Yes, she mentioned allergies, however underlying these allergies are much more serious problems such as cancer (which she mentioned). Her speech was off the mark and the science was bad in a few places, however the underlying concept is accurate. In addition to this, you link articles showing that there are few or no studies showing the dangers of proteins such as BGH, however her point was that there are no human studies done to prove that it is safe. A 1950's study showing BGH doesn't help dwarves grow doesn't prove it isn't linked with human disease. Also, while her statements about BGH don't seem very scientifically credible, she does actually point out the real problem, the link that BGH has with complications such as mastitis, and the subsequent need for large doses of antibiotics.

>> ^marinara:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
doesn't mention frankenfoods at all
"top allergy in U.S.: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, almonds, cashews, pistachios, pecans), wheat, soy, fish, and shellfish"
(http://www.foodallergy.org/downloads/FoodAllergyFactsandStatistics.pdf)
fish shellfish treenuts peanuts eggs aren't frankenfoods, neither is milk even though the TED talker says it is.
(ok my argument here doesn't prove anything)
BGH is nasty for different reasons, like causing girls to enter puberty years earlier.
unless it doesn't
"Is bST a hormone?
Yes. However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins. bST is a protein hormone. Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone.
Insulin has no activity if taken orally. Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin. Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth. In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth. Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.
Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth. The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is not active in humans even if injected. Why? The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development."
from monsanto's website
actually NYT says milk does not cause puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html
finally here's a real long press release that says that really, no scientific studies have ever been done to link animal hormones to human health problems. Animal products have been tested, but no human studies.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
doesn't mention frankenfoods at all

"top allergy in U.S.: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, almonds, cashews, pistachios, pecans), wheat, soy, fish, and shellfish"
(http://www.foodallergy.org/downloads/FoodAllergyFactsandStatistics.pdf)
fish shellfish treenuts peanuts eggs aren't frankenfoods, neither is milk even though the TED talker says it is.
(ok my argument here doesn't prove anything)

BGH is nasty for different reasons, like causing girls to enter puberty years earlier.

unless it doesn't
"Is bST a hormone?

Yes. However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins. bST is a protein hormone. Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone.

Insulin has no activity if taken orally. Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin. Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth. In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth. Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.

Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth. The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is not active in humans even if injected. Why? The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development."
from monsanto's website

actually NYT says milk does not cause puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html

finally here's a real long press release that says that really, no scientific studies have ever been done to link animal hormones to human health problems. Animal products have been tested, but no human studies.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

You're missing the point. Yes, perhaps fully formed, rational, emotionally mature personalities are not susceptible to suggestive advertising. However, there's a process to becoming mature, it's called growing up, and along the way people are not so capable of differentiating the real from the not-so-real. Along the way, people's ideas of body-image get polluted by all manner of external influences. Some people have enough positive input from others close to them that they are able to defend themselves from this brain-washing. Some don't.

Clearly you have your own issues with women to deal with. My guess is that you should learn a lot if you talked to one.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?
The point is that it ISN'T sexism. It is the refutation of a patently insulting and illogical argument that demeans human beings far more than the so-called 'evil' it decries. This woman's argument goes much further down the road of dehumanizing people than any of the ads she whines about. The only differences is that she is hiding her argument, and advertising isn't. I respect a good ad 100X more than this fool and her fear driven lies.
white males
And you're doubling down on it by being a racist. How do you even know if anyone here is white? Between her insulting mysoginy, her evil misandry, and your stereotypical racism we've got a real intolerance trifecta going on here.
Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities.
So is this woman, and her stupid arguments. Regardless, advertising does one thing and one thing only... It creates product awareness. When you march into a retail store to purchase deodorant, you don't buy Axe Body Spray because you actually believe women are going to chase you down. You buy it because you saw the ad, thought it was funny, and decided to give it a shot. And in doing so you decided that you LIKED it. I bought a can of Axe (Sharp Focus) because I saw the black can in the aisle and liked the scent - not because I thought some woman in a schoolgirl skirt was going to maul me. The argument that people are puppets of "sleazy" ads is complete bunk. Ads create awareness. Awareness leads to trial. Trial leads to consumption. It's that simple.
Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level
That happened a long time ago - and without any assistance from this woman and her abbevillian stupidity. And my higher, evolved consciousness tells me that this woman - and her clearly prejudice hate of men and women - can go cram it sideways with walnuts.
68 yr-old woman it's surprising that she has not a single gray hair.
Because quite clearly this hypocrite buys into the "evil" advertising image that grey hair is bad. Oh - but I'm SURE when this dingus walks into the salon to get her hair done she doesn't feel for one second that she's a stinking, slimy, self-righteous hypocrite for dying her hair with one of those hair care products all those "evil" advertisement pimp in their demeaning, insulting, culturally poisonous advertisement. :eyeroll: What a piece of work that pathetic specimen is.

