ralis

That was a good one! Did you read the testimonials?

I want to wait awhile!

I have used homeopathy in the past and it has always worked well for me. Excellent idea!

The Clindamycin is doing well for me with no side effects. There is a little inflammation that was worse 2 days ago. Today the inflammation is greatly diminished.

What we are talking about is spiritual authoritarianism, which I have a problem with. All the techniques, knowledge etc. were developed by humans and passed down through lineages in a specific context, culture. Authoritarianism and control in any context, is about power.

Perhaps the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world today comes from the formation of the unholy alliances between government and business. This is not a new phenomenon. It used to be called fascism… The outward appearances of the democratic process are observed, but the powers of the state are diverted to the benefit of private interests. – George Soros “I fear what they're doing… is setting the crown for a corporate state…. And by that I mean a rather small but very powerful circle of financial institutions… also some industrial corporations… Too big to fail… protected by (government)… The leading banks and corporations… will have the means to monopolize democracy.” – William Greider, discussing the Geithner plan to address our economic crisis, in an interview with Bill Moyers, March 27, 2009. The United States and the other Allied Nations fought World War II against the Fascist nations of the world, which posed a severe and imminent danger to world-wide freedom and livelihood. The United Nations was conceived by President Roosevelt and brought to fruition largely by the efforts of President Truman with an eye towards identifying future fascist threats to world freedom and imposing a barrier against them. Definition of fascism The Fascism that we fought against is often defined by its warning signs, which include: 1. Powerful and continuing nationalism; 2. Disdain for human rights; 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause; 4. Supremacy of the military; 5. Rampant sexism; 6. Controlled mass media; 7. Obsession with national security; 8. Interweaving of religion with government; 9. The combining of government and corporate power (corporatism); 10. Suppression of labor; 11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts; 12. Obsession with crime and punishment; 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption, and; 14. Fraudulent elections. These warning signs of fascism can be seen as combining two major groups of characteristics: corporatism (# 9) and scapegoating alleged enemies as a unifying cause (# 3). Those two characteristics represent the core of fascism. The other traits follow as a consequence of those core characteristics. Nationalism (# 1) is the ultimate unifying cause that fascists aim to produce. The “nation” takes precedence over all else, and anyone who doesn’t fall in line is an “enemy” of the state. Disdain for human rights (# 2) follows, as the “enemy” is dehumanized, thus rationalizing its brutal repression. Disdain for intellectuals (# 11) is necessary because they are among the most likely to speak out against the state – and they make a convenient enemy. Corporatism requires corruption (# 13) because governments are supposed to serve their people; therefore, when they decide to serve corporate power instead, that by definition constitutes corruption. Suppression of labor (# 10) is necessary for the corporatist state because labor is the natural enemy of excessive corporate power. The connection between corporatism and scapegoating Why the connection between the scapegoating of enemies as a unifying cause and corporatism? In a corporatist state, the corrupt alliance between government and corporate power means that power and wealth are concentrated among a small elite few at the top, which leads to corresponding lack of power and wealth among the vast majority of the population, with corresponding great potential for mass suffering. The corporatist state must find a way to convince these great masses of people to happily accept their fate. The scapegoating of alleged enemies has been found to be one of the best ways to do this. Item #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 14 in the warning list are just more methods that the corporatist state uses to keep its subjects in line. The vicious cycle of increasing corporate power In the United States today, the deepening ties between our government and private corporate power is bringing us dangerously close to the kind of fascism/corporatism that we fought against in World War II. The fact that bribery of government officials, in the form of “campaign donations”, is essentially legal in our country, has opened the door to the merging of government and corporate power that defines fascism. Corporate propaganda and monopolization of our airways has opened the door still wider. Worse yet, it creates a vicious cycle. Corporate money is used to bribe government officials to pass legislation favorable to their agenda, which inevitably leads to further increase in corporate wealth and power. It has gotten to the point where a majority of our elected officials at the federal level feel dependent upon corporate contributions to remain in office. Even many of those who may have basically good intentions have succumbed to the need to placate corporate power. In so doing, they prioritize the desire of a small minority of corporate elites above the needs of the vast majority of their constituents. The bottom line is that corporations have become powerful enough to enter into corrupt bargains with government, thereby enabling private corporations and government to mutually enrich each other at the expense of everyone else. This is the tyranny of fascism. With that in mind, let’s consider how we got to this point: The Rise of Corporate Tyranny in the United States A corporation has been defined as: The most common form of business organization, and one which is chartered by a state and given many legal rights as an entity separate from its owners. This form of business is characterized by the limited liability of its owners… In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state of New Hampshire when it