Friday, March 19, 2010

GM crops cause liver and kidney damage

(NaturalNews) A report published in the International Journal of Microbiology has verified once again that Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) crops are causing severe health problems. A legal challenge issued against Monsanto forced the multi-national agriculture giant to release raw data revealing that animals fed its patented GM corn suffered liver and kidney damage within just three months.

Adding to the mounting evidence that GM crops are dangerous all around, this information provides a damning indictment against Monsanto which continually insists that its GM products are safe. Not only are GM crops proving disastrous for the environment, but study after study, including those conducted by Monsanto itself, is showing that GM foods are detrimental to health.

Monsanto's data indicated that the company had conducted tests on three varieties of its GM corn, two of which contain the dangerous Bt protein, and one designed specifically to resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. All three are widely grown in the United States while only one is currently grown in Europe.

Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French researcher from the University of Caen, was tasked with examining the data and providing a review. While stopping short of declaring GM crops to be toxic, he did emphasize that chronic negative effects were apparent and that there were "statistically significant" indications of kidney and liver damage.

The specific effects observed in test rats included a buildup of hormones in the blood, indicating that their liver and kidneys were not functioning properly. One variety of the corn led to elevated blood sugar levels and increased triglyceride levels in female rats given it.

Dr. Seralini concluded that, because GM crops are foreign substances that have never been a part of a normal diet, there is no telling what the long-term effects of consumption will be on people. In animals, significant disruption of normal bodily function has been observed even in the short term.

Genetically manipulated food crops are not fit for human consumption and should not be classified as food. No legitimate study has ever proven them to be safe or nutritious. The burden of proof is on the producers of such crops to verify their safety and, to date, all data has revealed that they are unsafe. Claims that GM foods will end world hunger are baseless, propagated only by those that have a financial interest in converting the world's food supply to their own patented varieties in order to control it.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Tobin Tax, Wall Street Sales Tax, Robin Hood Tax - Britain and Europe Demand that Bankers Pay for the Depression They Have Created!

The Tobin tax or Wall Street sales tax is rapidly gathering momentum worldwide, thanks above all to a bid by British Labour Party MPs to save themselves from all but certain defeat at the hands of the Tories by playing this great economic populist card, which they have dubbed the Robin Hood Tax. If the Labour Party left succeeds with this gambit, it will tend to transform the situation in the US as well, with desperate House and Senate Democrats following the Labour Party example and embracing the Tobin tax or Wall Street sales tax as a means of getting some populist credibility and viability for November. The Republicans, by contrast, will be forced to line up in defense of their Wall Street backers, stripping away all their demagogic Tea Party camouflage. The Obama-Summers-Geithner gang will also be put into a bind: will they oppose a measure demanded by their own Congressional Democrats? I have been campaigning for the Tobin tax for a number of years, and it is an idea whose time has now come.

If a sales tax on financial transactions (Tobin tax, trading tax, securities transfer tax, Robin Hood tax) can bring New Labour back from the dead, it can also defeat Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, Wall Street, and the reactionary Republicans here in the US, while forcing Obama to go along. It is time to make this a world-wide campaign to force the bankers to pay for the world economic depression they have created.

For weeks, British public opinion polls have been unanimous in finding that Gordon Brown and the Labour Party were doomed to succumb before the triumphal march of the reactionary Tories of David Cameron. But in the past month or two, the situation has begun to change, with at least one poll showing the Tories only ahead by a couple of percentage points, meaning that a Conservative Party victory is now in doubt, and a hung parliament with no clear majority for anyone a real possibility. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post is trying to portray Gordon Brown as a new version of “Giv’em Hell” Harry Truman. But we should remember that Gordon Brown is the politician who inaugurated the financial bailout fad on a world scale in 2007 when he pumped British taxpayer money into the bankrupt hulk of Northern Rock, followed by the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Bank, and the rest of the bankrupt City of London. So far, Gordon Brown has only flirted with the Robin Hood tax from a distance. So it is not likely that the turnaround has anything to do with Gordon Brown, although widespread fear of draconian cuts in the social safety net under the Tories is playing a major role.

Actor Bill Nighy Dramatizes the Robin Hood Tax
But the real reason may well be growing enthusiasm for the Robin Hood Tax, a version of the Tobin tax or sales tax on derivatives and financial transactions of all sorts — stocks, bonds, foreign exchange, commodity speculation, and other financial transactions. The effort for the Robin Hood tax has been started by the British Trades Union Congress or TUC, the equivalent of the US AFL-CIO. A number of well-known charities like Oxfam and elements of the Labour Party left have also joined in. The result is a website located at which features the famous British actor William Nighy (pronounced Nye) in the role of a greedy City of London finance oligarch who is forced to admit the essential equity and fairness of the Robin Hood Tax, along with the significant sum which a minimal levy could contribute to the public treasury without increasing the tax burden on ordinary Britons. This website is now the focal point for a large mobilization of the British public, backed up internationally by a coalition of political parties and trade unions.

