Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Freedom" thread or something
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Freedom" thread or something

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 244245246247248 294>
Author
Message
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2013 at 20:15
Cryptic? Use all the Roundup you want, won't be using any here. I do not have a problem with weeds, I just pull them out by the root and toss them on the compost pile, except some I leave for the honeybees and songbirds.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2013 at 20:44
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Cryptic? Use all the Roundup you want, won't be using any here. I do not have a problem with weeds, I just pull them out by the root and toss them on the compost pile, except some I leave for the honeybees and songbirds.
As helpful and informative as ever. I don't use Roundup on my garden, I don't use any herbicides or pesticides eventhough I understand the chemistry of the half-life of these chemicals simply because I'm too tight-fisted to pay good money for something I don't need. I too pull up weeds but will not put them on the compost heep - many persistant weed rhizomes and seeds do not rot down, all you are doing is giving them a damn good feed before spreading them back over your neatly tilled soil. I collect them up with all the woody garden waste (such has hedge trimmings) and take them to the recycling centre.
 
But that is by-the-by. I am not defending Monsanto, GMO or Roundup herbicide. Bad analysis of bad science is bad no matter who does it and for whatever reason.
 
 
 


Edited by Dean - August 23 2013 at 20:45
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2013 at 20:48
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:


 
Another good post from the progressive economists at NEP, glad some people out there do put realism before ideology. Mainstream economics supported "maestros" and the Fed trying to be the Superman of the economy, finally some people (and lefties not those Austrians everyone hates) that say yeah, the Fed shouldn't, and even can't, do all this stuff we want them to and these maestros just "guide" the economy to a crash, the party cant last forever and we cant keep drinking to keep the hangover away. Make the new Fed a boring regulator who just regulates...
The Fed may have the actual power to get any hold on the banks, the gov cant really be trusted, the massive Obama "wall street reform" bill was a lot of bunk, gutted/challenged by lobbyists...surprise

Excellent article.  The function of the central bank is to regulate the financial system of the country.  Most central banks in large countries fail at this.  In India, access to banking channels is unavailable to large parts of the country, i.e., the interiors and also to certain classes of people.   In China, shadow banking is given the tacit blessings of the govt.  Why?  Because this creates a black hole where all these junk notes can submerge and pinning down the proximate cause of the bubble would become extremely difficult.  The usual tactic of central banks is to claim they are understaffed and their budget is too low for such a massive regulatory operation.  At the same time, they resist govt efforts to create another financial regulator (so that the responsibility of the central bank is monetary policy alone).  The reasons are not hard to find.  Big banks in most countries are very profitable and boast powerful balance sheets so it suits them to keep the central bank 'liberal' and 'friendly'.   Note that Raghuram Rajan sounded out central bankers on the risks at least a year and a half before the crash but both Summers and Paulson rode roughshod over his words.  I am still not convinced that say Dubya or Clinton would have wanted to regulate had they really grasped the risks involved to the economy.   It may have been even more insidious and treacherous but we will never know for sure.   
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 23 2013 at 21:14
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Cryptic? Use all the Roundup you want, won't be using any here. I do not have a problem with weeds, I just pull them out by the root and toss them on the compost pile, except some I leave for the honeybees and songbirds.
As helpful and informative as ever. I don't use Roundup on my garden, I don't use any herbicides or pesticides eventhough I understand the chemistry of the half-life of these chemicals simply because I'm too tight-fisted to pay good money for something I don't need. I too pull up weeds but will not put them on the compost heep - many persistant weed rhizomes and seeds do not rot down, all you are doing is giving them a damn good feed before spreading them back over your neatly tilled soil. I collect them up with all the woody garden waste (such has hedge trimmings) and take them to the recycling centre.
 
But that is by-the-by. I am not defending Monsanto, GMO or Roundup herbicide. Bad analysis of bad science is bad no matter who does it and for whatever reason.
 
 
 
If you allow the weeds to go to seed but they are fine in the compost before they go to seed.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 07:29
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

If you allow the weeds to go to seed but they are fine in the compost before they go to seed.
Fine for most annual weeds, not so good for perenial weeds, but whatever works for you obviously works for you. However, it's not stunningly relevant to a Libertarian world where the topic of the day was regulation vs free market in determining whether a product is safe.
What?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 10:13
I find it quite relevant.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 13:05
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

I find it quite relevant.
Okay, some more relevance.
 
Independent regulation of scientific study, and specifically trials and testing, is a paramount requirement that goes beyond issues of trust or market forces. This applies to all scientific study regardless of who performs it and for whatever reason it is performed for.
 
To recap the "Monsanto" issues so far.
Quote Monsanto makes herbicide to kill weeds. It contains a salt called glyphosate that inhibits the production of enzymes in the plant that make it natural resistant to pathogens, so the naturally occurring pathogens in the soil can now kill the plant. The toxicity of glyphosate is comparable to domestic table salt (in fact domestic table salt can kill weeds too - pour table salt on a dandelion and it will whither and die - table salt is an "approved" herbicide for organic farming). Salts are not harmless (arsenic is a salt), this is known, the concentrations and relative toxicity are the key points to consider, eventhough glyphosate is as toxic as table salt, it is handled and used as if it were more toxic as a natural precautionary measure - only an idiot or a suicidal person would ingest sufficient quantities (at least a kilogram) of neat glyphosate to cause harm - by comparison one leaf of the Foxglove plant grown freely in many gardens will kill you (if you have young children do not grow foxgloves).
 
Once the plant has died the glyphosate binds to the soil where microbial action breaks down the chemical to carbon dioxide - the period it takes to do this is called the half-life and is dependant upon many environmental factors, in normal healthy soil this takes a few days but it can take several weeks under very extreme conditions.
 
Glyphosate is indiscriminate - it kills all plant-life and cannot tell a weed from a crop so when it is applied it kills everything, you cannot use it to "weed" a ready planted crop. However, since plants are incapable of taking up glyphosate from the soil, (it has to be applied directly to the plant leaves or stems), and since under normal circumstances it has a short half-life, crops can be planted in soil treated with glyphosate.
 
As glyphosate is taken up through the plant cells, to allow it to penetrate the plant cell effectively it is mixed with a surfactant that breaks down the cell membrane. In Monsanto's Roundup this surfactant is an ethoxylated adjuvant called polyethoxylated tallow amine (or POE-15 or POEA), which is about as toxic as soap, because (and the "tallow" in the name is a big clue... as any Fight Club fan knows) that is precisely what it is - a soap. (in fact soap is a good pesticide - put domestic soap on roses and it kills greenfly and aphids - soft soap is an "approved" pesticide for organic farming, often as a carrier for other naturally occurring "green" pesticides). As a species we pour gallons of soap over ourselves on a daily basis and then slather ourselves in moisturiser to combat the astringent properties of soap on skin cells - that a high concentration of neat polyethoxylated tallow amine damages human cells in a petri dish is not an earth-shattering revelation - any soap will do that.
 
Essentially Roundup is salty soap of a very specific formulation of chemicals that have long complicated names like isopropylamine salt of glyphosate and polyethoxylated tallow amine that are the IP of Monsanto.
 
Because glyphosate attacks the enzyme production in all plant-life, Monsanto have genetically engineered wheat that is resistant to glyphosate so that fields can be "weeded" with glyphosate after the crop has been sown, Monsanto call these Roundup ReadyŽ. Since weeds inhibit the growth of crop plants and contaminate harvesting this is seen as a desirable thing for mass food production.
 
Genetic engineering is not Frankenstein technology, plant growers and nurserymen have been genetically engineering plants for thousands of years - every cultivated plant is the result of genetic engineering, what we are talking about is the difference between direct genetic modification and indirect genetic modification. Since direct genetic modification applies directly to the genome the checks and measures required should be (and are) significantly more stringent as a matter of course regardless of any ethical or emotional considerations.
 