attempted to revoke the corporate charter of New Hampshire, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward. New Hampshire citizens were outraged by that decision, arguing that corporations are created by the state, with the purpose of serving the public interest. In a democracy, ALL actions of the state should be to serve the public interest. If the state grants a charter to a corporation, it should have the right to regulate that corporation in the public interest, in return for the privileges that it bestows upon the corporation. The threat of corporate power at the founding of our nation Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, published in the same year (1776) as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, expounded on the advantages of a free market economic system, while at the same time warning of the dangers of corporations. That seems ironic on the surface, since today’s right wingers constantly push their own version of the “free market”, while using Smith as their authority. But in reality, Smith was deeply antagonistic towards any view of so-called “free market” principles that favored corporations – the very opposite of the stance advocated by today’s right-wing movement. This is what Smith had to say about the effect of corporate power on free markets: It is to prevent this reduction of price, and consequently of… profit, by restraining that free competition which would most certainly occasion it, that all corporations, and the greater part of corporation laws, have been established… This prerogative of the crown seems to have been reserved rather for extorting money from the subject, than for the defense of the common liberty against such oppressive monopolies. David Corten explains that our Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution that coincided with it were in large part a reaction against the same corporate abuses that Smith warned against in “The Wealth of Nations”: It is noteworthy that the publication of The Wealth of Nations and the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence both occurred in 1776. Each was, in its way, a revolutionary manifesto challenging the abusive alliance of state and corporate power to establish monopolistic control of markets and thereby capture unearned profits and inhibit local enterprise. Smith and the American colonists shared a deep suspicion of both state and corporate power. The conferring of corporate personhood There is nothing in our Declaration of Independence, nor our Constitution, nor any of the amendments to our Constitution that conferred special rights or privileges upon corporations. Indeed, as late as 1855 the U.S. Supreme Court made perfectly clear, in Dodge v. Woolsey, that corporations have no special rights or privileges, and that they are subservient to the American people: That the people of the States should have released their powers over the artificial bodies (i.e. corporations) which originate under the legislation of their representatives… is not to be assumed. Such a surrender was not essential to any policy of the Union, nor required… Such an abandonment could have served no other interest than that of the corporations, or individuals who might profit by the legislative acts themselves. Combinations of classes in society, united by the bond of a corporate spirit, for the accumulation of power, influence, or wealth… unquestionably desire limitations upon the sovereignty of the people… But the framers of the constitution were imbued with no desire to call into existence such combinations… But in 1886, in an unofficial opinion by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, before any oral arguments took place in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and without any explanation whatsoever, Waite simply announced: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. This offhand statement – which cannot possibly constitute an official opinion of the court, which is always preceded by extensive research and debate – has since been considered the law of the land. And as such it greatly increased the power of corporations against individuals by allowing them the protections given to persons under our Constitution, even though corporations are simultaneously showered with various powers that actual persons don’t have and exempted from many of the responsibilities and obligations that actual persons have. David Korten puts this in perspective in his book, “When Corporations Rule the World”: Thus corporations finally claimed the full rights enjoyed by individual citizens while being exempted from many of the responsibilities and liabilities of citizenship. Furthermore, in being guaranteed the same right to free speech as individual citizens, they achieved, in the words of Paul Hawken, "precisely what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent: domination of public thought and discourse." The subsequent claim by corporations that they have the same right as any individual to influence the government in their own interest pits the individual citizen against the vast financial and communications resources of the corporation and mocks the constitutional intent that all citizens have an equal voice in the political debates surrounding important issues. The restraint of corporate power by FDR Excessive corporate power led to vast disparities of wealth, which in the late 19th Century became known as the Gilded Age. This culminated in the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which led to the Great Depression and the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President. FDR aggressively criticized the conditions that led to this state of affairs in his 1936 Democratic Convention speech to the American people. In that speech he condemned the men who were responsible for the nation’s economic woes, whom he referred to as “Economic Royalists”. Out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital … the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. The privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man. The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor – these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age – other people's money – these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in. The abuses of power