Friday, January 31, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
Reason and Rationality
At the start of last year, I wrote about anger. If you want to read that blog before this one, here it is:
http://donricejr.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-be-angry.html
I wrote that anger should be eliminated from our being. I was in error. Allow me to clarify, if you will.
I wrote that anger is destructive, that it rips apart our essential humanity, and that it is an indulgence of the beast nature of our animal bodies. That was the basis of my error.
The Truth is that anger can be either destructive or constructive, depending on whether we respond rationally and reasonably or react instinctively and without rationality or reason.
My Teacher, Master David M. Berry, describes reason thus: "Reason gives stability and balance to our love, hate, fear, and et cetera." And he defines rationality as a state of "being able to consciously conform to conditions."
What, then, is a constructive way to deal with anger? First, focus on what is causing it. Then find a way to neutralize that cause, or to transform it into something else, something that does not bring out anger.
How and what you do depends greatly on what is causing your anger. But we must understand that there is a cause behind every effect. So whatever we do, we must consider the effect it will have before we do it. Is the effect something we want? will it help us to further our individual growth? Will it cause problems for ourselves or anyone else?
Ask yourself those questions, then base your actions on the answers you discover within yourself. This is what I'm learning to do, and I'm finding myself more in harmony when I do it, and less in harmony when I don't. It's difficult sometimes, but only when my choices make it so. When we understand that, then we will begin to change who we are as well as how to improve the living of our lives.
Namaste',
Don
© 2014 Donald C. Rice Jr.
Ending Poverty the Libertarian way?
The following passage is on an issue page for the Libertarian Party here in the United States:
"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."
There are two major points that render this unworkable.
First, anything that is to be eliminated must be done slowly and carefully, to avoid the proverbial "shock to the system", and to give the people using those services time and opportunity to find suitable replacements for them. The biggest failure with this approach is that, in many instances, that opportunity is, for all practical purposes, non-existent. That being the case, then all the time in the world wouldn't be of any help.
Second, I can name quite a few people, from personal knowledge, for whom relying on family wouldn't do any good at all. My own is foremost in my awareness, as when I needed help, my family was nowhere to be found.
Churches? Food pantries, serving lunches, okay, there's some help there; but it depends on donations that often dries up in hard economic times. And even at its best, such donations are nowhere near enough to handle the need in many communities.
Private charity? They have rules that far too many people just can't meet. I'm reading a book right now about the child protection system, as part of my research for the book I'm writing. It makes it clear that private organizations operate on a basis of whether a particualar person or family fits in with their target demographic. And i've seen this to be true from my own experience as well.
I agree that the system is not working and, as it is now constituted, cannot work except to exacerbate the problem. I think that is the way the system was designed; and yes, I'm including the child protection system in that statement. However, we cannot just take the system down with nothing to replace it. And the Libertarian platform offers nothing that is workable, for the reasons I've already stated.
No, what needs to be done is to completely revamp the system so that it actually serves the needs of the people reliant on it, rather than making them virtual slaves to it. Something that will reduce or even eliminate the burden on all facets of our society. The Libertarian platform does recognize that this burden exists, becasue they made it the opening statement for this part of their platform. Yet their solution would do vastly more harm than good, becasue it is not founded on the day-to-day realities of life for the people who are dependent on the system.
Much of the rest of this platform stand on welfare is pretty much right on the money so to speak, except for limiting tax breaks to only private charities and foundations. Public or semi-private must be included, such as the 501(c) organizations. Otherwise, the problems I described above with private groups would continue unabated.
Farther down the same page is the following:
"It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty."
I take issue with the concept of turning it over to the marketplace. Many advances have come about in our society as a result of *not* being beholden to market forces or the corporate "agenda". We would never have gone to the Moon, for example, nor reaped the benefits in many different aspects of society that derived directly from that effort.
Choice in education is a worthwhile objective. But through the marketplace? Not a good idea, for the same reasons I stated above in relation to ending welfare altogether. Instead, we must teach our children the skills needed to get and hold a good career that they enjoy and, becasue they enjoy it, they will put forth their best efforts. This will also provide ample opportunities for advancement in their chosen fields, unlike what is now all too common in the workplaces of America.
