Image via Wikipedia Publisher's Platform: Balance in the Raw Milk WarsReal Raw Milk Facts
Click on the links to find out the answers to commonly asked questions about raw (unpasteurized, unprocessed) milk benefits, safety, and how risks from raw milk compare with other foods like pasteurized milk, fresh fruits and vegetables, and meat/poultry/fish. This information was put together using scientific studies and reports. For some conditions, no scientific literature could be found as shown in the table.
Image via WikipediaPhlogiston Economics: The Need to Dispel the Free Hand and Create Jobs Instead
Phlogiston economics theorizes that employees and employers bargain freely about wages and working conditions. Elaborate justifications have been made for why employees have chosen to be at-will employees – meaning they can be fired for any reason – rather than have just-cause employment – meaning they can only be fired if there is cause, such as misconduct or business needs.
When Washington University law professor Pauline Kim tested those theories, she found that roughly 80-90 percent of employees thought that their employers could only fire them for cause. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. In almost all states, by law, the default is at-will employment, and it is almost impossible to bargain out of at-will because most employees do not have enough bargaining power, let alone the information to change the default.
The BBC's Censoring of News on the Gulf Oil Spill - Part 2
Last month, I wrote a post about how the BBC censored news of the US Government editing an independent report so that it showed scientists backing the offshore drilling ban. It turned out that the President who was supposed to be superior to George Bush in that He would now put science before ideology has in fact put ideology - in this case, Watermelon-style anti-oil ideology - above science. Yet the BBC has remained silent about it.
Now that the US Government is extending the offshore drilling ban, the BBC put up a news brief about it. The ban was supposedly going to be for six months, as a response to the big oil spill in the Gulf. When the President put the ban into place, we were told that this was vital so we could learn from the disaster. We were further told that we must wait until the Government experts learned more about the dangers of offshore drilling before any more could begin. Now it seems that the ban will remain in place until 2017. Why?
.....Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is well known for his anti-Big Oil leanings. It's becoming increasingly clear that he and the President never meant to lift the ban at all, and were merely maneuvering into position for a more permanent ban. He promised that offshore drilling would end and that more would start up now that risks have been "significantly reduced", but now - what a shock! - the ban will continue for seven years. All thanks to the President putting ideology before science. Wasn't that supposed to be a big problem of George Bush? The masses don't need to know about it. It's no surprise that Salazar was favored by anti-oil activists even back in 2009.
But it's worse than that. While Paul Adams is wringing his hands over a few oystermen in Louisiana, the BBC is censoring news that the drilling ban itself is actually beginning to cause economic damage.
Steven Chu: China Giving U.S. a Clean Technology "Sputnik Moment"
In a speech at the National Press Club, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu made the case for more R&D in the U.S., especially in the energy sector ("the 2010 federal budget is $3.6 trillion, of which 0.14 percent went for research and development related to energy"). Dr. Chu explains why this is essential for both economic development and to meet environmental challenges, and he compares China's progress in clean technologies and energy to the wake up call that was the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union. ![]()
Image by David_Reverchon via Flickr
Education versus indoctrination
Randy Olson at the Benshi has a post entitled “A moment in climate history: when Al Gore tried to brush aside the entire climate skeptic movement.” Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is a fascinating study in education versus indoctrination. Olson rails agains the climate movement for it’s unwillingness to take a critical look at Al Gore’s movie, which he characterizes as “the single most important piece of global warming mass communication to date.”
Olson’s essay is primarily concerned with the treatment of skeptics.
Gore symbolically dismissed the ENTIRE climate skeptic movement in his movie in this one scene that cited 928 climate papers affirming human-caused global warming, then said zero papers disagree with this “consensus.” It came from Naomi Oreskes Science paper. Certainly the substance of what he said was true. But the style of delivery sent a condescending, dismissive message to the already-enormous climate skeptic movement that “you don’t even deserve to be recognized.” Which might have been fine had they been a trivial group of crackpots. But they weren’t, as they forcefully showed with Climategate. And thus it failed as a tactic.
