Mark Bittman has a scathing op ed about Food Safety today. Well
worth the read.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...se-numbers/?hp

(snip)
If we needed further evidence that the party of “family values” only
values wealthy families, we have it now; when these guys say “women
and children first,” they mean “first to throw overboard.”

The House’s reactionary majority wants to dismantle two aspects of the
Federal system that serve the majority of us not perfectly but
decently: the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), one of the
most effective of all social welfare programs, and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), among whose jobs is the increasingly difficult
one of protecting us from the kind of outbreak of E. coli that just
killed at least 39 people in Germany, gravely — perhaps mortally —
sickened another 800 and gave another couple thousand a few of those
days none of us ever wants.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:39:58 -0700 (PDT), ImStillMags wrote:

> Mark Bittman has a scathing op ed about Food Safety today. Well
> worth the read.
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...se-numbers/?hp
>
> (snip)
> If we needed further evidence that the party of ¡§family values¡¨ only
> values wealthy families, we have it now; when these guys say ¡§women
> and children first,¡¨ they mean ¡§first to throw overboard.¡¨
>
> The House¡¦s reactionary majority wants to dismantle two aspects of the
> Federal system that serve the majority of us not perfectly but
> decently: the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), one of the
> most effective of all social welfare programs,

if a woman gets pregnant without being married to a big, strong man to
support her she's a slut, so **** her.

>and the Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA), among whose jobs is the increasingly difficult
> one of protecting us from the kind of outbreak of E. coli that just
> killed at least 39 people in Germany, gravely ¡X perhaps mortally ¡X
> sickened another 800 and gave another couple thousand a few of those
> days none of us ever wants.

ah, but the invisible hand of the market will take care of that. how
you're supposed to find out which companies are poisoning people without
the FDA is left unexplained.

your pal,
blake

On Jun 22, 1:39*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> Mark Bittman has a scathing op ed about Food Safety today. * Well
> worth the read.
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-safety-in-the...
>
> (snip)
> If we needed further evidence that the party of “family values” only
> values wealthy families, we have it now; when these guys say “women
> and children first,” they mean “first to throw overboard.”
>
> The House’s reactionary majority wants to dismantle two aspects of the
> Federal system that serve the majority of us not perfectly but
> decently: the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), one of the
> most effective of all social welfare programs, and the Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA), among whose jobs is the increasingly difficult
> one of protecting us from the kind of outbreak of E. coli that just
> killed at least 39 people in Germany, gravely — perhaps mortally —
> sickened another 800 and gave another couple thousand a few of those
> days none of us ever wants.


They're going after anything that helps non millionaires. It's not
just food safety. The idea of government doing anything that makes
society better makes the right insane with anger. You know what the
best part is though? When the moneyed interests finally get enough
reactionaries in Congress to dismantle the FDA, EPA, Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security and all the other things they don't happen
to like under the guise of "stopping the spending," they're going to
use the savings to cover the cost of more tax cuts aimed at
corporations and really, really rich people. Even Ryan's plan to "fix
the deficit" couldn't possibly have worked, since it had massive tax
cuts baked into it. It usually doesn't look like it, but when they cut
this or eliminate that, they always immediately blow the money on
still more Platinum Series tax cuts.

Republicans: Creating a nation where food poisoning and guns in bars
are moral and school lunch programs for poor kids are not.

On Jun 25, 3:47*pm, Christopher Helms > wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:39*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Bittman has a scathing op ed about Food Safety today. * Well
> > worth the read.
>
> >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-safety-in-the...
>
> > (snip)
> > If we needed further evidence that the party of “family values” only
> > values wealthy families, we have it now; when these guys say “women
> > and children first,” they mean “first to throw overboard.”
>
> > The House’s reactionary majority wants to dismantle two aspects of the
> > Federal system that serve the majority of us not perfectly but
> > decently: the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), one of the
> > most effective of all social welfare programs, and the Food and Drug
> > Administration (FDA), among whose jobs is the increasingly difficult
> > one of protecting us from the kind of outbreak of E. coli that just
> > killed at least 39 people in Germany, gravely — perhaps mortally —
> > sickened another 800 and gave another couple thousand a few of those
> > days none of us ever wants.
>
> They're going after anything that helps non millionaires. It's not
> just food safety. The idea of government doing anything that makes
> society better makes the right insane with anger. You know what the
> best part is though? When the moneyed interests finally get enough
> reactionaries in Congress to dismantle the FDA, EPA, Medicare,
> Medicaid, Social Security and all the other things they don't happen
> to like under the guise of "stopping the spending," they're going to
> use the savings to cover the cost of more tax cuts aimed at
> corporations and really, really rich people. Even Ryan's plan to "fix
> the deficit" couldn't possibly have worked, since it had massive tax
> cuts baked into it. It usually doesn't look like it, but when they cut
> this or eliminate that, they always immediately blow the money on
> still more Platinum Series tax cuts.
>
> Republicans: Creating a nation where food poisoning and guns in bars
> are moral and school lunch programs for poor kids are not.