Again, the best way to proceed is to completely revamp the system so that it not only provides a usable education founded in science and the arts, but also require courses in critical thinking, which has been all too lacking for as long as I can recall, with few exceptions, such as those who partake of extracurricular activities like debate clubs.
Taking the system down is counter-productive. Revamp it instead. Change it so that it works for us, not as it is now with us working for it.
"We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap."
There are two major points that render this unworkable.
First, anything that is to be eliminated must be done slowly and carefully, to avoid the proverbial "shock to the system", and to give the people using those services time and opportunity to find suitable replacements for them. The biggest failure with this approach is that, in many instances, that opportunity is, for all practical purposes, non-existent. That being the case, then all the time in the world wouldn't be of any help.
Second, I can name quite a few people, from personal knowledge, for whom relying on family wouldn't do any good at all. My own is foremost in my awareness, as when I needed help, my family was nowhere to be found.
Churches? Food pantries, serving lunches, okay, there's some help there; but it depends on donations that often dries up in hard economic times. And even at its best, such donations are nowhere near enough to handle the need in many communities.
Private charity? They have rules that far too many people just can't meet. I'm reading a book right now about the child protection system, as part of my research for the book I'm writing. It makes it clear that private organizations operate on a basis of whether a particualar person or family fits in with their target demographic. And i've seen this to be true from my own experience as well.
I agree that the system is not working and, as it is now constituted, cannot work except to exacerbate the problem. I think that is the way the system was designed; and yes, I'm including the child protection system in that statement. However, we cannot just take the system down with nothing to replace it. And the Libertarian platform offers nothing that is workable, for the reasons I've already stated.
No, what needs to be done is to completely revamp the system so that it actually serves the needs of the people reliant on it, rather than making them virtual slaves to it. Something that will reduce or even eliminate the burden on all facets of our society. The Libertarian platform does recognize that this burden exists, becasue they made it the opening statement for this part of their platform. Yet their solution would do vastly more harm than good, becasue it is not founded on the day-to-day realities of life for the people who are dependent on the system.
Much of the rest of this platform stand on welfare is pretty much right on the money so to speak, except for limiting tax breaks to only private charities and foundations. Public or semi-private must be included, such as the 501(c) organizations. Otherwise, the problems I described above with private groups would continue unabated.
Farther down the same page is the following:
"It is time to break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend. It is essential to restore choice and the discipline of the marketplace to education. Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty."
I take issue with the concept of turning it over to the marketplace. Many advances have come about in our society as a result of *not* being beholden to market forces or the corporate "agenda". We would never have gone to the Moon, for example, nor reaped the benefits in many different aspects of society that derived directly from that effort.
Choice in education is a worthwhile objective. But through the marketplace? Not a good idea, for the same reasons I stated above in relation to ending welfare altogether. Instead, we must teach our children the skills needed to get and hold a good career that they enjoy and, becasue they enjoy it, they will put forth their best efforts. This will also provide ample opportunities for advancement in their chosen fields, unlike what is now all too common in the workplaces of America.
Again, the best way to proceed is to completely revamp the system so that it not only provides a usable education founded in science and the arts, but also require courses in critical thinking, which has been all too lacking for as long as I can recall, with few exceptions, such as those who partake of extracurricular activities like debate clubs.
Taking the system down is counter-productive. Revamp it instead. Change it so that it works for us, not as it is now with us working for it.
Namaste',
Don
© 2014 Donald C. Rice Jr.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
They can't back it up!
Here is an interesting and informative example of the mind of a neo-conservative, a conversation that I was party to very briefly.
The Conservative Hammer:
If your life - in or out of politics - isn't grounded in the historical morality of the Bible, then you will become corrupt -- and this is EXACTLY what our politicians have become in the good ol' secular US of A
Don Rice:
If you're consulting the alleged "historical morality" of the Bible, please tell us what is moral about the passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus telling us to torture and kill our loved ones. And compare those passages to the Christ teachings on love, fair treatment, compassion and forgiveness of our fellow human beings.
