The last paragraph of the article reads, "Eat local and organic, period. And fight GMOs invading U.S. food industries and American homes." I was referring to that.

Ok, I know they say "you are what you eat," but I thought DNA was passed on to children through reproduction. I've never heard of an organism absorbing another organism's DNA by consuming it. But, please, you go ahead and buy the over-priced organic stuff. That will keep my GMO foods cheap. Will your next article be about how natural gas fracking will make my tap water flammable? Or will you be warning us that our SUV emissions are destroying coral reefs?

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of words that replace thought is: "zero-tolerance" So many institutions have "zero-tolerance" policies that literally replace thought. There is no consideration made for individual circumstances, intent or history. For example, if a child brings a butter knife to school - they are expelled without a single thought given to the child's intent, whether or not they've been in trouble before or the actual danger caused by the presence of the "weapon." "Zero-tolerance" = zero thought.

I'm no dove, but I find myself agreeing more and more with that sentiment.

I see no reason to spend American blood or treasure on this endeavor except to keep WMD's out of the hands of Islamic extremists. The problem is that the "rebels" we are considering sending support to might just be the Islamic extremists that we will have to fight against in the next conflict. I consider myself fairly hawkish and even I see no reason to put our hand in this fire.

The person making $75k, working 40 hours per week (2080 hrs per year), would earn $4.60 in about 7 minutes and 39 seconds. Even if the person making $500k works 80 hours per week, it still only takes him 2 minutes and 30 seconds to earn that much. I'm not disagreeing with the difference between cost and price, and I understand that the labor of the person earning more is more valuable than the labor of the person earning less. I also agree that human decision making is ignored by politicians. All I'm saying is that time also has to be factored into the "cost" equation.

He pointed out that the oath of office requires congress to defend the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The "traitors" are the ones who take that oath but attack our constitutional rights from within. Senator Rubio is not a "traitor" for calling them out. As for "pandering," all he has done is write an article to describe his position on an issue currently being debated in congress. That's not "pandering," it is simply choosing sides. Again, the ones "pandering" are the ones proposing feel-good legislation that will do nothing to solve the actual problem.

In NY, our canal system is dependent on the Thruway tolls. The toll booths were supposed to be dismantled after ten years, but the canal could not be kept open if it was purely self-funded; so we have one more group that continues to lobby for tolls. As for the tolls themselves, trucks use them and are charged more than cars. Since a large portion of the goods we buy are delivered by trucks that travel on toll roads, the cost of those goods includes delivery which includes tolls. And like all taxes, the cost is passed on to the consumer. If they stopped collecting tolls, prices would go down but some other tax would go up.

This is all well and good, but there is a whole other layer beneath the surface - staffers. Many of these staffers remain even when the representative changes over. If we are to have elected officials with limited experience by design, then the staffers will become even more important and influential as they guide the freshmen through the political process. We may get rid of career politicians only to replace them with interchangeable puppets. Besides, we already have term limits - they're called elections. If they're not working then we need to change ourselves, not the rules. Demand real primary challengers within our own party for a start.

Yes, it's sarcasm. It's sad, though, that it isn't completely obvious. Unfortunately there are people out there who would write this kind of thing and actually mean it.