Missing me? Oh, I suppose it wasn't you who banned me, with no warning or reason, then reinstated me without letting me know, huh? Gutless and flawed.
There're member's rules, then there're rules for certain members, I guess. Hypocrisy I call it. Still, here I am again!
Afenton, Something weird happened when I was writing a response to your post. Yours got overwritten by mine. I have pasted the part back again which was taken from your post as quote. I apologise for misplacing the other part. This was a genuine mistake. Hope you believe me. Thanks! ~ Ananya.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ananya,
"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."
Posts: 1378 | Location: England | Registered: 07-14-02
Just last Friday I got a letter from the bank where my Individual Retirement Account (I.R.A.)money is invested. It is a an amendment to the I.R.A. that is no less than 2000 words long. I have just read it briefly but it is related to the Economic & Stimulus Act. After I sort through the wording I will post a more conlusive summary but I fear that this amendment puts our money in the hands of the man in charge.
Fortunately I do not have a large sum invested in an I.R.A. account.
Posts: 3142 | Location: The Volunteer State | Registered: 06-25-03
Obama'll make sure the underpriviliged and desperately seeking work will benefit, as well as the work-shy and lazy gits. Ok, maybe not; just the work-shy and lazy gits (long-term unemployed? Yeah, right!). And for them, Obama thanks you, Delta. Now, get some work done - we need dem taxes!
"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."
Posts: 1378 | Location: England | Registered: 07-14-02
Missing me? Oh, I suppose it wasn't you who banned me, with no warning or reason, then reinstated me without letting me know, huh? Gutless and flawed.
Well I will be lying if I say I wasn't tempted after your comments to Busy Bee, but the point is that I did not ban you. Somebody else did it. You can believe that or leave it. I really don't care.
And who says, that I can't miss someone whose ideologies don't match mine... besides I was talking about everyone at QL, not just me, so that includes people who have similar thinking as yours too. I wonder why you are so hard on yourself at times? Ease up, this idea space ain't that bad.
quote:
There're member's rules, then there're rules for certain members, I guess. Hypocrisy I call it. Still, here I am again!
At first people refuse to believe that a strange new thing can be done, then they begin to hope that it can be done, then they see that it can be done--then it is done and all the world wonders why it was not done centuries ago. -- Francis Hodgson Burnett
P.S.: Did you like the poem I dedicated to us, in my last poem? Its one of my favourites. I have it from Euphorion's time. It was his signature, I think!
-
much love, light and laughter, ananya.
Scatter joy ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 6207 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
Didn't say it was, Ananya! Narrows it down, though, doesn't it? And it was my comments about Bumble's behaviour that had me banned, was it? See? Now we're a bit nearer!
Anyway, what about Obama's sudden shift to the right? Great, huh?
"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."
Posts: 1378 | Location: England | Registered: 07-14-02
Well I was wrong about the amendment to the I.R.A It is more than 8000 words (four legal sized pages all in fine print). I have not read much of anything in this amendment that benefits me. All this amendment does is give the bank and or the government almost full control of my account. The only recourse I have is to cancel it and forfiet a 50% penalty.
(If you don't have an IRA account then read all of the fine print before you invest in one.) You might go blind before you are able to read all the fine print. If you have not become dependent on bank loans at this point in your life then try to manage your finances without bank loans. Too many government loans and too many bad loans is the nature of the beast of this economic crisis.
Right now I am investing my money in comic books. I just bought a block of 60 for $1.00 each. They are sheathed in plastic and in a cardboard box. The retail value of these collectible comics (Dare Devil & Spider Man) is about $240.00. I have the option to buy a block of 2600 for $1,690.00. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phantom_Delta,
Posts: 3142 | Location: The Volunteer State | Registered: 06-25-03
I'm finding it hard to keep focused on politics, policies, ideals, philosophies in my observations these days because frankly I just hate Obama, the arrogant jerk.
Who, with any shred of class, would use the Memorial Day wreath laying ceremony to spruiker his over-inflated ego trip.