The Conservative Hammer:
Don, you do not understand the Old Testament in historical context with the New Testament and God's wrath upon the idolators of ancient Israel prior to the advent of Christ, which cleansed believers of sin and ushered in a New Covenant based on Grace and not law.
The Conservative Hammer:
But thanks for cherry-picking the liberal's favorite scriptures... Well done.
I commented that "What you call "the liberal's favorite scriptures" is the Christ teachings." I also suggested that if he/she doesn't accept this, then perhaps he/she needs to rethink the claim to be a follower of Christ.
I made a couple further comments. One stated that this person's claim that I can't use OT examples to oppose his/her position was not consistent with his own use of OT excerpts to bolster his/her position. I stated that "...either the OT is valid to this discussion or it isn't. You cant have it both ways."
The other politely asked him/her to not tell me I didn't understand the material, because he/she doesn't know me and doesn't know what I may or may not have studied.
When I came back later, I found my last three comments had been deleted. So I wrote another comment:
"Fascinating. Like a typical neoconservative, rather than address the very valid statements I made concerning your position, you deleted my comments. And here I thought I might have actually found someone who resembles a real conservative who wasn't afraid of debate when facts may be inconvenient to your position. I guess I was wrong in my estimation."
When I tried to post it, I discovered that I had been blocked.
This happens often with people who put themselves forward as conservative intellectuals. When they encounter opposition based on facts rather than supporting their beliefs, the run and hide. And make no mistake, that is exactly what happened here.
I have no remedy for that frame of mentality. I can only hope that such hypocrisy dies a swift death, so that we may get on with the task of improving life in these United States.
© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Is it really about policies?
The sign posted by a Facebook friend of the conservative persuasion
said, "It's not the color of your skin but the content of your policies."
My response:
Oh, you mean like preventing a recession from becoming another Great
Depression?
Preventing the end of the American auto industry? Catching and
killing Osama bin Laden?
Sending SEALS to rescue Americans and others held hostage by
pirates?
Or is it the refusal to give in to rightwing blackmail after trying
to compromise with them for three-plus years?
Or maybe it's the idea that every American is entitled to affordable
health care and health insurance.
Let's be real here for a minute. The vast majority of Americans
have applauded many of the things Barack Obama has done or tried to
do. Which of his policies do you disagree with? And are you aware
that many of those are the same policies that Republicans were all
for when they were proposed by other Republicans?
Many say that this is proof that they hate a black man in the White
House. I disagree. It's proof that they hate a Democrat in the
White House. It's proof that they no longer care about the will of
the people but cowtow to the will of their corporate
It's proof that their Party is on a fast downward spiral into moral
and ethical oblivion.
The supporting evidence? Barack Obama has taken the same basic
tack as Bill Clinton: he's tried to push through ideas that Republicans
only talked about and said they support but did nothing to pass. They
hate Obama for the same reason they hated President Clinton. But
they're to cowardly to admit it, or to even admit the truth of why they
hate both men.
You want proof of racism? Look deeper. Put it all together. No
other President has ever had to deal with the massive level of
disrespect, innuendo, accusation, prevarication and intentional
misrepresentation as has this President. No other President has had
to deal with an absolute refusal to compromise from an entire
opposition party. None other has ever had to even defend the fact
of his citizenship as a prerequisite for holding the office. None
other has had to put up with a total refusal to accept evidence that
none of the accusations had any validity.
The tone of the claims against President Obama is telling. Kenyan.
Muslim. Food stamp President. Blatantly racist terminology and
images portraying him and his wife and children as monkeys,
watermelon eaters (I don't get this at all; who DOESN'T like
watermelon?), and more.
If all of that combined isn't enough to prove an overall tone of
racism toward this President; if you still, in spite of all of this,
don't see the racism, both blatant and covert, then perhaps you need
to take a good look at yourself. It's as clear as day to anyone who
has half a brain.
This is not to say that all who oppose President Obama are racist.
