luck with your black/white, good/evil worldview. Eventually you may get out of school and start to learn a few things about the real world. Study a little history when you do - you're obviously getting a pretty skewed version of it now.
I can draw further analogies, all apropo, about how a significant part of the US polity was FOR Nazi Germany and fascism , and how that part of the demographic was nearly the same crowd as the deniers today- conservative Catholics (Father Conklin et al "the one good thing Hitler is doing is killing the Jews..." ) and the conservative isolationists and xenophobes which are today's Tea Party.
And I can draw even more credible analogies that the supporters of Nazi Germany and fascism are the same ones now promoting climate change alarmism and global governance of resources. In fact the true grass roots of the Tea Party (NOT the establishment GOP big-government types that have co-opted it) are the same libertarian voices that were opposed to the big-government corporatism exemplified by the fascist policies.
During the era you refer to, all the biggest and most important players within the fascist movement came from the socialists. It was a threat to the socialists because it was the most appealing political vehicle for the real-world application of the socialist impulse. Socialists crossed over to join the fascists en masse. Mussolini was heralded in scholarly collections as an exemplar of the type of leader we needed in the age of the planned society. The academics, the New York Times editorial staff, and the Progressives were all part of this praise of the Fascist way - the same group that you belong to decrying "denialists" for getting in the way of the "progress" on a new system of global governance.
In 1933 and 1934, the American Left had to make a choice. Would they embrace the corporatism and regimentation of the New Deal or take a principled stand on their old liberal values? In other words, would they accept fascism as a halfway house to their socialist utopia? A gigantic battle ensued in this period, and there was a clear winner. The New Deal made an offer the Left could not refuse. And it was a small step to go from the embrace of the fascistic planned economy to the celebration of the warfare state that concluded the New Deal period.
The anthropogenic global warming craze, which began as a scientific inquiry as to what role Mankind plays in any perceived warming, was hijacked by the Left, the Progressives, who practice what Jonah Goldberg calls “nice fascism”. They were never concerned with any increases in temperatures or sea levels, they were concerned with how to control people and countries.
Where does the carbon in the CO2 you breathe out come from? Oh, yeah from plants.
[facepalm]
Yes, it does, Mr. Pendantic. Where do your rights come from? More likely than not, my "carbon footprint" is smaller than yours. Are you going to pay me my reparations now?
Dude, if you follow my link above, the linked post quotes the relevant part of the rules, and has a link to the entire rule. The law doesn't need specifics, the USDA defines the specifics based on the law.
I was going to say the same thing. I couldn't find it, but I remember it, too.
It's amazing to me that current science fails to appreciate the power of nature to overcome our tweaking and fiddling.
Ah - you're a climate change denier, then, huh?
Well according to the USDA, it's a lot more than that. They won't certify anything genetically modified by any laboratory methods as "organic". Check out my other post.
The "synthetic chemicals" part has to do with adjuncts added to the soil, not the growing seed, so I don't think that would apply. But, as I'm reminded, Federal bureaucrats always provide their own interpretations of laws in the Federal Register, and enforce the law based on those rules, not the way consumers or businesses interpret them. The applicable version is found here, and states, in part:
So I'm convinced that the USDA will exclude any kind of GMO crop from certification as "organic".
A simple carbon emission tax would be much better.
And "carbon offsets" too, right? Because indulgences worked so well in the past.
See, you have this total blindness in your worldview, where you think there is some ideal way of "leveling the playing field", which is really just a way to consolidate power. After all, somebody will have to be the one to decide what all the "externalities" cost - and I think I know the conclusion: it's more than any working person can possibly afford. So it all requires eliminating private property, and the same somebody controlling all the resources and distributing them as they see fit (taking a bit off the top, of course, required for all the private jets and vehicles and opulent meeting places required for the hard work of running the new command economy). Just like those altruistic folks making so many sacrifices for their vital role in keeping the European economy running so smoothly.
All you need to do is take a look around at all the "common areas" and areas preserved as "conservation easements" all over California to see how this really works out. Compare it to areas of privately owned land and you can see where the real environmental disasters occur - because people consistently take better care of their own land than anybody else's. And when nobody is responsible for it, it gets trashed pretty quickly. And all those roving merchants than come in and set up markets for a day or two and leave the trash everywhere don't even pay all the fees and taxes California says they should, because the next day they're all packed up and gone, and they couldn't afford it anyway.
Where does your liberty to put CO2 into my atmosphere come from?
From my right to live, and breath, and exhale, fucktard.
but there you have the free hand
I think you mean "invisible hand" of the free market. And if you think that's bad, you should see the waste that goes on when the people in charge don't care how much anything costs, because it's somebody else working for it.
Right. So your real problem is not science at all, it's politics. You don't like the people on the side of science, so you're happy take the side of those that deny science.
You can look at it that way if you want to, but of course you're claiming that "science" has a "side" which means that you're taking an anti-science stance yourself. I've never been accused of supporting the status-quo, which I think what Heartland's agenda is all about, so I can't say I'm taking their side either. What I do know is that many of the solutions proposed by the UN and academics all involve a massive consolidation of power and control of resources on global scale, which can only lead to untold suffering and death for all but those at the very top of the power structure, as is clear from history. If they were advocating more of a planning for change, working on migration plans, transitions to different crop varieties, development of new resources and commerce routes, they might have some credibility, but that's never the case - it's always about controlling behavior and increasing conformity.
Hey, Janet Napolitano, you're not supposed to start a thread by Godwining it...
so to hell with the climate, and just get the kids rich.
How about a nice government grant and a few million dollars for starting a carbon trading scheme or a solar energy company?
Thank you for pointing out the prevailing attitude of the AGW alarmist crowd. They don't value freedom, they value top-down command economies. And as the OP pointed out, their plans to implement it will be certain to kill and disadvantage as many people as the climate change that they purportedly want to stop, just in different ways. But their utopian vision of a benevolent global control structure is so compelling to them, in spite of impossible odds that such a concentration of power could ever be "benevolent", that they will justify any means to achieve their ends.
Loss of liberty, of freedom, the history of suffering at the hands of dictators throughout history is nothing to them.
Actually, there are none. Unless you count computer models, which is just confirmation that math works, not that it has anything to do with accurate predictions of physical systems in the real world.
Gold is no less fake a currency than Federal Reserve Notes.
Repeating this lie over and over won't make it true. Gold is limited, unlike fiat money which is created out of thin air (currency costs a little more to print, but not by enough to matter). That's what makes fiat money "fake" and money backed by limited commodities "real". And it's why the US "dollar" is now worth about 4 cents, compared to its value when the Federal Reserve was created.
Funny. I use about 8 gallons to make 6 gal wort.
You're not counting everything. You don't sanitize your workspace? You don't clean your primary and secondary fermentor? How about your bottles (or kegs or keg fittings, etc.)? I'm probably over-estimating a bit, But I know it takes 4 1/2 gallons to sanitize a keg, the kegerator, and fittings, which I do at least every other batch. I also rinse everything after sanitizing.
But LOL brewing 20 batches of beer each month
Who does that? I don't.
I know it, due to a recent dispute with the city over our water bill (they once claimed we used about 60,000 gallons in a 28 day period). The actual figure comes out to about 4,200 gallons a month for 2 adults, 4 pets, and twice-per-week visits from the college kid. But, I make a lot of beer, which consumes 20 gallons of water for each 5 gallons of beer.
Converted to liters and annualized, a rough figure is 190,000 liters. That's less than 10% of the article's figure. For 2 people, not one. So while it didn't seem like much to me, as you point out, it's quite a lot.
Another indication this article is complete bullshit.