We now know with reasonable certainty which insecticides are killing
off the bees we depend on for pollination. (They are nicotine
derivatives.) They have been banned in several European countries, but
not here. Our regulators say that the evidence in not "conclusive". Is
this a case of the chemical lobby vs. the farm lobby?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:39:12 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Avins >
wrote:

> We now know with reasonable certainty which insecticides are killing
> off the bees we depend on for pollination. (They are nicotine
> derivatives.) They have been banned in several European countries, but
> not here. Our regulators say that the evidence in not "conclusive". Is
> this a case of the chemical lobby vs. the farm lobby?

Really? From what I've read, science thinks it's a combination of a
fungus and a virus. Either one alone would not be as devastating, but
both are found in every affected bee colony.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Jun 25, 5:41*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:39:12 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Avins >
> wrote:
>
> > We now know with reasonable certainty which insecticides are killing
> > off the bees we depend on for pollination. (They are nicotine
> > derivatives.) They have been banned in several European countries, but
> > not here. Our regulators say that the evidence in not "conclusive". Is
> > this a case of the chemical lobby vs. the farm lobby?
>
> Really? *From what I've read, science thinks it's a combination of a
> fungus and a virus. *Either one alone would not be as devastating, but
> both are found in every affected bee colony.

The poison seems to lower the bees' resistance.
http://tinyurl.com/43hlfqb
http://tinyurl.com/3l6opku

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
get.

"Jerry Avins" > ha scritto nel messaggio
On Jun 25, 5:41 pm, sf > wrote:
> > We now know with reasonable certainty which insecticides are killing
> > off the bees we depend on for pollination. (They are nicotine
> > derivatives.) They have been banned in several European countries, but
> > not here. Our regulators say that the evidence in not "conclusive". Is
> > this a case of the chemical lobby vs. the farm lobby?
>
> Really? From what I've read, science thinks it's a combination of a
> fungus and a virus.

The poison seems to lower the bees' resistance.
http://tinyurl.com/43hlfqb
http://tinyurl.com/3l6opku

Who will they sell to when the farms are all ailed? What will they feed
their grandchildren when they cry?

In article >, says...
>
> "Jerry Avins" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> On Jun 25, 5:41 pm, sf > wrote:
> > > We now know with reasonable certainty which insecticides are killing
> > > off the bees we depend on for pollination. (They are nicotine
> > > derivatives.) They have been banned in several European countries, but
> > > not here. Our regulators say that the evidence in not "conclusive". Is
> > > this a case of the chemical lobby vs. the farm lobby?
> >
> > Really? From what I've read, science thinks it's a combination of a
> > fungus and a virus.
>
> The poison seems to lower the bees' resistance.
> http://tinyurl.com/43hlfqb
> http://tinyurl.com/3l6opku
>
> Who will they sell to when the farms are all ailed? What will they feed
> their grandchildren when they cry?

Are the bees making a comeback where the stuff has been banned?

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:18:13 +0200, "Giusi" >
wrote:

>
> "Jerry Avins" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> On Jun 25, 5:41 pm, sf > wrote:
> > > We now know with reasonable certainty which insecticides are killing
> > > off the bees we depend on for pollination. (They are nicotine
> > > derivatives.) They have been banned in several European countries, but
> > > not here. Our regulators say that the evidence in not "conclusive". Is
> > > this a case of the chemical lobby vs. the farm lobby?
> >
> > Really? From what I've read, science thinks it's a combination of a
> > fungus and a virus.
>
> The poison seems to lower the bees' resistance.
> http://tinyurl.com/43hlfqb
> http://tinyurl.com/3l6opku
>
> Who will they sell to when the farms are all ailed? What will they feed
> their grandchildren when they cry?
>
Getting back to the talk about rising food prices - bees have a lot to
do with the production of food and lack of bees drives up prices too.
Maybe scientists can figure out how to make everything self
pollinating.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On Jun 22, 1:39*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> Mark Bittman has a scathing op ed about Food Safety today. * Well
> worth the read.
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...-safety-in-the...
>
> (snip)
> If we needed further evidence that the party of “family values” only
> values wealthy families, we have it now; when these guys say “women
> and children first,” they mean “first to throw overboard.”

When conservatives speak of family values, they are not talking about
Mom & Dad, Bud,
Sis, Aunt Betty, Gramps, Rover & Fluffy. No, they are using "family"
in the sense of, "She's
in a *family way*." In other words, someone, somewhere, is having some
kind of sex that
the conservatives don't approve of, and the conservatives want them to
stop!
>
> The House’s reactionary majority wants to dismantle two aspects of the
> Federal system that serve the majority of us not perfectly but
> decently: the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC), one of the
> most effective of all social welfare programs, and the Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA), among whose jobs is the increasingly difficult
> one of protecting us from the kind of outbreak of E. coli that just
> killed at least 39 people in Germany, gravely — perhaps mortally —
> sickened another 800 and gave another couple thousand a few of those
> days none of us ever wants.

You are right that WIC is "one of the most effective of all social
welfare programs."
The Republican Party is outright hostile to working class folks. They
are only interested
in supporting the interests of those who *own* things. It's their
highest ideal.

--Bryan