Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Wild Hoss]

Nobody is going to mention the fact that Talent is a treehugger? WTF is wrong with you people today?

[AlabamAlum]

What's funny, specifically, about "Silent Spring" is that Carson never argued for an outright ban on DDT -just its judicious use. I personally think the pendulum swung too far the other way in it's restriction. Looking at the prevalence, mortality, and morbidity of the mosquito-borne illnesses under DDT campaigns in various countries and comparing it to after they stopped spraying as much won't give you direct causation, but it is interesting.

There are epidemiologists who view Carson as a mass murderer. Heh.

[iam416]

Nobody is going to mention the fact that Talent is a treehugger? WTF is wrong with you people today?

I like clean water mostly for purposes of beer drinking. I like NEPA for creating regulatory jobs for the universe's most honorable profession -- attorney at law. The spotted owl, West Virginia northern flying squirrel and northern riffleshell mollusk can all go fuck themselves.

[Wild Hoss]

I like clean water mostly for purposes of beer drinking. I like NEPA for creating regulatory jobs for the universe's most honorable profession -- attorney at law. The spotted owl, West Virginia northern flying squirrel and northern riffleshell mollusk can all go fuck themselves.

LOL...there he is.

[iam416]

What's funny, specifically, about "Silent Spring" is that Carson never argued for an outright ban on DDT -just its judicious use. I personally think the pendulum swung too far the other way in it's restriction

Correct. But her basic assertions -- that DDT caused cancer -- took root. And I don't think those have ever actually been shown in an actual study -- or disproven. In any event the ball was rolling and it's landing spot wasn't exactly out of the blue unpredictable. She died so close in time to publication that she never got a chance to push for the outright ban that became possible thanks, in large part, to her work. If my choices are (a) indiscriminate DDT use or (b) no DDT, I side with (a). And that's why it's certainly worth acknowledging the good she did. But, I want a (c) option.

The other thing about Silent Spring is that was fundamentally anti-pesticide -- without regard to environmental harm. It's remembered as seminal moment in the environmental movement, but it's overall anti-pesticide, anti-chemical, pro-natural message has been almost flat-earthed. There are still some who cling to it -- the anti-GMO folks mostly (talk about activists that are entirely unsympathetic to me!), but by and large we've accepted the ways "big agriculture" works in food production. Remarkable food production.

[Wild Hoss]

People who promote "organics" at the expense of "unnatural" Ag are among the most annoying on earth IMO, behind even supporters of the Saban Elephant Army from the Southeast. Talk about the cluelessness of First Worlders.

My brother married some of those people into the family...they are also anti-vaxxers. Thanksgiving is a joy.

[entropy]

The Koch Brothers are promising at least $1M in donations to any Representative who votes 'no' on the AHCA tomorrow.

EDIT: Sorry, Republican representatives, it should be obvious

Because that is exactly what we want our gov't to turn into... open bidding for votes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hack]

by and large we've accepted the ways "big agriculture" works in food production. Remarkable food production.

Well I think there's a difference between evaluating a GMO on a case-by-case basis and in many instances finding solid science resulting in improved quality of food, or the improved robustness of the crop, on the one hand, and, on the other, approving of all monocrop/chemical treatment regimes.

I don't know how you do agriculture at scale without big-ag products, but I think people are stating a clear preference against them. Sometimes they are going to be right and sometimes wrong. All this is pretty new, and, like everything, we as humans are going to overcorrect in one direction and then in the other before starting to zero in on a sensible balance between the need to make food cheap and the need to tamp down on processing. Right now we're in the era in which people brag about spending $7 on a pint of organic blueberries because it makes them feel like good parents, and that's annoying, but we for now have the meatitarian guy on youtube to satirize that.

[entropy]

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

People who promote "organics" at the expense of "unnatural" Ag are among the most annoying on earth IMO, behind even supporters of the Saban Elephant Army from the Southeast. Talk about the cluelessness of First Worlders.

My brother married some of those people into the family...they are also anti-vaxxers. Thanksgiving is a joy.

Some? Your brother is a Mormon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hack]

Activism is at it's best when you can point real problems that we, as a society, consider to be real problems -- they may be anecdotal, but they're fact-based and indisputable. A river catching on fire. Peaceful marchers being hosed or attacked by dogs BY THE POLICE. Bankers fucking up and getting bailed out. Hell, on the right, the sometimes indefensible campus culture as a broadside against PC. That shit resonates.