that FDR detailed in that speech provided much of the rationale for his New Deal, which lifted tens of millions of Americans out of poverty and created a vibrant middle class, while taxing corporations at unprecedented levels. The New Deal didn’t just fade away after FDR’s death. Instead, due to its stunning success, most of its components lasted for decades. Largely as a result of this, we experienced for the next three decades what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls “the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history”. Beginning in 1947, when accurate statistics first became available, median family income rose steadily (in 2005 dollars) from $22,499 in 1947 to more than double that, $47,173 in 1980. The “Reagan Revolution” reversal of New Deal economic policy With the advent of the Reagan Revolution in 1981, characterized by a return to the “free market” ideology of the Gilded Age, the route marked out by FDR was reversed. Since that time, except for a brief respite during the latter years of the Clinton presidency, the income of American workers has been virtually stagnant, despite large increases in American productivity which have enriched the already wealthy. The reign of “free-market” ideology has been characterized by an ideological ban against government intervention in economic matters to help those who most need it, which played out domestically and internationally. William Greider, in his book, “Come Home, America – The Rise and Fall (And Redeeming Promise) of our Country”, explains how this played out on the international stage: The World Trade Organization enforces rules that protect capital investors and corporations, but it has no rules protecting workers and communities, that is, people. The so-called Washington Consensus – a stern dogma imposed on developing countries that borrow from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund preaches that national governments must not try to protect their people from the harsh side effects of capital and commerce. America’s representative democracy, meanwhile, is offered as the model the world should follow, despite the democratic breakdown that Americans well know is in progress…. Greider mentions globalization as another of the factors contributing to the demise of the United States. However, he also notes that other nations are affected by globalization just as much as the United States is, and yet other industrialized nations have much less economic inequality than the United because they are not bounded by the inflexible right wing ideology of the so-called “free market”. James Galbraith, in his book, “The Predator State”, explains why globalization and free trade agreements need not cause serious adverse effects for American workers, if only we would give up that radical “free market” ideology that the right wingers have foisted upon us: The populist objective is to raise American wages, create American jobs, and increase the fairness and security of our economic system… Is there a better way to do this…? Of course there is – and that is to do it directly. You want higher wages? Raise them. You want more and better jobs? Create them. In other words, our government should work directly for the average American, not the corporatocracy using the rationale that expansion of corporate wealth will “trickle down” to everyone. Corporate propaganda to pervert our concept of democracy In addition to routinely bribing government officials to promote their agenda, the corporatocracy has bombarded the American people for several decades with incessant propaganda aimed at perverting our concepts of the workings of democratic government, in order to gain our acquiescence in their continuing power grabs: Perversion of the concept of “freedom” The concept of freedom has become perverted in our county. Freedom has been defined as “the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints” – and that’s how most people use it. Another way of saying that is “the power to do whatever one wants to do”. As an absolute concept, it is not plausible or reasonable or even possible for a functioning society to allow its members such powers – for a very simple reason. The freedom of the powerful to do whatever they want tends to impinge tragically on the freedom of the vulnerable members of society. Some men for example like to rape women. But enabling them to do that whenever they want would impinge on the freedom of women not to be raped. The vast majority of people realize that giving men the freedom to rape at will would be a very bad idea. At the societal level, powerful corporations often dump vast quantities of poisons into the air, soil, and water without having to bear the costs or other consequences of their activities. Most Americans agree that such activities should be prohibited or otherwise strongly regulated, or that corporations that engage in such activities should be made to bear the costs or other consequences – in other words, that the “freedom” of corporations to pollute and ruin our environment should be strictly controlled. Yet, corporate power in the United States has perverted the concept of “freedom” to justify ever more unrestricted expansion of their power, with the consequent diminishment of freedom for the vast majority of Americans. George Lakoff discusses the nuances and frequent contradictions of the word “freedom” in great detail in his book, “Whose Freedom – The Battle over America’s Most Important Ideal”. Here is an one of many excerpts from that book that make the point of how the freedom of the few often diminishes the freedom of the many: The focus of (George Bush’s) presidency is defending and spreading freedom. Yet, progressives see in Bush’s policies not freedom but outrages against freedom. They are indeed outrages against the traditional American ideal of freedom… It is not the American ideal of freedom to invade countries that don’t threaten us, to torture people and defend the practice, to jail people indefinitely without due process, and to spy on our own citizens without warrant… Bill Moyers discussed this idea in an article titled “A New Story for America”. He notes how Ronald Reagan put our country on the road to fascism (though he didn’t use that word) by convincing many or most Americans that “big