European Parliament for the Tobin Tax, 536 to 80
The Tobin tax campaign also has a European dimension: on March 11, the European Parliament in Brussels approved a resolution demanding a Tobin tax across the European Union by a lopsided vote of 536 to 80 votes. This measure was supported by the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the leftists, and the moderate conservatives, with only the British Tories and a few of their reactionary satellites voting in the negative. The European Commission is thus directed to come up with a plan for implementing such a tax. (In a related development, the European Commission has also announced that it will seek a worldwide ban or severe restriction on certain forms of credit default swaps, one of the most virulently toxic derivatives yet invented, and one which has cost the American taxpayer upwards of $200 billion in the case of the AIG bailout alone. This can be regarded as payback for the bear raid of economic warfare against Greek government bonds launched by hedge funds grouped around George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and other US institutions as a means of relieving pressure on the dollar by getting the euro to collapse faster than the battered US greenback.)

Many of the political forces in Britain which have been aghast at Gordon Brown’s policy of financial bailouts and subservience to the short-term needs of the City of London derivatives speculators are now regrouping around the Robin Hood Tax. This includes significant parts of the Liberal Democratic Party as well as Labour, along with not a few Conservatives. As Polly Toynbee comments in the London Guardian:

“So far Labour has failed to find the words to express public outrage at the financiers’ billowing wealth while the Treasury is drained. Only weeks since launching, the campaign for a Robin Hood tax on all financial transactions has gathered extraordinary support. It hasn’t been hard, so profound is the untapped public anger at the bankers. This week the European parliament voted for it overwhelmingly – 536 to 80 – supported by the social democrats and the majority conservative EPP grouping: opponents were the ECP rump rightwingers the Tories belong to. Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel support it. Vince Cable will put it into the Lib Dem manifesto. Gordon Brown supports it but, as ever, he wants US support, which is unlikely. Backed here by some 100 organisations from Oxfam to the Salvation Army, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University came to London this week to promote the tax, urging the EU to go it alone.

Rarely has a campaign gathered such momentum in so short a time: 140,000 have joined and more gather by the day, besieging MPs ( In this budget, campaigners want a sterling transaction tax, to come in at once. Imposing just 0.005% on every sterling deal is within Britain’s sole control, raising £4bn. If the EU agrees a wider financial transactions tax, it would bring Britain another £4bn – one estimate is £100bn across Europe, to be used at home, in foreign aid and on climate change.” [1]

Westminster Hall Meeting of Labour, Liberal Dems, Tories
An informal meeting of members of the British Parliament was held last week at Westminster Hall, close by the House of Commons, and was attended by MPs from three parties — Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Conservatives. Also present was a representative of the Treasury, the ministry controlled by Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, another paladin of the bailout who is nevertheless scrambling to keep his post. The Treasury rep told the MPs that the Robin Hood Tax was being seriously considered.[2]

80% of Britons Want the Robin Hood Tax
A resolution in favor of the Robin Hood Tax has been signed so far by 119 Members of the House of Commons and counting. This statement reads as follows:

“That this House supports the Robin Hood tax campaign which calls for the introduction of a financial transaction tax; notes that by taking an average of 0.05 per cent. from speculative banking transactions, hundreds of billions of pounds could be raised every year to tackle poverty and climate change, at home and abroad; believes that banks, which had a large role in causing the economic crisis, should do more than just pay back the bailouts or insure against future crises; further believes that a Robin Hood tax would be an effective and popular response, with a recent poll finding that 80 per cent. of respondents supported the introduction of a Robin Hood tax; commends the work of all those organisations backing this campaign who have mobilised their supporters to increase the pressure for such change; believes that this tax is an idea that has come of age; and urges the Government to do all possible to ensure that the Robin Hood tax becomes a reality.” [3]

Some Obvious Problems In Sherwood Forest

The proposal for a Robin Hood tax in Britain and similar proposals being raised in Germany and elsewhere have a number of obvious flaws. First, the size of the tax is insufficient, both in absolute terms as well as in regard to the inevitable wear and tear of haggling and the political process. The Robin Hood tax website talks about a tax of 0.05% — just one 20th of 1%. That would be on the low side if it were the final outcome of this political battle. But it is not the final product — it is merely the starting position. By going so low to begin with, the Robin Hood supporters are leaving themselves nothing to bargain with along the way, and they are in grave danger of ending up with an infinitesimal tax asymptotically converging on absolute zero — or maybe with nothing at all. It is far better to start with 1%, a figure that seems reasonable to any normal person when they recall that ordinary people in the United States pay between 6% and 11% sales tax in most states, sometimes even on their grocery bills. Even the AFL-CIO, certainly no bastion of radicalism, is a demanding a Tobin tax of one mill or 1/10 of a cent, twice as much as the Robin Hood proposal. Again, 1% is the best starting point. But many Americans, once they realize that bankers and hedge funds do not pay any sales tax at all, insist that the existing state sales tax which they pay on shoes and clothing for their children simply be applied to financial turnover, resulting in a charge of between 6% and 11%. So perhaps we should indeed listen to the vox populi.

