"John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody - including by crushing that child's testicles."...
So taking pictures of children's testicles... OH NO!!! Putting children's (ANYONES!!) testicles in pliers and applying force, Good to Go! *
* not to be taken to mean I think taking perverted pictures of kids is ok.
umm... speed is distance traveled/ time. The total distance traveled has nothing to do with speed. Yes, it will take longer for a light beam to travel X + 1 units than X units, but it doesn't mean the light is any slower traveling X +1 units than X units.
It'll be called the "The Healthy Lakes Initiative" where by every lake in the United States* will be preserved in Dasani(TM) and Aquafina(TM) bottles. It's part of our ownership society program.
* excluding Ohio, Florida, Wyoming, and California (now that it has a republican governor)
Yes, your multiple examples of introductions of non-native species caused vast damage. This is the very reason I am against GM crops not being grown in sealed green houses or labs. Why keep repeating mistakes?
Really, please explain the mechanism of this enhanced risk.
There are many reasons I think GM is a problem, but a simple common sense argument against them is:
(a snippet from another responsed I posted to another sub thread):
----
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous. See: This article for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
----
Plus, read the link from my previous post for many more reasons.
The reason that some GMO specific tests and controls are mostly voluntary is that environmental protection agencies recognize that there is no significant risk to the environment or food supply. You see, they rely on rational risk assessment rather than blatant propaganda and fear tactics.
You don't think the decisions that "there is no significant risk to the environment or food supply" has anything to do with monsanto and other companies stacking regulatory agencies with their own shills?
Sorry for the poor formatting and broken link... it was my first post and I accidentally clicked submit instead of preview...
The first link should be
this
There is already an addressed need to monitor our food supply for chemicals and pathogens. So new tests and controls are now necessary. So what?
The 'so what' is that once organisms which have the ability to reproduce are let loose into the environment, it is impossible to do a 'recall'. And the 'tests and controls' you speak of are largely voluntary which equates to non-existant. I've pointed out this article before and I'll do it once again:
GM Food article
It's amazing how people will fight(argue) FOR a company which is trying to monopolize the food supply.
Starting at your claim:
The only difference with Genetically Modifying an organism is that it can accomplish a variety of plant in a much smaller amount of time. Additionally, while GMO's synthetically splice new DNA, which in turn creates new organic compounds, selective breeding HAS THE SAME EFFECT ON PLANTS.
This is just plain false, unless you know how to selectively breed a fish with a corn plant. It's ISN'T the same, and common sense should tell you so.
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous.
See:
This article
for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
Regarding the risks to the world's food supply due to genetically mod. crops let loose in the wild go here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=sc hapiro
The public at large (through PR campaigns) is getting flim-flammed into thinking technical 'progress' like this is good for them. I can't think too many scenarios scarier than the worlds food supply being controlled by a few corporations. And where are the regulators to protect us? It's amazing how regulatory agency key positions are being stacked with industry shills.
They used to have to lobby government, now they ARE the government.
http://www.purefood.org/Monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm
And I forget where I read it, but I recall an author with a very interesting observation:
These companies claim that these products (not refering to the Pharm. Foods, just GM foods like round-up ready canola) are not substaintially different from natural foods thus avoiding FDA problems, but then turn around and proclaim their distinctiveness to the US patent office.
Slashdot Mirror
Good job! You'll be receiving your brown shirt in the mail.
True dat... oh and BTW: in case you thought the bush admin. gave a crap about children, good old John Yoo should put this to rest: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11 488.htm
"John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody - including by crushing that child's testicles."... So taking pictures of children's testicles... OH NO!!! Putting children's (ANYONES!!) testicles in pliers and applying force, Good to Go! *
* not to be taken to mean I think taking perverted pictures of kids is ok.
Then wouldn't it be easier to fire from the ground?
No you are thinking latency.
umm... speed is distance traveled/ time. The total distance traveled has nothing to do with speed. Yes, it will take longer for a light beam to travel X + 1 units than X units, but it doesn't mean the light is any slower traveling X +1 units than X units.
It'll be called the "The Healthy Lakes Initiative" where by every lake in the United States* will be preserved in Dasani(TM) and Aquafina(TM) bottles. It's part of our ownership society program. * excluding Ohio, Florida, Wyoming, and California (now that it has a republican governor)
Really, please explain the mechanism of this enhanced risk.
There are many reasons I think GM is a problem, but a simple common sense argument against them is: (a snippet from another responsed I posted to another sub thread):
----
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous. See: This article for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
----
Plus, read the link from my previous post for many more reasons.
You don't think the decisions that "there is no significant risk to the environment or food supply" has anything to do with monsanto and other companies stacking regulatory agencies with their own shills?
Sorry for the poor formatting and broken link... it was my first post and I accidentally clicked submit instead of preview... The first link should be this
This is just plain false, unless you know how to selectively breed a fish with a corn plant. It's ISN'T the same, and common sense should tell you so.
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous. See: This article for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
Regarding the risks to the world's food supply due to genetically mod. crops let loose in the wild go here: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=sc hapiro
The public at large (through PR campaigns) is getting flim-flammed into thinking technical 'progress' like this is good for them. I can't think too many scenarios scarier than the worlds food supply being controlled by a few corporations. And where are the regulators to protect us? It's amazing how regulatory agency key positions are being stacked with industry shills.
They used to have to lobby government, now they ARE the government.
http://www.purefood.org/Monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm
And I forget where I read it, but I recall an author with a very interesting observation:
These companies claim that these products (not refering to the Pharm. Foods, just GM foods like round-up ready canola) are not substaintially different from natural foods thus avoiding FDA problems, but then turn around and proclaim their distinctiveness to the US patent office.