government” destroys our freedom and that we must therefore shrink government and give business unlimited “freedom” to do as they please. With regard to Reagan’s idea of “freedom”, Moyers says: But what that… means today is the freedom to accumulate wealth without social or democratic responsibilities and the license to buy the political system right our from under everyone else, so that democracy no longer has the ability to hold capitalism accountable for the good of the whole… It has taken us down a terribly mistaken road toward a political order where government ends up servicing the powerful and taking from everyone else… Nor does it assure the availability of economic opportunity… Yet it has been used to shield private power from democratic accountability, in no small part because conservative rhetoric has succeeded in denigrating government even as conservative politicians plunder it… But government is … often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. The hypocrisy of the corporate version of “free market” ideology There is nothing “free” about the right wing corporate version of so-called “free markets”. Rather, through the amassing of great wealth and power and the use of that wealth and power to legally bribe our elected officials, they have stacked the deck in their favor so as to acquire monopoly control over so many aspects of our economic and political life. As Adam Smith, whom the right wing ideologues are so fond of quoting, says, creation of true free markets requires at a minimum the limiting of the power of corporations. Our corporate elites are not interested in “free” markets. They are interested only in gathering unto themselves as much wealth and power as they possibly can. This is all part and parcel of the utterly nonsensical doctrine of “trickle down economics”, which was never supported by a shred of evidence. They want us to believe that the road to a healthy economy is to shower the wealthy with privileges and riches, so that eventually this wealth will shower (or trickle) down on the rest of us, by virtue of making the wealthy more productive. Well, we’re still waiting. With their control of the news media, corporate America has foisted a toxic ideology on the American people that serves to maintain their wealth and power. When powerful banks lose money, they warn that the taxpayers must save them, lest our economy go into a permanent tailspin. Yet when the American people attempt to devise a health care system that will keep them financially solvent and prevent twenty thousand deaths each year, the corporate elite scream SOCIALISM!! This is all part and parcel to the idea that “big government” is our biggest problem. The corporatocracy would have us believe that any infringement of our government on the “freedom” of corporations do whatever they please constitutes “interference” with the “free market”. Bill Moyers takes us back in history to explain how our country’s greatest leaders, from Jefferson to Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, have used the powers of government to provide opportunity for Americans to create a decent and better life for themselves. Thus Moyers concludes about our present state: So it is that contrary to what we have heard rhetorically for a generation now, the individualist, greed-driven, free-market ideology is at odds with our history and with what most Americans really care about … Indeed, the American public is committed to a set of values that almost perfectly contradicts the conservative agenda that has dominated politics for a generation now. Opposing the public interest Corporations, as creations of the state were originally required to act in support of the public interest in return for the many favors they received from the state. But instead, they have come to oppose the public interest, in pursuit of their own private goals and the goals of their owners, and in the process they have cast a progressively darkening cloud of tyranny over our country and the world. In reality it is difficult or impossible to separate the goals of a corporation from the goals of its owners – those who exercise control over the corporation. After all, a corporation is merely a financial tool, which can be utilized for whatever purposes those who control it wish. Yet it is legally defined as an entity separate from its owners. Thus those who control the corporation have a powerful tool at their disposal, while at the same time utilizing corporate law to shield them from the liabilities that mere individuals would incur without a corporation to hide behind. That would be ok if the state was determined to regulate corporations in the public interest. However, especially since the 1980s corporate propaganda has achieved a measure of success in convincing Americans that government regulation of corporations – in the public interest or otherwise – is bad for our economy and therefore bad for our people. Perhaps most Americans don’t really believe that absurdity. But enough do that, in combination with the power of money, the public interest has taken a back seat to corporate “freedom”. Monopoly It has long been recognized that corporations have a tendency to form monopolies, which reduce competition and raise prices. That is why, beginning with the Sherman Anti-trust law of 1890, and continuing with President Theodore Roosevelt’s trust busting efforts, the U.S. government has had a long and justified history of intervening to prevent unfair monopolistic practices, especially with regard to services that are essential to us, such as gas and electric utilities. When monopolies are allowed to flourish, competition is stifled and the result is an increasing wealth gap and poverty. Specific examples of monopolies leading to bad consequences include the lax regulation that led to the energy blackouts in California in 2001 and policies that allow price gouging by oil companies. Yet, for reasons that they’ve never explained, the right wing “free market” ideologues are the first ones to allow the stifling of competition by monopolies. Monopoly provides the financial foundation of corporate power. With rampant monopolization of U.S. industries in recent years, competitive obstacles to the accumulation of wealth have been removed for a select few, at the expense of almost everyone else. Barry Lynn discusses in his book, “Cornered – The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction” – how the monopolization of so much industry in the United States, which began under the Reagan Presidency, has led us towards a corporatist state that has vastly limited the freedom of so many Americans: The structural monopolization of so many systems has resulted in a set of political arrangements similar to what we used to call corporatism. This means that our political economy is run by a compact elite that is able to fuse the power of our public government with the power of private corporate governments in ways that enable members of the elite not merely to offload their risk onto us but also to determine with almost complete freedom who wins, who loses, and who pays. Then suddenly there was Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson… using our tax money to fix his bank and the banks of all his friends… The Bush and Obama administrations and… Congress all responded to the collapse of our financial system in most instances by accelerating consolidation… The effects are clear… the derangement not merely of our financial systems but also of our industrial systems and political systems. Most terrifying of all is that this consolidation of power – and the political actions taken to achieve it – appears to have impaired our ability to comprehend the dangers we face and to react in an organized and coherent manner. The bottom line: Too much freedom for the powerful impinges greatly upon the freedom of everyone else. “Too big to prosecute” Perhaps the greatest indicator of the tyranny of corporate power in America today is the approach that our criminal justice system takes towards corporate criminals. Our country is still suffering from our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, which is largely the result of corporate irresponsibility and malfeasance. Yet not one of those responsible for this crisis has even been prosecuted, let alone sent to jail. To the contrary, the American taxpayers have bailed out our irresponsible financial institutions to the tune of several trillion dollars. William Greider explains, in an article titled “How Wall Street Crooks Get out of Jail Free”: The nation is left to face a disturbing spectacle: crime without punishment. Massive injuries were done to millions of people by reckless bankers, and vast wealth was destroyed by elaborate financial deceptions. Yet there are no culprits to be held responsible. Former U.S. Senator Ted Kaufman put the problem in perspective: People know that if they rob a bank they will go to jail… Bankers should know that if they rob people, they will go to jail too… At the end of the day this is a test of whether we have one justice system in this country or two. If we do not treat a Wall Street firm that defrauded investors of millions of dollars the same way we treat someone who stole $500 from a cash register, then how can we expect our citizens to have any faith in the rule of law? Greider explains the system that is routinely used in the United States today to deal with corporate criminals, and its purported rationale: Instead of “Old Testament justice,” federal prosecutors seek “authentic cooperation” from corporations in trouble, urging them to come forward voluntarily and reveal their illegalities. In exchange, prosecutors will offer a deal. If companies pay the fine set by the prosecutor and submit to probationary terms for good behavior… then government will defer prosecution indefinitely or even drop it entirely. The favored argument for the more conciliatory approach was that criminal indictment may amount to a death sentence for a corporation. The fallout will destroy it, and the economy will lose valuable productive capacity. The collateral consequences are unfair to employees who lose jobs and stockholders who lose wealth. That’s a lot of sympathy of corporations, corporate employees and stockholders. Where is the comparative sympathy for the tens of millions of other Americans who are out of work or who lost their homes? Russell Mokhiber, longtime editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter, explains the real reason for this kid glove treatment of corporate criminals: Over the past twenty-five years the corporate lobbies have watered down the corporate criminal justice system and starved the prosecutorial agencies. Young prosecutors dare not overstep their bounds for fear of jeopardizing the cash prize at the end of the rainbow – partnership in the big corporate defense law firms after they leave public service. The result – if there are criminal prosecutions, they now end in deferred or nonprosecution agreements – instead of guilty pleas. Greider continues: Deferring prosecution was made standard practice by George W. Bush’s Justice Department… During Obama’s first two years, Justice deferred action on fifty-three corporate defendants… Leading lawyers dubbed deferred prosecution “the new normal for handling corporate misconduct”. In other words, they have more money than we do, and in today’s United States, justice is for sale. Setting the crown for a corporate state – Corporate power in perspective William Greider has warned us many times in the past about the dire consequences of government becoming too cozy with the corporatocracy: This will sound extreme to some people, but I came to it reluctantly. I fear what they're doing… in their design is setting the crown for a corporate state…. And by that I mean a rather small but very powerful circle of financial institutions the old Wall Street banks, famous names. But also some industrial corporations… Too big to fail. Yes, watched closely by the Federal Reserve and others in government, but also protected by them… The leading banks and corporations are sort of at the trough, ahead of everybody else in Washington, they will have the means to monopolize democracy. And I mean that literally. Some of my friends would say, hey, that already happened…. The corporate state is here…. The fact is, if the Congress goes down the road I see them going down, they will institutionalize the corporate state in a way that will be severely damaging to any possibility of restoring democracy. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x793602

Anyone seen this? Oliver Stone's statement on the media. Saw it in 93 when it came out and it really freaked me out!! Unfortunately, Netflix wont stream it.

Olive oil is an excellent choice. However it has a low flame temp. and is not suitable for cooking

I spent the month of Feb. in Ohio visiting family. I compared prices and inquired as to how poultry and beef are raised locally. The meat my parents buy would be considered organic by any standard. The prices are probably half of Whole Foods prices. There never has been a problem with demand outstripping supply. I bought chickens raised by Amish producers as well as other local producers. Honestly, the poultry was very lean as compared to the organic chickens that have more fat and cost more at Whole Foods. I know this is just one example and may not apply in many locations. One problem with the organic movement is the hype coming from the health food industry and various purveyors of advice with a profit motive. The CEO and founder of Whole Foods said during the health care debate that people don't need health insurance and instead should shop at Whole Foods. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is what he said. When I was growing up, several families would buy a cow and have it butchered and then frozen. No hormones. Just grass and hay. To my knowledge, the beef was not allowed to age.

In general, organic meat is a scam to fleece people out of their money. Whole Foods is the major culprit. Organic grass fed steaks range from 9.99/pound to 15.99/pound. I grew up in small town Ohio, in the country and I know what grass fed is. These beef cows are free range have lots of space to hang out and eat grass to their hearts content. At night the farmer brings a truckload of hay (alfalfa) for the herd. That is it. No grain, hormones etc. that add to production costs. I guess the plutocrats that are the major consumers of this scam must have strange pastoral visions in their heads while shopping at Whole Foods. Given the amount of pesticides and herbicides in the environment and the drift of by wind and water, there is no guarantee of real organic meat or produce. Further, there are many water supplies contaminated by fertilizer runoff.