A second objection revolves around the vagueness of the Robin Hood tax in regard to the economic development of the Third World, the developing nations. There is grave danger here that the money obtained will be siphoned off by institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other international lending agencies and used for subterfuges such as paying off predatory imperialist banks who are holding defaulted loans from the less developed countries, while calling the result debt relief for poor countries. In addition, while emergency food aid and other forms of famine, epidemic, and natural disaster relief are indispensable, an extra dimension must also be added in the form of serious capital investments in modern high-technology infrastructure and industry, without which South Asia, Africa, and the poorer parts of Latin America will be condemned to endless poverty and aid dependency. It would be better to specify specific infrastructure projects such as a comprehensive fast rail network for the entire African continent, featuring Cape to Cairo, Dakar to Djibouti, Maghreb, East African, and West African lines. This could be paired with a Tennessee Valley Authority for the combined Nile and Congo River basins to provide irrigation, flood control, hydroelectric power, canal transport, malaria eradication and other benefits. The resulting rail and water systems would benefit every country in Africa, without exception.

A third problem is the constant reference to the discredited climate change/global warming hypothesis, an invention of the financial oligarchs themselves (think of George Soros and the radical environmentalist Hank Paulson). Given the political situation in Europe especially, it is perhaps understandable why these references are included. If dealing with climate change turns out to mean modern nuclear reactors and modern fast rail as a means of reducing the dependency on fossil fuels, then fine. But if it means anti-economical “green jobs” and speculative cap and trade carbon offset markets as demanded by so many in Copenhagen, then we are dealing with a cruel hoax. As a general rule, the more green jobs a country has, the poorer that country will become, since green jobs are inherently anti-economical and require endless subsidies. The entire logic of the global warming argument is to abort and deny the economic development of the Third World, and this is why Third World nations along with China and India took the lead in the Copenhagen talks in blocking the Malthusian carbon dictatorship which the US and the British were striving to impose on the world.

We have just tried to identify the points of disagreement, and give some suggestion as to how they might be resolved. But one thing is certain for all persons of good will: Wall Street and the city of London, not working people, must pay for the depression which they have created.

German and British Unions: Tobin Tax Would Provide $150 Billion
The German and British trade union federations estimate that a European Robin Hood Tax could raise £100 billion (about $150 billion) per year. TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber and DGB President Michael Sommer have called on Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel to push through a European tax on financial transactions. Barber and Sommer go on to say:

“…two markets, Frankfurt and London, account for 99% of all EU trading turnover, even though sellers and purchasers are by no means solely citizens of Germany and Great Britain. The German campaign[4] – the Tax Against Poverty[5] – started 17 October 2009 with an open letter to the German government, asking for the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax. The open letter has so far been signed by more than 50 German organisations. The campaign unites bishops and bankers, trade unionists and developmental activists, Attac and academics and many more…. The British campaign – the Robin Hood Tax – was launched on 10 February 2010 with support from a broad range of more than 50 British organisations – trade unions, development and climate campaigners, churches and others, including economists and financial experts. Opinion polling for the Robin Hood Tax campaign shows overwhelming support for a Financial Transactions Tax…. We believe that a European Financial Transactions Tax could show leadership to the world. There is no question that the EU – as an independent economic entity – would be in a position to introduce such a tax without any problems or hiccups in trade with the USA. The bank levy discussed by the G7 Finance Ministers in Canada last month, is no alternative for a FTT, it would only pay for the costs of bailing out the banks, leaving the rest of the economic damage done by the crisis unremedied. Only a FTT puts a dampener on speculation; only a FTT makes financial markets transparent; and only a FTT brings permanent revenue. We urge you to go further and to initiate a European Financial Transactions Tax.”[6]

An EU summit in Brussels on March 26 may take up this demand. The Tobin tax is also supported by the International Metalworkers’ Federation, to which the United Auto Workers, United Steelworkers, International Association of Machinists, Communications Workers of America, Boilermakers, and IG Metall in Germany also belong.

Reactionaries Howl, Demand Tax Immunity for Speculation
The reactionaries at the United States Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC have been howling with rage at the idea that the immunity to taxation currently enjoyed by banks and hedge funds may be lifted, and that they may have to pay some part of their fair share. The favorite argument of the enemies of the Tobin tax is that any tax on financial turnover amounts to vindictive discrimination against bankers as the villains of the hour. The reality is that virtually all other cash flows in the society are already taxed, while financial flows are not. The current situation therefore amounts to a public subsidy for speculation, which has proven once again over the last two years that it is a singularly pernicious and destructive threat to the public good. Once this strawman argument knocked down, the reactionaries are reduced to whining that the Tobin tax is somehow old-fashioned, meaning pre-globalization. The US Chamber of Commerce complains that a Tobin tax would turn the clock back to the bygone days of “disco balls, parachute pants and paper trades.”[7] With many American states, counties, and municipalities near bankruptcy, and right-wing politicians and media demanding austerity and sacrifice from the public along with mass firings and pay cuts for teachers, policemen, firemen, state workers, and other public employees, the simple fact is that Wall Street and its apologists have no cogent arguments whenever it can be made to stand up — once the proposal for a Tobin tax has been introduced.