Check it out.....
'As commander in chief I will never send you to war unless it is absolutely necessary and I will always make sure that you have all the support you need....'
Originally posted by EmeraldEyes: I'm finding it hard to keep focused on politics, policies, ideals, philosophies in my observations these days because frankly I just hate Obama, the arrogant jerk.
...aaah! the circle of Life!!! Probably now you may understand a little of what we felt, about the stupid and knee-jerk policies of Dubya Bush.
If I remember right, there was one person on these very boards, I don't specifically remember who now, who had told me once that Bush was the elected president of the USA and therefore he was to be given the honour of being called President Bush no matter what he did. And that I had no business calling him Dubya and everything else that was not well-meaning.
I am wondering why Obama is not being paid the same lip-service? Is it because he is not a republican?
Meanwhile, as Afenton pointed out... Obama is going as right as any other US President could go with some surface stuff in socialism. So why's he being called a jerk and the bumbling Bush being annointed with the choicest of honours? Aren't they all supposed to be jerks?
Scatter joy ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 6207 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
Meanwhile, as Afenton pointed out... Obama is going as right as any other US President could go with some surface stuff in socialism. So why's he being called a jerk and the bumbling Bush being annointed with the choicest of honours? Aren't they all supposed to be jerks?
Ananya, rather what is happening is that Obama's being forced left, right and center to defer to common sense and it just so happens that the right has had a monopoly on common sense thankfully in these trying past few years.
Posts: 3766 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Meanwhile, as Afenton pointed out... Obama is going as right as any other US President could go with some surface stuff in socialism. So why's he being called a jerk and the bumbling Bush being annointed with the choicest of honours? Aren't they all supposed to be jerks?
Ananya, rather what is happening is that Obama's being forced left, right and center to defer to common sense and it just so happens that the right has had a monopoly on common sense thankfully in these trying past few years.
That all is fine, but you still did not answer my question. Why is Bush to be given the honour of being called the President, while Obama gets to be the jerk? Both of them have been elected to power after all.
It is this evasion of not answering the true problems, that is the benchmark of the right, not having common sense as you so put it. But we can always agree to disagree.
Scatter joy ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 6207 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
You avoided my last post directed to you. I would like for you to answer every point I made and asked (of those points directed at you, some were directed at Fuzzies).
Second, calling Obama "Obama" is calling him by his name. If you had called Bush "Bush" no one would have thought you were disrespecting him. By calling him Dubya, you are showing clear disrespect and mocking.
And being elected to power is not the reason a man or woman is praised or attacked. It is what they do with that power.
Please address the last post I made prior to this and not avoid those points. I will wait to say more until after you do, assuming you will.
Remember:
quote:
Evasion is unworthy of us, and is always the intimate of equivocation. -- Honore de Balzac
Originally posted by Ananya: That all is fine, but you still did not answer my question. Why is Bush to be given the honour of being called the President, while Obama gets to be the jerk? Both of them have been elected to power after all.
It is this evasion of not answering the true problems, that is the benchmark of the right, not having common sense as you so put it. But we can always agree to disagree.
I didn't answer because it just didn't warrant an answer. In my post I raised an issue concerning Obama using a Memorial Day podium to undercut the previous Presidents credibility and spruiker his own egotistically fantasy of himself. That was completely classless and unbecoming of the President.
Where are your comments on the substance of my post, Ananya? Did you evade them?? Yes you did. Trying to make an issue out of a total non-issue.
As Aeras points out, referring to Bush as 'dubya' is about distinguishing his 'presidency' from an earlier 'presidency', in a disrespectful and disparaging way.
I went to great lengths to precede my comments with distinguishing them from 'politics, policies, ideals, philosophies ' ... and isolating the Obama that is just a man who happens to be an arrogant jerk.
So after you've answered the points in Aeras' previous post that you evaded... then you can come back and comment on my original post concerning Obamas Memorial Day disrespect for his Presidential predecessor which you evaded also.