Indeed, there are some who honestly disagree with many of his
policies. I, for one, am not happy with some of the things he's
done as President. But nobody is going to be able to please
everyone, or to even please one other rational person all the
time. So to those who claim to not be racist, I suggest you state
clearly exactly what it is you dislike, and why you dislike it,
especially if it's something you agreed with when someone else
proposed it. Someone white, perhaps.
In other words, as the gamblers of old said, put up or shut up.
© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Family Sanctity
Family Sanctity
(This is a true story)
(Authors' note: No names are given here, in order
to protect the innocent from revenge actions by the System,
and to protect the guilty from violence by others.)
In an un-named small city in upstate New York, a
married couple with one son were planning their first
vacation together since they met. They were going to
Florida for two weeks, and the wife was going to meet
her in-laws for the first time.As they were scheduled
to arrive in Florida on the day of their 5th wedding
anniversary, the man had arranged a surprise. As the
family got off the train, the woman was going to be
presented with a bouquet of roses by a man singing
"Happy Anniversary."
This planned event never came to pass. Two weeks
before the start of their vacation, the man awoke in
the morning to find that his wife had died in the early
hours of the morning. She had been epileptic most of
her life (she was 31 years young), and had, according
to the autopsy report, had a seizure during which she
vomited, and she choked to death.Several months
later, the man was building a successful business,
when a worker at theday care center decided she
wanted to adopt the son. Knowing the man would
refuse, she called the State of New York Child
Abuse Hotline, and reported that the man had beaten
his son. The case worker assigned to investigate the
complaint ordered the man to take his son to the
hospital to be examined. The man complied,
knowing the charge would be proven false.
Instead, the doctor, who was under contract with
the local Child ProtectiveServices , claimed that
he found "significant bruising" on the childs'
back and buttocks, and the case worker wrote
in his case notes that he, the caseworker, had
taken pictures of this bruising. After the boy
was taken into protective custody and placed
in foster care, all on the basis of this one case
workers' statements (even the Family Court judge
didn't see the pictures until nearly 3 years later),
the father asked to see the pictures, and was refused.
Instead, the case worker informed him that his son
had accused him of sex abuse (the boy had just turned
5 years old).To make a long story short, the father
enlisted the aid of another man he was introduced
to specifically to deal with this situation. The two
became fast friends, even to the point of considering
each other family. The Child Protection Service then
took that mans' children from him, making similar
sex abuse claims.
Together, the two men file a civil rights lawsuit in the
Federal District Court. The suit was dismissed only
because they could not figure out how to break the
"qualified imunity" of the child protective workers,
several of whom were by then involved in the case.
That "qualified immunity" assumes that the case
workers are only doing their jobs, unless concrete
evidence to the contrary is produced. However,
the suits' paper chase provided enough data in the
form oflegal briefs, answers to causes, and case
notes, for the two men to request "fair hearings,"
that is, to have the case heard on a point by point
basis by an administrative law judge, and to bring
up clear evidence of false allegations in the family
court. The evidence, including the pictures, showed
that there was no beating, no sex abuse.
NO ANYTHING!
In this manner, the two men got their respective children
back. Most of the people involved on the side of "the
System" were either fired or transfered to different
jobs; one child protective supervisor wound up on the
lowest level of the Medicaid department.
But the laws have not changed significantly!
This and other forms of systemic abuse still
occur on a regular basis! And not just in New
York, but thoughout the country!
THIS MUST STOP!
FAMILIES, BY DEFINITION, ARE SACRED!
THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THEM
MUST BE PUNISHED BY THE LAW!
Donald Charles Rice Jr.
(If anyone has current information on
Child Protection laws in any state,
or on any current systemic abuse cases,
please email or PM me!)
© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.
(This is a true story)
(Authors' note: No names are given here, in order
to protect the innocent from revenge actions by the System,
and to protect the guilty from violence by others.)
In an un-named small city in upstate New York, a
married couple with one son were planning their first
vacation together since they met. They were going to
Florida for two weeks, and the wife was going to meet
her in-laws for the first time.As they were scheduled
to arrive in Florida on the day of their 5th wedding
anniversary, the man had arranged a surprise. As the
family got off the train, the woman was going to be
presented with a bouquet of roses by a man singing
"Happy Anniversary."