Sachs, Kuttner, Jesse Jackson, Archbishop Of Canterbury Pro-Tobin
Economists like Jeffrey Sachs and Robert Kuttner are calling for a Tobin tax. They have been joined by Jesse Jackson, who is well aware that Obama’s pro-Wall Street policies have done nothing to alleviate unemployment in the black community. The French government is calling for a Tobin tax, although their proposal exacerbates some of the flaws mentioned above. Most recently, a call for the Robin Hood tax has been issued by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England and a very important figure inside the British ruling elite. Williams and the writer Richard Curtis wrote the in London Sunday Times that a Tobin tax

“…might help to heal the breach that has opened up between banks and society at large by making the financial industry part of the solution, not just the source of the problem. There is a chance to introduce a tax that will recognise both the massive expansion of financial services in recent years and the fact that taxation has not kept pace with this — but also a tax that will generate substantial resources to deal with the urgent global needs that cannot wait for some miraculous turnaround in the economy. The plan is to tax certain transactions between financial institutions….” [8]

This campaign now represents the best available means of striking at the overweening power of the Wall Street and City of London financiers. If the Robin Hood tax reaches critical mass in Britain this spring during the general election campaign, it will automatically be placed squarely in the center of the US agenda for the November congressional elections. Democrats, now threatened with grievous losses, will flock in droves to the idea of a Wall Street sales tax. Republican demagogues will be unmasked, and forced to show their true Wall Street colors. Obama will be presented with a fait accompli which will directly challenge his loyalty to his Wall Street backers. We will not have many more chances to turn the entire US political situation around, so it is imperative to seize on this one and make the most of it, and fast. We urge all persons of good will to mobilize without stint in the framework of this growing international campaign.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Russia may ban chicken imports from U.S. due to chlorine chemical used in processing

(NaturalNews) Beginning on January 1, 2010, Russia has officially banned imported poultry products from countries that use chlorine in their processing methods. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will no longer allow chicken imports from the U.S. because the chlorine baths used to sanitize chickens do not meet Russian food safety standards.

Since it comes from Russia, many may dismiss the ban as being politically charged with no scientific validity. However many nations around the world, including all within the European Union, have banned poultry imports from chlorine-using countries because of the dangers posed by the chemical. These countries use different methods to disinfect meat, including air chilling and electrolyzed water treatments, which do not expose the meat to harmful chemicals.

Putin expressed that Russia is working to become poultry self-sufficient by the year 2015 but, until then, will import only from nations that do not use chlorine in meat processing. Each year, the import quota will be dropped until, eventually, all chicken will be domestically raised in Russia.

When the issue first surfaced back in 2008, the U.S. Poultry & Egg Export Council tried to persuade Russia that the chlorine treatment methods used on chicken are both safe and effective. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the hypochlorus chemical used, which is an active form of chlorine, is an effective antimicrobial.

Rather than reconsider the safety of its own treatment methods, U.S. regulators tried to use rhetoric to convince Russia to accept U.S. imports and failed miserably. Russia refused to hear any of it, ending $825 million worth of U.S. chicken imports into its country.

The truth about chlorine chicken baths is that not only are they not truly effective but they expose people to a steady stream of toxic chlorine every time they consume chicken. Chlorine is known to increase cancer risk and cause other serious problems including respiratory illness and heart disease. Like other environmental halogens, chlorine contributes to thyroid dysfunction as well.

The levels of chlorine used in chicken baths, which average somewhere between 20 and 50 parts per million (ppm), do not always kill all the pathogens present. According to a European Consumers' Organization study conducted in 2007, 83 percent of U.S. chicken that had been treated in chlorine baths still contained harmful pathogens. The bath essentially becomes a pathogen cesspool that contaminates all the other chickens that are submerged in it.

It is no wonder that Russia, the E.U., and a growing list of nations around the world are refusing chlorinated U.S. chicken.

Gender-Bender Chemicals are Turning Boys Into Girls

(NaturalNews) The government of Denmark has released a 326-page report affirming that endocrine disrupting chemicals are probably continuing to the birth of fewer males and the "feminization" of existing ones.

The report centers on chemicals like PVC, flame retardants, phthalates, dioxins, PCBs and bisphenol-A, all of which mimic the action of estrogen in the body. The researchers concluded that due to the prevalence of these chemicals, children could easily be exposed to high enough levels to place them at "critical risk" of harm.

The chemicals have been blamed for falling sperm counts among men worldwide, and their full effects remain unknown. A study by researchers at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Netherlands, found that male children who had been exposed to PCBs and dioxins while in the womb were more likely to dress up in female clothes and play with dolls than boys who had not been. Other research has documented a connection between prenatal phthalate exposure and "feminization" of male genitals, including smaller penises.

Evidence is increasingly emerging that estrogen mimics might also be responsible for a puzzling phenomenon: fewer boys are being born than ever before. Typically, 106 male children are born for every 100 females in most populations. In recent years, however, this distribution has been shifting in favor of females, with endocrine disruptors a likely culprit.