Posts: 3766 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
You avoided my last post directed to you. I would like for you to answer every point I made and asked (of those points directed at you, some were directed at Fuzzies).
Thank you for reminding me, that I did not answer your question. Sometimes I just forget. But this one probably was because a lots happened in my life since last year, and I've had a tough time keeping with a lot of it. Still its no excuse, more so because you may not believe me, when I say that I may have just forgotten.
quote:
Second, calling Obama "Obama" is calling him by his name. If you had called Bush "Bush" no one would have thought you were disrespecting him. By calling him Dubya, you are showing clear disrespect and mocking.
Well in the first place I will acknowledge that I have done some stupid things in the past few years. Calling Bush Dubya didn't do a thing for the environment, Iraq or the world for that matter. Many leftists like me (and me included) were under the false impression that ridiculing the guy would mean he would take action against the personal defamation. But he clearly had the last laugh... he was not bothered that the whole world called him Dubya, as long as he got to do what he did in office. Secondly, I was not talking about calling Obama "Obama"... I was talking about EE calling him a jerk. And in those circumstances, I will just take this as a reaction on your part (we all make those kind of posts from time to time) and forget about it. Next time you think of coming to the rescue of a fellow republican, please read what is written before the issue is addressed.
quote:
Please address the last post I made prior to this and not avoid those points. I will wait to say more until after you do, assuming you will.
Remember:
quote:
Evasion is unworthy of us, and is always the intimate of equivocation. -- Honore de Balzac
So please don't evade my post.
No I won't... But I'd love it if you knew the difference between "evasion" and "evasion". There is that evasion, which is an altogether assumed evasion... that's me. You assume that I evaded answering you, while at my end it was simply something I forgot to do. Then there is the "deliberate evasion" which is what EE resorted to. She answered in regard to my post, but evaded answering the question I put. What happened in my case was that I said I'd answer back to you, and I did not get back on the topic for a long time, when I got back i had forgotten that I had promised to write to you.
But as I said you may not believe me, and that's fine too.
Scatter joy ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 6207 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
I don't need to answer your opinion, simply because I agree with you. I've always said right from the beginning (if you cared to read some of my posts on Obama when he first became the president, you'd know) that I think he's just like Bush, but in the covert disguise of a democrat. That opinion of mine is yet to be proved false.
My contention was that they all are jerks, and they all should be called jerks. Not just a few whom you don't like. I absolutely dont stand for what US under his leadership is doing to Pakistan. Everytime I see Hilary Clinton talking about Af-Pak, I feel like slapping her... Another avatar of Ms. Albright in making, if you ask me.
These jerks should be made to stay in those refugee camps in Swat, all of them - Obama, Bush, Cheney, Biden, Clinton - all of them.
We are constantly being surprised that people did things well before we were born. We are constantly remarking on the fact that things are done well by people other than ourselves. "The Japanese are a remarkable little people," we say, as if we were doing them a favor. "He is an Arab, but you ought to hear him play the zither." Why "but"? -- Robert Benchley, from "Isn't It Remarkable?"
Scatter joy ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 6207 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
Thank you for reminding me, that I did not answer your question. Sometimes I just forget. But this one probably was because a lots happened in my life since last year, and I've had a tough time keeping with a lot of it. Still its no excuse, more so because you may not believe me, when I say that I may have just forgotten.
I understand. I am fairly busy myself.
quote:
Well in the first place I will acknowledge that I have done some stupid things in the past few years. Calling Bush Dubya didn't do a thing for the environment, Iraq or the world for that matter. Many leftists like me (and me included) were under the false impression that ridiculing the guy would mean he would take action against the personal defamation. But he clearly had the last laugh... he was not bothered that the whole world called him Dubya, as long as he got to do what he did in office. Secondly, I was not talking about calling Obama "Obama"... I was talking about EE calling him a jerk. And in those circumstances, I will just take this as a reaction on your part (we all make those kind of posts from time to time) and forget about it. Next time you think of coming to the rescue of a fellow republican, please read what is written before the issue is addressed.
The problem with your statement is your view of the world working model here. Guilt-ing, black-mailing, insulting- these are not ways to get your message across or to get people to do what you wish. There are too many people in the world that operate in this manner and it gives rise to the power of pull, a terrible corruption force in ours or any government.
quote:
No I won't... But I'd love it if you knew the difference between "evasion" and "evasion". There is that evasion, which is an altogether assumed evasion... that's me. You assume that I evaded answering you, while at my end it was simply something I forgot to do. Then there is the "deliberate evasion" which is what EE resorted to. She answered in regard to my post, but evaded answering the question I put. What happened in my case was that I said I'd answer back to you, and I did not get back on the topic for a long time, when I got back i had forgotten that I had promised to write to you.
This is a *blank out* tactic. By blank out I mean the person in question is intentionally avoiding a thought or trying to whitewash it in an entirely different manner. Evasion has one singular meaning, just like the letter A is A and there is no other letter than can be A besides A. The circumstances surrounding evasion are secondary concerns because whatever the reason, the fact is something was still avoided.
Adding the word "deliberate" is a modifier of the word evasion and changes its meaning, just as if you tacked a B onto A to form AB. AB does not equal A even though it contains the part A within it.
In any case, I often am good natured and understand that people forget or simply don't have time (as I fall into that category often myself). Your post seemed a little bit defensive.
I still eagerly await for your response however as you still did not respond to my previous post. I will quote below the content I was hoping for your response upon:
quote:
In reply to Ananya:
quote:
: Meanwhile, I like that idea of starting the kitchen garden in the white house by Michelle Obama. We treehuggers are very happy to hear of this.
Is this anything more than a publicity stunt? I haven’t personally heard of the garden before, but did Michelle ever grow her own food before the presidency? If not, I shall agree with the former question.
quote:
: Apropos to the Company Takeover - doesn't that mean that it will be nationalised? I think thats very good.
You think nationalization is good? Is that why so many Illegal immigrants, especially from Mexico try to get into the U.S.? If nationalization is that perfect, why aren’t American’s seeking out the Mexican dream? Or according to your point below, the Venezualan dream?
How might your view of the world differ if you were in a lower caste in India? Or had been born into a lower caste? (as far as I know, which I could be wrong, the caste system is still very much thriving).
quote:
: Nationalisation of any private asset means that the owners cannot retrench people at their whim and fancy. They have to pay them a pre-decided standard in wages, which means it may eat into the company profit's but the worker who slaves to get the company where it has been today, is not the first one to get the raw deal when things start going bad.
When, in the entire history of business operations, has firing people at one’s whim and fancy ever, let me repeat, ever resulted in a positive trend of success for a business? Nationalizing a business means taking control of all its assets. This includes the workers who are human capital as fuzzies said earlier. Nationalization is government ownership of your job, and through proxy, your lives (since that job determines your welfare). My God Ananya, did it work all that well for Russia? Or, to be more accurate, the U.S.S.R. What happened to their economy in 1991? What happened to their people who were slaves to the whims of the political party exalting the Red state and the benefits of living for your brother?
It is always, always in the best interest of the company to properly manage all its resources, including its workers.
Do you think back in the days of Henry Ford a government run Ford Motors would have paid its workers 5 dollars a day, far above the standard of the day? Of course it wouldn’t. The government would keep the profits. All you are advertising is reducing the rights of citizens in favor of expanding government control and power.
quote:
: Nationalisation means the nation has a large stake in the running of the company... Now how can this be bad?
This means that whatever faction gains power in the government controls the stakes of everyone and has no obligation to support anyone’s interests but their own. This is a throw-back to a feudal kingdom of the middle ages. Perhaps you would like to be the happy ignorant peasant who slaves all day harvesting crops only to barely survive and watch as his masters grow fat on the fruits of his labor. All this time this is what you and fuzzies have been describing as capitalism, and all this time, this is the fallacy of your argument.