To date no GMO wheat has been approved.
As consumers we should not be guilty of double-standards. If we expect that manufacturers are held to a proscribed standard then we must insist that those opposing them are held to the same standard and vice versa. If we accept "bad science" as the defacto standard for agenda-based studies then we have no means to combat that same level of "bad science" in any scientific study. Regulation is the means to monitor the standards used in industry, studies that set out to discredit approved products are not regulated and that is not a healthy situation - we would not accept hearsay and anecdotal evidence from Monsanto so why should we accept it from critics of Monsanto?
 
Left to market forces manufacturers will not "up their game" - if they are getting away with "bad science" under regulation then that can only get worse with deregulation, they will descend to the level set by their critics.
 


Edited by Dean - August 26 2013 at 04:23
What?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 16:02
Well said.
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 18:17
I just want to stop by this thread to post this picture:


Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 19:24
I think I know this one... is it the guy with the gun?
 
 
So, remind me again - how  many American Presidents have been shot at?
What?
Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 19:51
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think I know this one... is it the guy with the gun?
 
 
So, remind me again - how  many American Presidents have been shot at?

I think the tragic one was with Kennedy, I mean there are a lot of rumors about that all the time...
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 19:55
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think I know this one... is it the guy with the gun?
 
 
So, remind me again - how  many American Presidents have been shot at?

Well, i think the redcoats shot at George Washington.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 20:11
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think I know this one... is it the guy with the gun?
 
 
So, remind me again - how  many American Presidents have been shot at?

Well, i think the redcoats shot at George Washington.
He wasn't president then. (I believe John Hancock was).
 
If we count being shot at before becoming President then the Japanese shot at JFK.
What?
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64384
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 21:11
I'm hoping someday technology will allow a far deeper analysis of the photographic and sound evidence from Dallas, it's fifty years this November and with all the new discoveries and insights, the ARRB, all the books, I can't say we're any closer to finding the definitive truth.

Occam's Razor where are you?   We sure could use you in this case.

Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16329
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 21:40
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

I'm hoping someday technology will allow a far deeper analysis of the photographic and sound evidence from Dallas, it's fifty years this November and with all the new discoveries and insights, the ARRB, all the books, I can't say we're any closer to finding the definitive truth.

Occam's Razor where are you?   We sure could use you in this case.


We can only speculate, because I think he was a really good US president, probably one of the best the US has had.
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 24 2013 at 22:13
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think I know this one... is it the guy with the gun?
 
 
So, remind me again - how  many American Presidents have been shot at?

Well, i think the redcoats shot at George Washington.

He was commander in chief, close enough.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2013 at 03:42
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think I know this one... is it the guy with the gun?
 
 
So, remind me again - how  many American Presidents have been shot at?

Well, i think the redcoats shot at George Washington.

He was commander in chief, close enough.
He wasn't president then. (I believe John Hancock was).
 
What?
Back to Top
timothy leary View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2013 at 08:43
^ Hancock was president of Congress not the president of The united states. Never heard him referred to as "Father of the country". But it is a silly argument so you win John Hancock it s.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2013 at 09:37
Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

^ Hancock was president of Congress not the president of The united states. Never heard him referred to as "Father of the country". But it is a silly argument so you win John Hancock it s.
Of course it is a silly argument, pedantry always is, that's what attracts me to it like a moth to a flame. I asked about American Presidents, not Presidents of the United States. However, several Presidents saw action in war time before they became President, including Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and both Bush's and were probably shot at by the enemy forces, except perhaps Reagan, but he was shot while serving as Pres so that's okay...
What?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32482
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 25 2013 at 10:07
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by timothy leary timothy leary wrote:

^ Hancock was president of Congress not the president of The united states. Never heard him referred to as "Father of the country". But it is a silly argument so you win John Hancock it s.
Of course it is a silly argument, pedantry always is, that's what attracts me to it like a moth to a flame. I asked about American Presidents, not Presidents of the United States. However, several Presidents saw action in war time before they became President, including Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and both Bush's and were probably shot at by the enemy forces, except perhaps Reagan, but he was shot while serving as Pres so that's okay...


And Jodie Foster is a lesbian.  LOL
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 244245246247248 294>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.