This planned event never came to pass. Two weeks
before the start of their vacation, the man awoke in
the morning to find that his wife had died in the early
hours of the morning. She had been epileptic most of
her life (she was 31 years young), and had, according
to the autopsy report, had a seizure during which she
vomited, and she choked to death.Several months
later, the man was building a successful business,
when a worker at the
wanted to adopt the son. Knowing the man would
refuse, she called the State of New York Child
Abuse Hotline, and reported that the man had beaten
his son. The case worker assigned to investigate the
complaint ordered the man to take his son to the
hospital to be examined. The man complied,
knowing the charge would be proven false.
Instead, the doctor, who was under contract with
the local Child Protective
he found "significant bruising" on the childs'
back and buttocks, and the case worker wrote
in his case notes that he, the caseworker, had
taken pictures of this bruising. After the boy
was taken into protective custody and placed
in foster care, all on the basis of this one case
workers' statements (even the Family Court judge
didn't see the pictures until nearly 3 years later),
the father asked to see the pictures, and was refused.
Instead, the case worker informed him that his son
had accused him of sex abuse (the boy had just turned
5 years old).To make a long story short, the father
enlisted the aid of another man he was introduced
to specifically to deal with this situation. The two
became fast friends, even to the point of considering
each other family. The Child Protection Service then
took that mans' children from him, making similar
sex abuse claims.
Together, the two men file a civil rights lawsuit in the
Federal District Court. The suit was dismissed only
because they could not figure out how to break the
"qualified imunity" of the child protective workers,
several of whom were by then involved in the case.
That "qualified immunity" assumes that the case
workers are only doing their jobs, unless concrete
evidence to the contrary is produced. However,
the suits' paper chase provided enough data in the
form of
notes, for the two men to request "fair hearings,"
that is, to have the case heard on a point by point
basis by an administrative law judge, and to bring
up clear evidence of false allegations in the family
court. The evidence, including the pictures, showed
that there was no beating, no sex abuse.
NO ANYTHING!
In this manner, the two men got their respective children
back. Most of the people involved on the side of "the
System" were either fired or transfered to different
jobs; one child protective supervisor wound up on the
lowest level of the Medicaid department.
But the laws have not changed significantly!
This and other forms of systemic abuse still
occur on a regular basis! And not just in New
York, but thoughout the country!
THIS MUST STOP!
FAMILIES, BY DEFINITION, ARE SACRED!
THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THEM
MUST BE PUNISHED BY THE LAW!
Donald Charles Rice Jr.
(If anyone has current information on
Child Protection laws in any state,
or on any current systemic abuse cases,
please email or PM me!)
© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.
Friday, May 24, 2013
To GMO Or Not To GMO?
I posted the picture above on my facebook page, tagging two specific people on my friends list and whom I know to be supportive of GM foods. One of them left a comment:
"No fact checking....Don Rice. Where's your proof this meme is correct? One of the reasons we're pushing back is the argument against GMOs sounds a bit like denying science I eat organically and grow what I can and know my food sources. Where were you folks in 1995? LOL"
I can't address the issue from the perspective, as you ask, of "you folks". I can only speak for myself.
In '95, I was busy putting my life back together after figthting for 3 years to get my son back from the State of New York, which took him on the basis of fraudulent allegations of neglect and abuse after my first wife died. That was my sole concern at that time.
Since then, I've paid attention to the issue. I am not denying science per se, but I do hold that the science on this issue is incomplete and corrupted by greed and the hunger for power.
There has been a concerted effort by the companies with the GM patents to avoid adequate testing for safety, health and nutritional concerns; to avoid labelling so that people won't even be aware that what they're eating is GM; and to take legal actions against organic and natural farmers whose crops are invaded by GM pollens and seeds due to faulty controls of GM crops which then cross-polinate with the organic and natural crops, thereby rendering them no longer organic or natural. And the GM patent owners are winning those suits, even though they themselves are at fault.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/genetically-modified-seed-patent-report_n_2678837.html
Those are the basic facts. Anyone who really wants to know will see that from their own studies. There is a very good detailed analysis, with over 300 citations, of the pros and cons of GM here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
In pertinent parts, this article states:
"(Jose L.) Domingo again reviewed the literature in 2011 and said that although there had been a substantial increase in the number of studies since 2006, most were conducted by the biotechnology companies responsible for commercialising the plants."