Alien implants! Around Santa Fe that is a common theme. I believe these guys are responsible. They are usually seen around Los Alamos. However, if you spot one they have the ability to put one in an altered state, thus wiping out any memory of the event.

Urea production was small until natural gas was introduced to the process which made it possible to produce in mass quantities. Thereby, crop production allowed an increase in global population. Some writers have claimed that the population increase needed increased use of nitrogen based fertilizers to sustain a growing population. That premise does not hold up to scrutiny. Abundance of food leads to population growth. Especially, where population controls are not in place. Relevant examples are, India and China before making it illegal to have more than 1 child. Thom Hartmann has repeated many times that without fossil fuels, the planet can only sustain around 500 million. With recent spikes in fuel costs and those of several years ago, there was hoarding of rice in central Asia that led to food shortages, and starvation of many. Thom Hartmann interviewed some conservative pundit last year who claimed the world could sustain a population of 12-15 billion with no problem! The planet is unable to sustain the present population and with droughts, wars and food shortages matters can only become worse. Unfortunately, I don't remember the pundits name. Maybe I can find it.

FP vol. 1 is wonderful! Thanks Sifu Terry

Isn't there too much emphasis on the body being a sort of plumbing system of channels, nadi's etc.? Maybe Bardon has it right in emphasizing the body as being transparent and working from there.

When I drive past Burger King, the smell of those burgers is very tempting. Which raises the question of, if one is enlightened, does any of this matter? If only Vajrji were here, I am certain he would have the answer.

What will these fundies think of next. After 2000 years one would think fundies would give it up. What are your thoughts on the agra business model? Most don't have clue where their food comes from, how it is raised and grown or even what is in it.

I am considering moving my business to your town, given that it is the porn capital of the world. I am certain they need my services. :lol:

Trader Joe's is usually fine. If in doubt they happily will give you store credit. We rarely eat red meat and for me the taste isn't all that thrilling. However, Buffalo burgers or stew is fine with me. Not certain why. Honestly, the quality of food in general is deteriorating. I believe the agra-business model coupled with population growth is responsible for this problem. I suppose that could be another thread. I am a professional Horticulturist and I have some knowledge as to how all this functions.

I can feel your gravitational pull up here in Santa Fe.

Thanks for all the thoughts and suggestions. I am taking the course of Clindamycin 150mg 4 times a day, with lots of good probiotics and will be finished next Thursday. I feel great with no pain and just a little soreness.

Dr. Robert Becker, in his research on bio-regeneration, found that bio-electromagnetism is DC at a very low voltage. EM generators are AC and sticking ones fingers or other bodily parts in the outlet will be a short path to eternity.

Update on Fukushima disaster. Possible meltdown? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x568223

Would you care to be more specific? This thread has far too many statements that are ambiguous. Did you read the paper I linked to? I seriously doubt it.

Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution. Perhaps belief in intelligent design is brought on by fear of death? For all the conservatives here, paragraph 3 of the introduction is just for you. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0017349

The funny thing is, I have no pain from this procedure.