As you may well be aware, the thing that gets me fired up is the bankers. But nothing has happened. I think it may take a Great Depression to get it done, whereas the financial crisis just wasn't quite tangible enough. At least not in enough places? I don't know. What I do know is that this is a bipartisan issue and there is a history of "soak the rich" in this country you can piont to, and that ought to help some groups people get comfortable with a return to activism by pointing out that their recent ancestors did it too. But it's long overdue and hasn't been addressed. Maybe that's just because when the window opened we happened to have a president who was not a ``crisis is a terrible thing to waste'' kind of leader. Too ridigly stuck to his own perceived agenda and process to jump on an opportunity for important reform? I dunno. But this one, I fear, is not as tangible as I would like it to be. IMO the next two years for the left need to be about testing all sorts of sound bites to see which ones make this one more tangible. Your thoughts?

[AlabamAlum]

Correct. But her basic assertions -- that DDT caused cancer -- took root. And I don't think those have ever actually been shown in an actual study -- or disproven. In any event the ball was rolling and it's landing spot wasn't exactly out of the blue unpredictable. She died so close in time to publication that she never got a chance to push for the outright ban that became possible thanks, in large part, to her work. If my choices are (a) indiscriminate DDT use or (b) no DDT, I side with (a). And that's why it's certainly worth acknowledging the good she did. But, I want a (c) option.

The other thing about Silent Spring is that was fundamentally anti-pesticide -- without regard to environmental harm. It's remembered as seminal moment in the environmental movement, but it's overall anti-pesticide, anti-chemical, pro-natural message has been almost flat-earthed. There are still some who cling to it -- the anti-GMO folks mostly (talk about activists that are entirely unsympathetic to me!), but by and large we've accepted the ways "big agriculture" works in food production. Remarkable food production.

The research is sketchy on DDT. Yes, we see some funny things with liver tumors when a significantly large group of rats is given a L50 dose, but we see similar tumors when rats are given a L50 dose of Tylenol. So, yeah. Other studies have struggled with powerful correlation.

[iam416]

Hack:

My thoughts on the politics of Wall Street. I think the "problem" you had with GWB and then Obama re the financial crisis is that the bought into the the idea that it WAS a crisis. And they may have very well been right. We may have been at the precipice of an economic disaster. However, when you speak in those terms, you justify the action. When you take the action the costs aren't felt -- they're long-term at best -- so the voters don't feel it. The politics of long-term costs are the worse.

So, you end up with a result that was largely viewed as justified at a non-felt cost. Sure, the price tag seems ridiculous. Sure the action itself seems ridiculous. But it's no the river on fire. And the underlying crisis -- as you noted -- probably didn't bring as much tangible pain as needed to really sway opinion.

From a political activism standpoint, a total market collapse was what was needed. But that's not politically viable. And therein lies your problem. Politicians can't preside over economic collapses. Truly felt, tangible costs of Wall Street bad behavior almost has to come from a massive collapse. That's quite the conundrum.

So, you're probably right to backdoor the issue with "soak the rich"/"rich can't be trusted"/"income inequality" approach. But, the problem with this is that you need a critical mass that are experiencing, at a minimum, wage stagnation. It's not enough that rich folks are doing well; you have to be doing poorly. The latter is, IMO, foundational. That's what will motivate voters to a critical mass. I mean, yeah, I may not like the fact that a CEO is getting a $25M bonus, but I have my house, my job and a decent salary, so meh.

So, in that regard I think you have to talk about conditions of the middle class down. You have to tell them how bad off they are and, of course, there has to be a kernel of truth to that for it to stick. On that front, I think the emphasis has to be on skyrocketing costs. Bernie played on all of it, but I think his arguments about cost are important. A critical mass of folks aren't seeing their salaries cut; they're still getting incremental raises and making more money. But that isn't keeping up with costs. I think that's the message that resonates because it's so fucking identifiable.

Once you get critical mass to address costs, then the fairly apparent solutions become acceptable. And in some of those solutions maybe you take aim at unsympathetic folks like those on Wall Street.

But that's more of the general progressive playbook than Wall Street specific regulations. I really do think that's a tough nut to crack. We'll see what the Rs do with Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau thingy. Those could be issues the Ds could use to launch a counter-offensive that undoes what the Rs pass, but goes beyond the current status quo in terms of Wall Street regulation.

[iam416]

The research is sketchy on DDT. Yes, we see some funny things with liver tumors when a significantly large group of rats is given a L50 dose, but we see similar tumors when rats are given a L50 dose of Tylenol. So, yeah. Other studies have struggled with powerful correlation.

Correct. But that's not the impression communicated by Carson. Obviously.

[AlabamAlum]

Talent,

Correct. It became a religion with her. And many others. When that happens, anecdotal takes the front seat over evidence based.

And don't get me wrong, I don't want kids to run behind the DDT street fogging truck like we used to in Louisiana (yes, that explains a lot with me), but DDT used properly is a potent weapon against many mosquito borne illnesses.

[hack]

Good point on costs as a focus rather than earnings.