If a worker is truly being “used,” they are not obligated to stay at a company. If your government controls the very aspects of your lives, you are obligated to accept their final word. Which sounds more like slavery to you?
The quotes within this quote are from you.
If my post seems hostile or with ill-intent, it isn't. I actually don't hold any animosity towards you . But I will refute people I think are incorrect in their line of thinking.
quote:
EE,
I don't need to answer your opinion, simply because I agree with you. I've always said right from the beginning (if you cared to read some of my posts on Obama when he first became the president, you'd know) that I think he's just like Bush, but in the covert disguise of a democrat. That opinion of mine is yet to be proved false.
My contention was that they all are jerks, and they all should be called jerks. Not just a few whom you don't like. I absolutely dont stand for what US under his leadership is doing to Pakistan. Everytime I see Hilary Clinton talking about Af-Pak, I feel like slapping her... Another avatar of Ms. Albright in making, if you ask me.
These jerks should be made to stay in those refugee camps in Swat, all of them - Obama, Bush, Cheney, Biden, Clinton - all of them.
Biden is our comic relief. He can stay out .
The fact is if you feel they are all jerks there should have been no contention against EE to begin with in this regard.
And I'd like to ask you a personal question because I don't understand the logic behind it: All those people who voted for (not you) or supported (you and Fuzzies et al) Obama when he was a candidate, what platform did you support him on exactly? Hope and change aren't platforms, they are proclamations to make you feel good but have no concrete basis in anything. Change can be good or bad. And for someone who says he loves the great nation he is currently serving as President, he certainly wants to change alot about it.
I guess I just don't understand why people were so whitewashed and taken in by feel good messages with no substance. Most of the world was. It baffles me (especially that so many people now see the light and still won't admit they may have made a mistake). But I guess its no different than at any other point in history this has worked out for the person now in power.
As a person with a major in my University's agricultural college (College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences), I can safely say that organics are nothing more than a niche marketing ploy.
Many of the claims they make on their packaging is simply wrong and misleading and imply bad things about non-organic products when they both share the same status the supposed claim talks about.
A great example is organic milk. When organic milk claims that it is "Hormone Free", not only is it an impossible claim, it implies that all other Dairy Farmers uses growth hormones and other additives to improve production.
The thing about the growth hormones to begin with is that they don't do anything to humans or cows except increase a cows milk production by increasing blood flow (hence allowing more milk constituents to reach the alveolar and secretory cells in the udder).
No milk is hormone free because the cow (or whatever mammal) produces hormones that wind up within the milk. So the claim is impossible based on this stand, and wrong based on the apprehension that certain growth hormones do unnatural things (in most cases they are derived or are actually natural hormones, meaning the body can only respond to a certain point and then cellular receptors become over saturated and can no longer respond to the stimuli- in which case the hormone is broken down and used for other natural bodily processes).
Secondly, an organic garden may be a nice publicity stunt but it does not produce sustainable food for a large population. While I will agree with you that some pesticide use or different developmental anti-pest formulas that are safer could be developed, organic gardens simply cannot sustain the number of people on this earth. If all agriculture turned to organic (a misleading term to begin with since all life on earth is organic- the term deals with organisms formed around the element carbon and has no relation to health) I would offer conjecture to say many more sectors of the world would become impoverished and starving than currently exist (although this might suite your other philosophies because the government would then step in to control those peoples and further impoverish them. But hey, its not capitalism so it must be better, right?).
You add all this to the fact that many organic products cost sometimes as much as two to three times the amount that more traditional agricultural products and practices cost the consumer and you are further looking at a greater platform for you to launch propaganda against supposed bourgeois nations.
The quote you quoted actually portrays my point that such influential figures should further mislead the public by making it appear that only organic is safe and everything else is poison or unhealthy. Its amazing how people have grown so much taller and stronger and old on those poisonous practices, isn't it? By avoiding traditional agricultural companies and small farm practices (at least in the U.S. and most developed nations) the Obama's have spread this dangerous connotation that only organics lead the future. In fact, there is only one example of organic farming that may be sustainable and the way to go (look up Dickson Despommier or vertical farming (they should both lead you to similar places) but even that is a logistics nightmare.