For example, a Canadian Inuit community living on Lake Huron and surrounded by chemical factories produces two girls for every boy born. Similar phenomena have been observed in contaminated communities in Brazil, Israel, Italy, Taiwan and the Arctic Circle, as well as among workers in Russian pesticide factories.

Many hormone-mimicking chemicals build up in the body and resist environmental degradation, meaning that they are now widely distributed across the planet.

"There is very little, if anything, individuals can do to prevent contamination of themselves and their families," the environmental group WWF said.

WHO Says Cell Phone Use Linked to Brain Tumors

(NaturalNews) A large multinational research effort overseen by the World Health Organization has concluded that heavy mobile phone use significantly increases the risk of brain and salivary gland tumors.

The Interphone studies surveyed 12,800 people in 13 countries between 2000 and 2004. Although the final findings have not yet been released, they have been accepted for publication in a scientific journal and will see print before the end of 2009.

The conclusions are particularly surprising given that the industry-funded effort has been widely criticized for designing its studies to minimize the apparent risks of cell phone use.

The studies examined the relationship between cell phone use and the risk of three different types of brain tumor and one tumor of the salivary gland. They concluded that "use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more" was associated with a "significantly increased risk" of the tumors.

Six of eight studies found up to a 39 percent increase in the risk of glioma, the most common type of brain tumor. Gliomas can be either benign or malignant. The risk of acoustic neurinoma, a benign tumor of the nerve between the brain and the ear, was found to increase up to 3.9 times in two of seven studies, but problems with participants' memories interfered with these findings. Another study found a 50 percent increase in the risk of salivary gland tumors.

Some researchers have suggested that the Interphone study probably understates the risks of cell phone use, due to flaws in its methodology. The study has been criticized for including people who made as little as one call per week yet excluding children and young adults (considered the most at-risk population), non-cellular cordless phones (which also emit radiation), several kinds of tumors, and participants who either died before the study concluded or became too sick to answer questions.

Some of the Interphone studies found that short-term cell phone use decreased the risk of cancer, further suggesting research flaws.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Why the old 1978 BattleStar Galactica is better than the new one....

Just a few years back I was still in college. While it was an enlightening experience it was also tedious. That’s why whenever I was granted a day off from the powers that be I made the best of it.

On more than one holiday away from the dusty old lecture hall I remember waking up and turning on the TV in an attempt to catch a glimpse of day time programming. I was giddy in anticipation to see shows like The Price is right, McGuyver, Knight Rider, Live action Hulk / Spiderman, and Press Your Luck. No whammy!!!! I vividly remember it was 10:00am and I was flipping through the stations when all of a sudden I stopped at the SciFi channel. I starred motionlessly at the monitor expecting some obscure direct-to-DVD SciFi Channel produced movie that was already being dumped into bargain bins across the USA.

As the commercials faded from sight I saw a trio in futuristic garb and scenes reminiscent of the Star War’s imperial fleet. The three people were having a very serious discussion on what seemed to be a bridge of a spaceship. As I took a closer look these men were none other then Lorne Green, Richard Hatch, and Dirk Benedict. At this point I sunk back and observed quietly. I noticed that the acting wasn’t cheesy or over the top. It was very professional; the veteran actor Lorne Green was impressive as Commander Adama. He showed traits of a true leader calm, decisive, and compassionate, Dirk Benedict was the carefree ladies man with the heart of gold and Richard Hatch was the stoic son of the great commander. The sets were intricate, the battle scenes were interesting, and the whole entire show was very positive all around. Something you don’t see too much now a day. It wasn’t just mindless action and explosions, there was meaning behind each episode and a whole army of personalities and emotions all going on at once. I was immediately hooked. Now I'm not a novice when it comes to Science Fiction series. I’ve been a fan of the original Star Wars movies, Farscape, and Star Trek: The next generation. Battlestar mixed all these elements perfectly. The story, the people, the effects, everything was unique and flowed well.

Shortly after I discovered that a new of BattleStar Galactica series was on so I gave it a shot and was immediately disappointed. The show was too dark, depressing, everyone was paranoid and nervous. It was like 24 with Jack Bower but in space. It was a let down. The final nail in its coffin was the grotesque CGI effects. The Cylons weren’t even live action; they were computer generated shadows of their former selves. Now I’m not saying the actors in the Cylon costumes were always on top of their game. There was many an episode where Cylons miss their marks or blatantly stumbled on something because of poor visibility but they were real nonetheless. When you saw a bunch of men in chrome plated plastic lumbering towards you with black toy guns you ran! In the case of the “new” Battlestar Galactica you just laughed. You laughed until you cried and then you turned it off.

After being depressed from watching what they have done to the series I asked myself an important question, What do fans of good television do now that most stations are stuffed with utter garbage? Well, I came to only one solution, purchase DVD box sets of everything meaningful that you can remember before it’s out of print forever!

I will leave you now with a quote from Dirk Benedict regarding his opinion of the “new” Battlestar Galactica series.