" ... scientists and regulators discussing clinical studies of GM food have written that the "ethical and technical constraints of conducting human trials, and the necessity of doing so, is a subject that requires considerable attention."
"The EFSA review also stated that the statistical methods used were incorrect The EFSA conclusions were supported by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), a panel of toxicologists funded by Monsanto and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB). (Note that one of the patent owners's studies is included in this. Can we say "vested interest"?)
"An analysis of laboratory settings found that Bt toxins can affect nontarget organisms, usually organisms closely related to the intended targets.[156] Typically, exposure occurs through the consumption of plant parts, such as pollen or plant debris, or through Bt ingestion by their predatory food choices. The methodology used by Lövei et al. has been called into question by a group of academic scientists who wrote "We are deeply concerned about the inappropriate methods used in their paper, the lack of ecological context, and the authors’ advocacy of how laboratory studies on non-target arthropods should be conducted and interpreted".
"Genes from a genetically modified organism may pass to another organism just like an endogenous gene. The process is known as outcrossing and can occur in any new open-pollinated crop variety, with newly introduced traits potentially crossing into neighboring crop plants of the same or sometimes closely related species. There are concerns that the spread of genes from modified organisms to unmodified relatives could produce species of weeds resistant to herbicides or could disrupt the ecosystem."
(This, or something similar, has already occurred, as seen in news items about the new "Roundup-resistant" weeds springing up in places where Roundup has been used regularly. And this from the same company fighting the hardest against testing and labeling.)
"Critics in the US have protested in regards to the appointment of pro GM lobbyists to senior positions in the FDA. Michael R. Taylor, a former Monsanto lobbyist, was appointed as a senior adviser to the FDA on food safety in 1991. Following his tenure at the FDA, Taylor became a vice-president of Monsanto. On 7 July 2009, Taylor returned to government as Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration.[289]
The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee that reviewed Canada's regulations in 2003 was accused by environmental and citizen groups of not representing the full spectrum of public interests and for being too closely aligned to industry groups.[290]
Most of the Chinese National Biosafety Committee are involved in biotechnology leading to criticisms that they do not represent a wide enough range of public concerns."
"The value of current independent studies is considered by some to be problematic because, due to restrictive end-user agreements, independent researchers cannot obtain GM plants to study. Cornell University's Elson Shields, the spokesperson for a group of scientists who oppose this practice, submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that "as a result of restrictive access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology".[312] Scientific American noted that several studies that were initially approved by seed companies were later blocked from publication when they returned "unflattering" results."
There is much more, just on that one page. But I'm sure you get the picture.
What also must be considered is the long-term effects, which have not been studied at all on GM foods. But there are parallels, such as the introduction of non-native plants to ecosystems, which has invariably resulted, long-term, in environmental damage. Florida is a perfect example of this:
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/florida/howwework/combating-invasive-species-in-florida.xml
What that comes down to is that introducing foriegn elements into an ecosystem, whether it's macro, as in a geographic area, or micro, within a specific plant, can and often does have unintended consequences which are, more often than not, harmful.
As far as the scientist shown in the picture, I think he has been badly misrepresented by those "scientists" who have an interest in seeing GM companies continue their takeove of the worlds' food supply. Most interesting is that he was supposedly banned from even talking about his research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/seminar/2004/GMbios/CW.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/arpad121604.cfm
Amazingly, there are people who say they support GM foods, yet they themselves don't eat it. In fact, the person who originally questioned me on the meme, as shown in her comment above, stated unequivocally, "I eat organically and grow what I can and know my food sources."
My question seems obvious to me. If you are so much pro-GM, why do you not eat it yourself? If it's so great, why bother finding buying organic or growing your own?
Namaste',
Don
© 2013 Donald C. Rice Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)