In some cases some organic practices can be downright dangerous (once again referring to milk here). People should never drink milk that is not pasteurized. Never. Pasteurization is one of the reasons tuberculosis died out in the U.S. Non-pasteurized milk is a great way to spread bacteria to humans from cows with mastitis (an infectious affliction that is impossible to avoid, since over 100 kinds of bacteria can cause it and also certain types of wounds can also cause it). This is why somatic cell counts exist in the Dairy industry- meaning the white blood cells in milk- to ascertain the level of suitable milk for consumption.
As far as the last link you listed is concerned, which I can gather the premise from the title of the link alone, I need to ask you, what does that have to do with anything? 43 million out of 300 million plus. Does this sound like sustainable production to you? Are you going to start a government program where those growing the gardens have to expand production and then subsidize their neighbors who don't or can't grow any? Why would you bother? All you'd be doing is starting another farming structure, we already have that faculty established.
In any case, I eagerly look forward to your response on the other points in that last email, especially your nationalization comments and my response to them.
The links were provided not as eye openers, but as mere interesting ditties to mulch on.
I beg to differ about organic foods. I may not have a degree in agriculture, but I have worked with many organic farmers on their farms in India. I possibly can't comment on what happens in the USA, but in India organic is big because that's been the natural and traditional way of farming. Gaindool Sheti (Vermiculture) thrives beautifully here, and most farmers in India, work their hands more than the machines, if you know what I mean.
Milk that comes from the cow farms of course needs to be pasteurised, no doubt about that... It needs to be more than pasteurised, if you go by the amount of chemicals and steroids injected in the cows, not to mention artificial inseminition for the cow to be in a perpetual state of pregnancy just so that we get our daily supply of milk. I am not so much of a milk drinker anyways, but yes I am high on cottage cheese and curds and butter milk which are by-products of milk.
In Ancient India, there was a practice of first letting the cow feed its calf fully, and when the little one was done, they would milk the cow for it to be sold. It was said that the milk obtained thus, was very pure, tasted like nectar and was rich in nutrients, because the cow was happy that it got to feed its kid first.
The point about "Organic anything" is the mental attitude. It is the attitude that says I care for nature more than I care for my own needs. And that I believe that my existence is symbiotic with the whole of nature. Then there is no greed, just inter-dependency. Then you care for the earth/nature more (because your existence depends upon her existence), and through that care would think that the best way to work the earth was not through putting chemicals into it, but by letting nature work its way like she has been doing for ages.
One fabulous example of the organic garden community is the Findhorn Organisation in far north-east Scotland. The story of how the founders cultivated a barren patch of land into a thriving sustainable community it now is, is nothing short of phenomenal. Do read the book - The Findhorn Garden: Pioneering a Vision of Humanity and Nature in Co-Operation by The Findhorn Community if you can get your hands on it. There is a possibility that you may throw it away as a lot of tosh... so don't buy, just borrow.
Brandon, we can both debate the topic to kingdom come... but both of us I think have completely different viewpoints. We can always agree to disagree though.
"What is right for one soul may not be right for another. It may mean having to stand on your own and do something strange in the eyes of others." -- Eileen Caddy
Scatter joy ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. ~*Blowing out someone else's candle doesn't make your's burn any brighter.*~ We can't all be stars, but we can all twinkle. We may not have it all together, but together we have it all.
Posts: 6207 | Location: India | Registered: 07-03-01
I beg to differ about organic foods. I may not have a degree in agriculture, but I have worked with many organic farmers on their farms in India. I possibly can't comment on what happens in the USA, but in India organic is big because that's been the natural and traditional way of farming.
The difference here though is the fact that different world regions have different climates, pests and diseases. The same "organic" food processes wont work everywhere and the same crops aren't grown everywhere.