Gore’s dismissal of the skeptics seemed to signal to the climate establishment that this was the appropriate strategy. More importantly, you saw the major environmental groups involved with global warming simply turning a blind eye to this significant opposition force. There existed an opponent, but no one wanted to look them in their eyes. I was amazed in 2007 that virtually no one had been to see some of the major climate skepticsm(Singer, Michaels, Morano, Hayward, Gray) to interview them for a film previous to me. There was just a big campaign to “ignore them and they will go away.” Aside from Naomi Oreskes (ironically the source of the numbers Gore cited) who was engaged in direct and blunt combat with them, no one seemed to be taking them on through any sort of mass media.
And then there was Climategate. Literally overnight the, “there is no debate,” voice vanished. The science and environmental communities finally learned there is a debate — not through effective leadership and communication, but by having their noses shoved in it.
I have been criticized all over the blogosphere for discussing topics that I am not a particular authority on, or winging it is certain discussions. Since I don’t view myself as any particular arbiter of “climate truth,” and I allow some pretty freewheeling discussions over here and don’t flag commenters for stating “mistruths” or providing “misinformation,” I am viewed by some as misleading and confusionist. How can we strike the best balance for true education, and I’m assuming here that education and understanding should be the goal?
Subscribe to climatechangedebate
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatechangedebate/
( It has been a year now since I realized the 'debate' existed ; and all because of a chance Search result investigating why, despite any representation or action Iran might take, it remained demonized as monsters frothing at the mouth to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction...by the 'reliable source' that is the only nation ever to have used nuclear arms in recorded history. Dec 4 2009 introduced Climate Fraud and on December 20 the overarching rationale of misrepresenting the thoughts and actions of foreigners speaking their own language and relatively unable to dispute the media account given about themselves.Those posts ended up in the Topical Index - lost in a welter of new material. Most notable of that is the exhaustive and never-ending work of CASMII and the outline of geopolitics and energy control fraud - TRAP. )
Connecting the Dots: People Power vs Weapons of Mass Distraction
With so much happening all at once, it is difficult to see which event or trend presents the most danger for humanity. Is it the descent into fascism that the United States is undergoing? Is it the obnoxious Big Brother harassment of full-body scanner machines and the humiliating "enhanced pat-downs"? The construction of terror scares by the FBI and assorted alphabet agencies, perhaps? What about Israel's oppression of Palestine, together with its manipulation of global perception and its unparalleled contribution to the distortion of geopolitics? The ongoing destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? The squeezing of Western economies to bring them into line with Third World countries and the rising food prices? Winter coming so soon to the northern hemisphere and the biblical floods caused by torrential rain?
Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist - 2
Part One of the Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist documentary from The Corbett Report, dealing with the founding and funding of what we know as Al Qaeda. This installment of the documentary goes into Zbigniew Brzezinski, Operation Cyclone, the ISI-CIA-MAK-US government funding circle and CIA connections to Osama Bin Laden.
UFO HotSpots
Jamie Dimon: Becoming Too Big to Save - Creating Fiscal Disaster
The problem with very big banks is not that they are “too big to fail,” in the sense that it is physically impossible for them to fail. It is that they are so large and therefore so connected with each other — and with all aspects of how the modern economy operates — that the failure of even one such bank would cause great damage throughout the world.
Bilderberg Group
The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics
I'm not singling out Klein here; his commentary is merely illustrative of what I'm finding truly stunning about the increasingly bloodthirsty two-minute hate session aimed at Julian Assange, also known as the new Osama bin Laden. The ringleaders of this hate ritual are advocates of -- and in some cases directly responsible for -- the world's deadliest and most lawless actions of the last decade. And they're demanding Assange's imprisonment, or his blood, in service of a Government that has perpetrated all of these abuses and, more so, to preserve a Wall of Secrecy which has enabled them.
Court Orders Destruction of Monsanto's Dangerous, Illegal GMO Beet Crop
A federal judge has ruled that genetically-modified sugar beets created by notorious Frankenfood-producer Monsanto were planted illegally, without proper environmental review. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said the plantings must now be destroyed, in what could be the first forced destruction of a GMO crop in the United States -- and could open the door for future rulings to keep Americans safe from potentially dangerous GMOs.
( 'Potentially dangerous'. Riiiight. The Real Winner in Iraq is Monsanto Occupation Fact Sheet PDF Red Ice Creations and Food Freedom )
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment