MaxRedline

Genetically Modified Food

It's a hot topic in some circles, but really: is there any food that hasn't been genetically modified?  The primary difference is that until recently, modifications took a long time, through trial-and-fail crossbreeding efforts.  That big ear of sweet corn you had on the 4th derives from ancestors that were perhaps 3 inches long.  The plump, juicy strawberries that you love at this time of year are derived from small, essentially inedible wild variants.

Genetic modification of foods has been going on for literally centuries, and oddly, lifespan of humans has increased during this time.  It almost makes you wonder if there might be a connection.

Of course, the folks who really hate genetic modification are mostly European, who are all so much smarter than Americans.  They're cutting-edge folks that we should emulate.

Right.

Name one European innovation that has taken off in the past century.

But we should ride bicycles and streetcars, and eschew genetically modified foods - just like the Europeans do.  Yeah.  Real cutting-edge.

The Europeans were so ahead of the game that they refused to allow foods like potatoes and tomatos in.  At least, initially. 

Potatoes aroused suspicion because they were unfamiliar. They were not mentioned in the Bible, which suggested that God had not meant people to eat them, said some clergymen.

More scientifically inclined botanists identified these first-known edible tubers as members of the poisonous nightshade family, and potatoes came to be associated with witchcraft and devil worship.

Same thing with tomatos. 

When it comes to food, the Europeans are just so much smarter than Americans, and we can all learn from them when it comes to cutting-edge stuff like bicycles and streetcars, as well.

Oddly, a funny thing happened during the course of the famine:  Europeans found that these uniquely American crops could actually feed people safely, and save lives.  Today, of course, tomatos are synonymous with Italy, and the quintessential Brit dish is roast beef and potatoes - preferably absent any actual taste..

But Europeans absolutely hate genetically modified foods.  Obviously, since you have so much to learn from the Europeans, you should hate them as well.

Go By Streetcar!

Just Curious

The Big Zero delivers a bunch of store fliers every Tuesday, like clockwork.  It's interesting, as we haven't subscribed to the paper itself in years.  But we don't mind, as we can always come up with things to do with a few sheets of newsprint.

Leafing through the store ads (sometimes, you may find something of interest), there was an ad for "bath tissue".  Just how did that moniker come about?  You can't use the stuff to dry off after a swim, a bath, or a shower.  It really only has two uses:  it is an excellent medium for writing legislation, work rules, commendations for exemplary service, and the like.  The other, of course, also has nothing to do with bathing.

Congress: We Don't Need To Read; We Just Vote

Do you even recognize your government anymore? 

These pompous idiots are passing bills that consist of a thousand or more jargon-filled pages of stuff (with a few hundred more thrown in under cover of darkness) that they can't be bothered to read.  How can they possibly be serving the people; how can they possibly be addressing your priorities and concerns?

These idiots, both Democrat and Republican, have come to believe that you exist to advance their interests, rather than the other way around.  They have destroyed the very concept of representative democracy upon which this nation was founded.

And they remain deeply opposed to actually reading the legislation prior to casting their votes.  They really are no different from the Stalinist rubber-stampers.

The time has come to remove each and every one of them from office.  Not one individual presently holding office can, with any degree of credibility, lay claim to fulfilling the task of representing his or her constituents.  If we are to regain any confidence in our government, if we are to regain any sense of control, then we have but one option:  replace them.

Across the board, Democrat or Republican, each and every one of them must be removed.  It doesn't matter how long they've been in office, nor how "honorable" they consider each other to be.  They need to go.

We need honest farmers and shop-keepers in Congress, rather than rich lawyers.  We need people in there who understand what it takes to live on $30,000 a year - or a bit less, or a bit more.  We need people who actually represent, and understand, your lifestyle.  We need people who don't assume that they're better or smarter than you, and who don't plan to build entire lives "fighting" in Congress.

Not one of the jerks presently in office has ever "fought" for your interests; they fight for their interests.  And their interests are generally profoundly different from those of the people that they claim to represent.  They need to go.

From Her Mouth To God's Ear

And to yours.  JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

Well of course!  We don't want to have too many, so Ginsburg believed that Roe would be used to eliminate the pests, echoing General Custer's view that "nits will grow lice".  That was his rationale for killing native american women and children, and quite obviously, guided Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg's views on abortion.

In late February, three weeks after she had an operation for a recurrence of cancer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to Barack Obama’s first address to Congress. Given the circumstances, it wasn’t an event anyone expected her to attend. She went, she said, because she wanted the country to see that there was a woman on the Supreme Court.

This is why she supports BO's nomination.  Sexism is really important to her.  BO's nominated a woman, and that's really all that Ruthie sees as important.  Ruthie appears, judging strictly from her own comments, to be bigoted.  She wants women to be on the Court, because she's sexist.  She thinks that abortion should be freely available in order to control the population of what she considers to be "undesirables".

Isn't it wonderful to have someone like this around?

The Most Transparent Administration In The History Of The Country

Carol Browner was fired by Clinton as head of EPA not too long after he'd appointed her.  Even he recognized that she's a nutball.

And sure enough: 

Soon after leaving EPA at the end of the Clinton administration, Browner was implicated in a federal court decision against EPA for destroying  official computer files. Here's how the AP reported the decision:

"A federal judge held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt Thursday for destroying computer files during the Clinton administration that had been sought by a conservative legal foundation.

 

"U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered the EPA to pay the Landmark Legal Foundation's legal fees and costs because the agency disobeyed his order to preserve the electronic records of former chief Carol Browner.

 

Yet BO made her his "climate czar".  What did she do?  She instructed auto executives to"write nothing down" on those secret negotiations to jump the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.  Always trying to hide and obfuscate, that Browner.

 

 

This is "transparency"?

Cue Up "Immigration Reform"

When you voted for BO, you voted to accept anything he wants.  Thus far, that has included government ownership of significant sections of the auto and finance industries, a policy of more or less unilateral disarmament with respect to Russia, and efforts to implement policies that will do nothing to "Save The Planet" but which will, as BO himself has admitted, result in "skrocketing" energy costs across every segment of the USA.  Next up: amnesty for illegal aliens.  As former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov has explained, it doesn't matter how you feel about things.  That no longer matters. 

Sixty-six percent (66%) of likely voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration. Just 32% of America’s Political Class agree.

Three-out-of-four voters believe that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the nation’s borders.

The biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities. Almost always in Washington, the debate begins with a focus on how to address the status of illegal immigrants. To voters, that is a secondary concern. Controlling the borders is a top concern. That hasn’t changed since the 2006 immigration legislation collapsed when the U.S. Senate surrendered to public opinion. During that debate, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% believed illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.

What is often lost in the shuffle of the debate over immigration reform is that once the borders are controlled, most Americans favor a welcoming immigration policy provided it is done within the law. Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of such a policy. Overall, by a 55% to 27% margin, Americans favor a policy goal that would welcome everyone except criminals, national security threats and welfare dependants.

Also, while nearly a third of Americans are angry about the immigration issue, they are not angry at the immigrants. They are angry at the federal government.

There seems to be a lot of that going around, but it's a bit late in the game. 

How To Brainwash A Nation

A former KGB operative explains what's happening now in the USA.  All your Democrats are belong to us.

PDS

As Lifson correctly notes:

Sarah Palin's ability to provoke the left into displaying its inner ugliness alone makes her a national treasure.

 

This isn't simple hearsay; you can head over to that whacko nutty perfesser's site (the guy who claims to "work" at Lewis&Clark College) where he's got a "poll" asking whether or not Palin was on drugs.

 

Their idiocy knows no bounds, but they're useful idiots.

PSST! There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Government does everything so well that it's only natural to put them in charge of your health care.  After all, it's worked admirably in the former Great Britain, where health care is "free".  Of course, there are trade-offs.  You may have to wait a bit.

In the U.K., wait times to see a dentist are quite long, really.  So lengthy, in fact, that some patients have resorted to pulling their own teeth.  But, hey.  Some folks have less patience than others. 

Of course, the situation is considerably better just to the north of us.  As one Canadian doctor observed: "The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."

As do many Canadians with the means, Shirley crossed into the USA to pay for treatment:  Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

This is the sort of Change that the Obama administration has planned for you.  Naturally, they'll work hard to keep costs down.  This can be expected to work at least as well as the MediCare program: Medicare is presently anticipated to hit the $34 trillion mark in deficit within the decade.

Name one government program that has managed to stay within its cost estimates.

Ah, Overwhelming Transparency! And Change!

"As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

Over?  Not so much.  Just ask Alan Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency.  Of course, that won't do you a lot of good, as he's been muzzled:  Around the time that his agency was preparing to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant, he had the utter temerity to present a 98-page paper

arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." (Emphasis added.)

Following the exchange, Carlin has been systematically trashed by the Obama administration.  He's been labeled a "denier", his qualifications have been impugned, and the administration has floated the claim that Carlin's report was essentially a product of pseudo-science.  In view of the fact that Carlin's report prominently referenced the work of peer-reviewed scientific publications, the latter claim is a particularly hard sell.  More telling are the repeated references to Carlin as a "denier"; which clearly imputes religious overtones into the dispute.  Coming from an administration whose leader clearly stated that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over", the obvious insertion of ideology is particularly disturbing.

Mr. Carlin is instead an explanation for why the science debate is little reported in this country. The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The global-warming crowd likes to deride skeptics as the equivalent of the Catholic Church refusing to accept the Copernican theory. The irony is that, today, it is those who dare critique the new religion of human-induced climate change who face the Inquisition.