This is why GMO's (genetically modified organisms) are great innovations that people have very errant ideas on. Science rarely wins to strong emotions no matter how compelling or correct it may be. Especially with plants, GMO's offer great potential to making them naturally fend off the diseases and pests that would otherwise devastate those crops.
But many consumers feel it is "playing God" so to speak. Really its just a process of speeding up potential evolutionary avenues and also has the potential to eradicate world hunger issues if those opposed to it actually learn the facts and stop protesting GMO crops.
quote:
Milk that comes from the cow farms of course needs to be pasteurised, no doubt about that... It needs to be more than pasteurised, if you go by the amount of chemicals and steroids injected in the cows, not to mention artificial inseminition for the cow to be in a perpetual state of pregnancy just so that we get our daily supply of milk.
The thing is, Ananya, none of those chemicals or steroids (or I would say in the 90th percentile of them) don't make it into the milk. This is due to a blood barrier between the arteries and the alveolar lumen in the secretory units of the animal's udder (specifically in cows). Those chemicals simply cannot be passed into the milk unless this barrier is ruptured in some way or there is a mass of cell death that would deteriorate the barrier and allow blood through. In this case one would see the blood in the milk and I doubt one would drink it regardless. This is the misconception many people have about using Growth Hormones as I previously mentioned. They don't make it into the milk or to be even more exact, they don't make it into the milk more than the regular quantities the cow naturally puts into the milk herself. Unless you directly inject these chemicals into the udder (which there is no reason to ever do if you know what you are doing), then they simply won't present themselves in milk and all those who say they will are merely trying to spread panic and serve their own agenda.
quote:
In Ancient India, there was a practice of first letting the cow feed its calf fully, and when the little one was done, they would milk the cow for it to be sold. It was said that the milk obtained thus, was very pure, tasted like nectar and was rich in nutrients, because the cow was happy that it got to feed its kid first.
Allowing the newborn calf to feed first is essential and is allowed here in the U.S. in the majority of production farms. The reason is that the first milk is colostrum and is rich in antibodies. Calves, unlike humans, are born with virtually no immunity (they have only what transferred across the placenta which isn't alot. Humans have alot more passive immunity from their mothers passed on to them during development) and colostrum is rich in antibodies which can pass through the calf's gut. The thing is, this window closes roughly 24-48 hours, after which the calf can no longer absorb these antibodies through its intestines.
It has nothing to do with cows being happy or joyous or anything of the sort. In fact, many current practices in the industries I assume you would mostly condemn are well aware of animal welfare and many are changing many of their practices because animal welfare increases an animals potential and production (reducing stress and environmental irregularities is a big component of this). But animal welfare is not the same as animal rights or animal activism. Animal welfare is the practice by which we care for our animals to the best of our ability but never lose sight of the fact they were domesticated (talking about production animals here) in order to sustain and serve humans.
A cow that is not milked several times a day actually will experience discomfort and most likely pain from a very full udder that has yet to be emptied.
Also, in ancient India there were not 1 billion+ people (closer to 2 billion now I think). The same operating principles do not always apply (sometimes they do, but not always) to both a larger and smaller demographic of people.
It used to be that the majority of all people in society were farmers. Now, at least in the U.S. less than 2 % of the population are farmers and they feed he rest of the nation (minus imports and exports).
quote:
The point about Organic anything is the mental attitude. It is the attitude that says I care for nature more than I care for my own needs. And that I believe that my existence is symbiotic with the whole of nature. Then there is no greed, just inter-dependency. Then you care for the earth more, and through that care would think that the best way to work the earth was not through putting chemicals into it, but by letting nature work its way like she has been doing for ages.