Benedict was sharply critical of the revived series, and the changes to the story and characters. A May 2004 article in Dreamwatch magazine, entitled "Starbuck: Lost in Castration",[10] revealed his disdain for the re-imagined series, its dark tone and its moral relativism. Benedict said,

"'Re-imagining', they call it. 'Un-imagining' is more accurate. To take what once was and twist it into what never was intended. So that a television show based on hope, spiritual faith, and family is unimagined and regurgitated as a show of despair, sexual violence and family dysfunction."

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change isn't real……coming to terms.….

Man Made Global Warming / Climate Change is not real……coming to terms.….

Not many of my millions of readers know this but Global Warming which is now referred to as Climate Change is a fraud. It’s nothing more than a corporate run mass movement to dupe the environmentalists into focusing all their energy on CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions. CO2 is a beneficial gas used by plants in their growth process. It is also released when hydrocarbon fuels are burnt to create energy. It’s non-toxic and does not effect the warming of the climate. Organisms (including the 6 billion humans on the planet) exhale carbon dioxide during the end phase of their respiratory cycle. Oxygen comes in, gets diffused into the bloodstream, and the waste product is Carbon Dioxide. We exhale it while plants breathe it in; this completes a normal and beneficial gas cycle which has taken place for millions of years. Understandably though since the industrial revolutions Human beings have been using more and more energy to produce their goods and services, this is not a bad thing. The only thing that is unfortunate is that the human race is held hostage by a very small group of oil and coal cartels which wish to halt human progress and technological advances to maintain their grip on the throats of the people. This iron grip has been challenged in many cases around the globe. One example of progress is the sovereign nation state of Brazil. The population of Brazil uses a mix of alcohol and ethanol to power their machinery. This is renewable, clean, and if grown organically will also be sustainable for decades to come.

Now, the reason why they focus the Greenie’s so fanatically on CO2 is that it’s an irrelevant gas in terms of industry. Many of the gasses and substances used by profit based manufacturing corporations to produce their goods are mostly toxic and some of which heavily regulated. Many of their factories need technologically advanced scrubber systems installed in their smoke stacks to prevent harmful heavy metals and synthetic chemicals from being spewed out into the surrounding atmosphere which have the potential to sit at ground level and affect the health of the local population. These harmful chemicals also have the ability to come down in the form of rain water which can harm fish, forests, and wildlife.

A list of potentially hazardous materials and practices that the Global Warming / Climate Change groups do not address:

Sulfur or sulphur pollution
Nitrogen pollution
Adhesives fumes
Volatile Organic Compounds
Cadmium pollution
Mercury pollution
Arsenic pollution
Lead Pollution
Depleted Uranium pollution
Plastics pollution
Electronic Waste pollution
Diesel Fumes
Gasoline Fumes
Chromium pollution
Polybrominated diphenyls ethers
Polybrominated biphenyls
Xylene pollution
Bisphenyl-A contamination
Melamine contamination
Factory Farming - Unsustainable agriculture - (Battery cages, Synthetic Fertilizers, Pesticides, and Herbicides)
Chlorinated solvents

Progressive plans that Global Warming / Climate change advocates choose to consistently ignore:

Renewable energies – (Vegetable oil based fuels, Alcohol fuels, Hydrogen Fuel , Magnetic energy, tidal power, individual household solar and wind power, geothermal)

1. Sustainable agriculture – organic agriculture – traditional agriculture

2. Stricter regulations on the use of hazardous materials for production based goods

3. Substitutes for synthetic hazardous materials used in production based manufacturing

4. Banning of cheap harmful chemicals in industrial and food products

5. Better quality assurance from manufacturers abroad

6. Environmental restoration

Since the whole Global Warming / Climate change movement is privatized, it means that they are pushing an agenda. The most ironic part about this is that instead of multinational corporations attempting to bribe statesmen with lobbyists they instead fool the whole population with “End of the world” hysteria, playing upon their frail emotions, and then demanding for what Wall Street wants. There is a weakness in their strategy which reaches far beyond political and scientific. It’s common sense. If people open their eyes and research the leaders of this so-called movement, find out who really funds them, and what their goals are then anyone who has even the slightest critical thinking abilities can uncover this ruse.

Their corporate goals:

1.Establish a Carbon Tax on the people (Not big business). The revenue obtained by this tax will be given directly to private interests either industrial or financial.

2. Austerity for the people (Higher costing commodities, No hot baths, No vacations, No heating or cooling of homes, no raising of living standards, one child policy, eminent domain)

3.Create a speculative carbon based derivative market

4. Deindustrialization (More jobs lost)

5. Special privileges for the few at the expense of the many (Loosening of regulations on REAL hazardous materials and lowering pollution standards)

Let us not forget that Al Gore’s role in FREE TRADE (Destruction of the USA production base). Many of you reading this may know someone that’s unemployed or are unemployed yourself. One of the reasons for this is because of Mr. Al Gore and his FREE TRADE policies that were supposed to make us rich. Does anyone really believe this shill for corporate interests? No. The answer is blatant and obvious.

This is my view on the hoax. What do you think?

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

AVP Review!

