1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Gifts of Jahi

Chas.5 Wrote: Jan 02, 2014 4:12 PM
No, no, no. This is not rare and it is not accidental. My mother choked and was found unresponsive and taken to the ER. She was put on a ventilator and admitted. For two days everyone said she was "brain dead". I was skeptical and insisted on a review of the tests, and the well-meaning euthanasists reviewed and explained them to me, and all swore to me, in love and with all professional dignity that her brain waves definitely shown she was brain dead and that she was not initiatiing any breaths on the ventialtor. Though I had seen respirations at fourteen and sixteen on the vent, they swore I was wrong, that she wasn't even breathing and that she would be dead within 5 minutes -- ten to be certain -- after taking out the breathing tube. She was breathing, she didn't die and was placed in a longer-term facility, because the hospital didn't want ot keep her. There I believed she was verbally responsive (if extremely garbled). The end was bad because of decisions by the person holding the medical power-of-attorney. But the hospital lied to us point blank that my mother was brain dead and unable to live without a ventilator. I think the hospital just didn't want the financial risk of providing extensive care to a very ill patient with questionable insurance resources. Otherwise I have no idea why the professionals were so willfully wrong in their assessments.
So, while we debate whether Snowden's a traitor, the house is working to pass an immigration amnesty bill that we fought so hard to stop a few years ago. Maybe Snowden really is still a spook, working for the O administration.
I'll say one more thing. Statistical analysis is a probability analysis. Not everyone on a generated list is going to be involved. But that's how they generate 'signature' targeting of drone strikes -- which are exactly right 25%(?) of the time! If this pattern is repeated with the NSA's conspirator cells analyses, then 3 out of every 4 Americans targeted for interception will be erroneous. Acceptable collateral privacy damage?
And I'll repeat what many have already asked: If this system is so vital, why didn't it stop the Tzarnaev brothers? And while officials are shouting from the roof tops that PRISM stopped a subway train bombing, all the "foiled plots" so far involved humint and agent provocateurs rather than number-crunching "wonks" who couldn't take over a starbucks if they wanted to, as they have been so benignly referred to by Col. Peters (of Fox).
What I don't get (actually, one of the many) is how any reasonable governmental official will castigate Snowden for breaking his nondisclosure agreement, yet expect him to violate the Constitution without a protest. Remember, FISA means FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In response to:

Say NO to GMOs in Your Food

Chas.5 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:58 PM
Ah. Now questioning the morality of the mega-producers is very different from saying the product is bad. Railroad monopolies had to be broken up, but that didn't make the trains bad.
In response to:

Say NO to GMOs in Your Food

Chas.5 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:54 PM
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. There are others on this thread that give good numbers saying it does. Do you have accurate numbers saying it doesn't?
In response to:

Say NO to GMOs in Your Food

Chas.5 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:50 PM
Look. I’m not saying GM is absolutely safe. It’s a matter of degree and purpose. I’m saying that GM foods are arguably helping humanity greatly, and that there are no proofs of adverse consequences. We use genetic testing to weed out inferior babies from being born; not just Down’s babies, but females and some would say brown-skinned. The adverse consequence of aborting female babies is minor – what, there are two men for every man in China? No matter how much I may be exaggerating the ratio, the fact is that many Chinese men can’t find women to marry and so there is a growing trade in purchasing women, many of them through human trafficking. If all the GM companies are doing is speeding up what would otherwise be accomplished by historical hybridization, I see little problem with that. But if they are doing something else, something more malignant, then give us reasonable proof. As far as fats and trans-fats goes, we were told fifty years ago that coconut oil was terrible to cook with. Now it’s great for us. We were told butter was bad now it’s good. We were told vegetable oil was great, now it’s not so great. Then we were told unsaturated was the best, now it’s mono-unsaturated. And where are we now? Coconut oil again. Don’t believe every prediction science makes. The same goes for coffee and caffeine. A boss of mine was switching between the two every year or so for years. Now they say coffee prevents Alzheimer’s and tea prevents colon cancer (roughly speaking) and chocolate and red wine can prolong your life. If GM feeds people AND lets the government waste its money on bio-fuels (which they seem as crazily pursuing as hard as they are pursuing shutting down power plants), then what’s the problem with that?
In response to:

Say NO to GMOs in Your Food

Chas.5 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:48 PM
Now that's offensive.
In response to:

Say NO to GMOs in Your Food

Chas.5 Wrote: Jun 04, 2013 3:22 PM
Wow. I don't know what happened here. Blame it on the rain.
1 - 10 Next