Many chemicals humans use for various reasons are themselves employed by nature for various tasks. Not all, for that would be naive, but there are some. Did you know that some bacteria secrete hydrogen peroxide as a means to kill off their rival bacteria who lack catalase (and another that escapes my mind)- the enzyme needed to break down H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) into water and oxygen. The thing about caring for nature is that none of these farms or agricultural production sites would be able to have survived for all these years if they did not in some way care for their animals and their environment. If you overuse the soil, it loses its nutrients, if you mistreat your animals, they won't develop as well and you wont fair as well when you try to sell them.
If you want to go back to a time when nature worked its own way, you have to travel back 10,000 years and stop man from domesticating animals and growing crops. Because domestication changed the evolutionary pathways of the animals we have domesticated, from dogs to pigs to sheep to cows and all the rest. Domestication is no different from using artificial insemination to attempt to breed better animals (its just slower than our current methods since we can not test for desirable genetics and not wait till an animal is full grown and rely only on appearance/ life production to breed as they have done for centuries).
quote:
One fabulous example of the organic garden community is the Findhorn Organisation in far north-east Scotland. The story of how the founders cultivated a barren patch of land into a thriving sustainable community it now is, is nothing short of phenomenal. Do read the book - The Findhorn Garden: Pioneering a Vision of Humanity and Nature in Co-Operation by The Findhorn Community if you can get your hands on it. There is a possibility that you may throw it away as a lot of tosh... so don't buy, just borrow.
Ananya, I could cultivate a barren patch of land into a fertile ground with what I know now and my major had nothing to do with crops or agriculture in that sense. My major was in Animal Sciences and you might be surprised at how well the message is fairing that we must respect and treat our animals well but also understand they were bred to serve our purposes. I've even been to Australia on a study abroad to understand their means of animal agriculture and one of the major components of that trip was animal welfare and the practices that are developing to better improve care to better improve production.
When you get into radical groups like HSUS (Humane society of the United States- which has no relation to humane shelters for animals or anything of the like) or Peta, you are getting into groups that want to eliminate all animal agriculture period. Screw the billions of humans that will die, its their fault for using animals in the first place (this is their bottom line agenda. Various individuals will oscillate in their overall view points from people who just love animals to people who support this bottom line).
quote:
Brandon, we can both debate the topic to kingdom come... but both of us I think have completely different viewpoints. We can always agree to disagree though.
And back to this sensible (albeit premature) statement. I think we can much discuss this issue further in the sensible and logical way we have thus far. Also, if you get weary of these current posts of mine, please feel free to address the nationalization points in the first post I keep referring you to. Thats a whole other avenue of fun .
One interesting point I would like to know your views on is why you denounce capitalism but support a form of farming that is, by and large, more expensive and costly to the producer and consumer alike (this seems to be against your tendencies since less people would be able to sustain this lifestyle).
The bottom line here is that Obama's Garden is a great message for those that wish to choose that life style of their own accord but not a great message for children about our agricultural industries (because it blindsides them to one polar end of an issue without presenting all the facts. This is why in your quote a post or two ago Dow AgroSciences, Monsanto and DuPont were upset that Obama did not present all sides of the industry).
Well I was at Wal Mart yesterday during lunch and the price of ammuniton for guns seems to have stablized. There is no longer a bullet shortage for gun owners. This gun run was nothing but an overreaction. In Tennessee there are new gun laws that have recently been passed that are pro gun laws. We now have a House and Senate that is controled by Republicans.
Posts: 3142 | Location: The Volunteer State | Registered: 06-25-03
"We need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and fearful lawmakers, being led to believe that big government is the answer, to bail out the private sector, because then government gets to get in there and control it," she said. "And mark my words, this is going to be next, I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states. Then government gets to get in there and control the people."
It's such a classic move. Create an environment of fear with your rhetoric. Step in like the benevolent benefactor and 'save' the private sector. And presto, the private sector is beholden. It's how cult leaders do it. Obama has virtually every hallmark of a cult leader.
No doubt the media will find some way to discredit Palin and deflect the people from the real issue.
Posts: 3766 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Somebody else did it. You can believe that or leave it. I really don't care. 
I wonder why you are so hard on yourself at times? Ease up, this idea space ain't that bad.
.