The new Aliens Vs Predator game has been surrounded by controversy since the first screen shots were released. The game was fanatically hailed by AVP veterans as the second coming that would entertain us with up to date visuals while also resurrecting the forgotten series. People wondered if Rebellion still had what it took to birth an acceptable successor to the beloved franchise. Did they do it?

Everyone seems to say “NO” and it’s a big “NO”. Gamespot callously gave the game a 5.5/10 and I believe IGN grudgingly gave it a 7/10. The rest of the video game reviewers gave it similar reviews, mostly around the 5-6 / 10 ranges.

Why did these reviewers rate this game so low?

I have no idea. I love the game. I find that the mix of melee and long range combat brings me back to a simpler time when I used to come home from a long day of drudgery and load up Legends of Might and Magic. If you’re not familiar with that game it’s somewhat alike to the AVP combat system in the sense that you had to switch between long and close range combat.

Now, what really makes AVP special from my analysis is the way that the three species are portrayed. Rebellion seems to have really recreated the movements, points of view, and audio from the previous movies. The Aliens have the ability to climb on walls and whip their tails around, the Predators have been given their trademark abilities of cloaking, heat vision, and the athletic fortitude to leap from one tall structure to another, and the marines have a very nice arsenal of futuristic weapons copied right from the previous films.

This whole package is put together nicely with a 3 part (1 part for each species) single player campaign, multiplayer, and a “Ranked” multiplayer mode in which you can battle for XP to unlock different skins for each of your species. New Masks for the Predators, new people you can be for the marines, and a wide variety of different heads you can select when the using the aliens.

I understand that I’m handling this game with kid gloves but I have to admit that it’s a very well made game. The only issues that need to be addressed are these.

1. Multiplayer needs more maps.

2. Free Patches and add on, no nickel and dime-ing us.

3. Fix the Marine rifle butt attack to actually stun the aggressor 100% of the time as long as you get a direct hit. Sometimes you pistol whip an enemy and it does absolutely nothing.

4. There seems to be an animation when the alien attacks in focus mode with his tail, even if the alien is killed before he gets the tail attack off the winner of the battle still gets hit with the tail and dies. Even though the dead alien is not rewarded any points for the kill, which is a good thing its still irritating to get killed and having to respawn.

5. Fix the delayed animation of the predator when he throws or shoots a weapon.

In conclusion I would have to say buy it. If you are like me and need a NON-WWII shooter to keep you occupied then this is a wonderful game to add to your FPS collection. I just hope the servers really take off in the next few months with updates and patches to make this game even more enjoyable then it is today.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Twelve New England towns demand 9/11 reinvestigation

A new movement to reinvestigate the 9/11 attacks is gaining pace in the US. With major public support, 12 towns are set to decide whether to ask the federal government for a new independent probe.

New York is dubbed as the Empire State for its wealth and resources and is rightfully regarded as America’s most famous city, a beacon of fashion, finance and fast paced action.

New Hampshire is the Granite State of so-called self sufficiency. Less flash and cash, most famous for hosting the first U.S. presidential primary.

New York and New Hampshire are more than 200 miles apart, but for all that distance, the two US locations intersect on one issue: the 9/11 attacks. While it was in Manhattan where three buildings fell, the people of Keene, New Hampshire are pushing for a new probe to find out why.

At 81 years old, Gerhard Bedding devotes nearly all his time to the Vote for Answers campaign. Though the movement for a new 9/11 investigation began in the Big Apple, it’s seeing more success in New Hampshire.

“This is so central to the future of this country. There is no future, as far as I’m concerned, if we do not get to the bottom of this, because we steep in lies upon lies, and soon we do not know what is what anymore,” Bedding said. “I do believe truth matters.”

Apparently, so do thousands of others. Twelve towns are making a new 9/11 inquiry a ballot box issue this spring. Voters heading to the polls will vote on a non-binding resolution that supporters hope eventually sparks momentum and legislative power nationwide.

Hundreds of citizens are expressing a desire to find out “the real truth” and are attending meetings where local experts, such as physicist John Wyndam, present alternative 9/11 theories, specifically surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Seven and the Twin Towers.

“Basically it is impossible for the top 12 stories to have crushed the lower structure without acceleration. Physically impossible and yet that is what you observe,” claimed Wyndam.

While most elected officials have ignored cries for a 9/11 probe, former Keene mayor Mike Blastos is an exception.

“The two biggest tragedies I can recall other than world wars concerning America was Kennedy’s assassination and the attack on 9/11. And they both remain completely unanswered,” Blastos said.

The 9/11 commission, like the Warren Commission, left millions of Americans doubtful over the official government’s version. Bedding withholds accusations, but demands answers.

“I do not like to speculate who did what, or who let something happening. That should be found out. Building 7 was not even mentioned in the original report. But I do know that a building that has not been hit by an airplane, such as Building 7, does not come down like perfectly controlled demolition.”

New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence from England in 1776. Only time will tell if the first sovereign US state will be where the push for a new 9/11 investigation could prevail.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Doctors Warn About Dangers of Genetically Modified Food

(NaturalNews) The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has warned that the public should avoid genetically modified (GM) foods, stating, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation."

A large number of studies and incidents have implicated GM foods in a wide variety of health problems, including accelerated aging, immune dysfunction, insulin disorders, organ damage and reproductive disruption.

For example, female rats fed a diet of GM soy experienced a drastically higher infant death rate, and their surviving infants were smaller and less fertile than the offspring of rats fed on a non-GM soy diet. Male rats fed the GM soy had their testicles change from pink to blue, and the GM soy was also observed to damage the DNA of sperm and embryos. Fertility problems such as abortion, infertility, premature delivery, prolapsed uteri, infant death, and even delivery of unformed infants (bags of water) have been observed in farm animals fed GM cottonseed and corn.

Animals consuming crops that have been genetically modified to produce the pesticide Bt (approved for human consumption in the United States) have died by the thousands, while animals grazing on a non-GM version of the same crops remained unharmed. Upon autopsies, researchers have found black patches in the animals' livers and intestines, internal bleeding and other signs of Bt poisoning. Farm workers in India have begun developing allergic reactions upon handling Bt corn, similar to the effects experienced by people exposed to Bt spraying.

In addition to these risks, GM soy and corn contain significantly higher concentrations of allergens than unmodified varieties. Evidence also suggests that the genetic abnormalities of GM foods may transfer to bacteria in the human gut, thereby exposing people to their detrimental effects long after a food has been consumed.

Yet in spite of all this evidence and the prevalence of GM crops in the U.S. food supply not a single clinical trial of any GM crop has ever been published.

"The experiments simply haven't been done and we now have become the guinea pigs," said Canadian geneticist David Suzuki. "Anyone that says, 'Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,' I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying."

Sources for this story include:

Herbicide Chemical in Drinking Water Could Pose Much Greater Danger to Health Than Previously Thought

(NaturalNews) Contamination of drinking water by a common herbicide poses a greater health threat than previously believed, according to a report issued by the nonprofit environmental organization Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitors average yearly levels of the popular herbicide atrazine in drinking water supplies, based on four tests per year. But the NRDC notes that levels of the toxin in drinking water regularly spike after heavy rains or during the spring when it is being widely applied, and that the four yearly testings may miss these events. The organization's researchers found several such spikes in its own testing of water supplies in towns in agricultural regions of the South and Midwest.

"Our biggest concern is early-life-stage development," said Jennifer Sass of the NRDC. "If there's a disruption during that time, it becomes hard-wired into the system. These endocrine disrupters act in the body at extremely low levels. These spikes matter."

Because atrazine is compatible with no-till farming, it is popular among farmers seeking to acquire a "green" label by reducing their carbon footprint. It is known to disrupt the hormonal system, and may cause cancers and menstrual problems in adults. It is considered especially dangerous to the developing reproductive systems of fetuses and children. The chemical has been shown to kill aquatic microorganisms and suppress the immune systems of larger animals, and it can cause limb or reproductive deformities in amphibians at levels as low as 0.1 parts per billion.

The EPA has set a threshold of 3 billion parts per billion for permissible atrazine levels, which the NRDC says would be too high even without periodic spikes. The NRDC analysis of 139 different municipal water systems found that 54 of them had a one-time spike higher than 3 parts per billion at some point in 2003 or 2004.

Home or municipal carbon filters can remove atrazine from water, but many municipal treatment plants do not use such procedures.

Sources for this story include:

I just had a very angry post on a wonderful website...

Just a few minutes ago on a very chic website

I had an outburst which smecked of truth. Truth about gamers and people in general. As the radio commentator said just yesterday, many of the populations in first world nations are drunk, literally DRUNK on entertainment and will pay ANY amount of money to distract themselves from the dark, damp, miserable reality that envelopes them on a daily basis. Why? you may ask.....because they don't get it. They don't understand the prison that has been placed around them, around their minds, and around their souls. They have the power to stand up to the establishment but are either too weak or too cowardly to change their futures.

You have the power. Don't buy things you don't need, don't buy things that are junk, stand up...fight...resist....fight...resist...never back down...never surrender....never be pushed emotionally into a situation...always think logically...and long term....never compromise your principles and never give up.....

"TheCoolinator said:
March 2nd, 2010 on 3:32 pm

This further proves my point that this whole Seventh Generation of gaming consoles is a complete failure and utter junk being marketed to gamers. This is what they think OF YOU. ALL OF YOU OUT THERE. This is what the greedy, sociopathic, lunatics at these company think of YOU. They think (and are some what correct) that YOU will literally buy ANYTHING on the dam shelves as long as it gives you a taste of oblivion from your failed and useless lives. SAD SAD SAD SAD SAD…..I’ve stood by my boycott of consoles since the Dreamcast died. I will continue it until I see something that’s worth my devalued and fiat US Federal Reserve notes.

First we had the XBOX360 red ring of death escapade, then we had the Wii non-stop garbage – non HD software (except for Sega’s games) and irritating motion controls, NOW we have PS3 in a PR / software meltdown over there big hunk of over priced waste of precious resources.

All of you who throw your hard earned money at these thieves are perpetuating a broken and parasitic system.

Hmph!!!!!11!!!!1!!one one one exclamation."