In the parlance of our times: hurr durr

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?
The point is that it ISN'T sexism. It is the refutation of a patently insulting and illogical argument that demeans human beings far more than the so-called 'evil' it decries. This woman's argument goes much further down the road of dehumanizing people than any of the ads she whines about. The only differences is that she is hiding her argument, and advertising isn't. I respect a good ad 100X more than this fool and her fear driven lies.
white males
And you're doubling down on it by being a racist. How do you even know if anyone here is white? Between her insulting mysoginy, her evil misandry, and your stereotypical racism we've got a real intolerance trifecta going on here.
Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities.
So is this woman, and her stupid arguments. Regardless, advertising does one thing and one thing only... It creates product awareness. When you march into a retail store to purchase deodorant, you don't buy Axe Body Spray because you actually believe women are going to chase you down. You buy it because you saw the ad, thought it was funny, and decided to give it a shot. And in doing so you decided that you LIKED it. I bought a can of Axe (Sharp Focus) because I saw the black can in the aisle and liked the scent - not because I thought some woman in a schoolgirl skirt was going to maul me. The argument that people are puppets of "sleazy" ads is complete bunk. Ads create awareness. Awareness leads to trial. Trial leads to consumption. It's that simple.
Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level
That happened a long time ago - and without any assistance from this woman and her abbevillian stupidity. And my higher, evolved consciousness tells me that this woman - and her clearly prejudice hate of men and women - can go cram it sideways with walnuts.
68 yr-old woman it's surprising that she has not a single gray hair.
Because quite clearly this hypocrite buys into the "evil" advertising image that grey hair is bad. Oh - but I'm SURE when this dingus walks into the salon to get her hair done she doesn't feel for one second that she's a stinking, slimy, self-righteous hypocrite for dying her hair with one of those hair care products all those "evil" advertisement pimp in their demeaning, insulting, culturally poisonous advertisement. :eyeroll: What a piece of work that pathetic specimen is.

Seriously, didn't we leave this kind of sexism behind in the 80s?

The point is that it ISN'T sexism. It is the refutation of a patently insulting and illogical argument that demeans human beings far more than the so-called 'evil' it decries. This woman's argument goes much further down the road of dehumanizing people than any of the ads she whines about. The only differences is that she is hiding her argument, and advertising isn't. I respect a good ad 100X more than this fool and her fear driven lies.

white males

And you're doubling down on it by being a racist. How do you even know if anyone here is white? Between her insulting mysoginy, her evil misandry, and your stereotypical racism we've got a real intolerance trifecta going on here.

Advertising is sleazy. It preys upon our fears and insecurities.

So is this woman, and her stupid arguments. Regardless, advertising does one thing and one thing only... It creates product awareness. When you march into a retail store to purchase deodorant, you don't buy Axe Body Spray because you actually believe women are going to chase you down. You buy it because you saw the ad, thought it was funny, and decided to give it a shot. And in doing so you decided that you LIKED it. I bought a can of Axe (Sharp Focus) because I saw the black can in the aisle and liked the scent - not because I thought some woman in a schoolgirl skirt was going to maul me. The argument that people are puppets of "sleazy" ads is complete bunk. Ads create awareness. Awareness leads to trial. Trial leads to consumption. It's that simple.

Those who don't get it should keep watching it in a continuous loop until your consciousness evolves to a higher level

That happened a long time ago - and without any assistance from this woman and her abbevillian stupidity. And my higher, evolved consciousness tells me that this woman - and her clearly prejudice hate of men and women - can go cram it sideways with walnuts.

68 yr-old woman it's surprising that she has not a single gray hair.

Because quite clearly this hypocrite buys into the "evil" advertising image that grey hair is bad. Oh - but I'm SURE when this dingus walks into the salon to get her hair done she doesn't feel for one second that she's a stinking, slimy, self-righteous hypocrite for dying her hair with one of those hair care products all those "evil" advertisement pimp in their demeaning, insulting, culturally poisonous advertisement. :eyeroll: What a piece of work that pathetic specimen is.

Google tells me: Squirrel cracking a walnut and eats it, another dressing up

Is this the wildlife in your area?

Our gray squirrels aren't near as beautiful as these reds....

Thanks for the calm start to my day!

In reply to this comment by radx:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot0epaGvPSU

>> ^Chaucer:

>> ^bobknight33:
What did he wrap in the honey? do you then just eat it? cook it? What?
Very neat though.

I believe the sign said peanuts, almonds, and I couldnt make out the 3rd option (walnuts maybe?).


Yes, he says the third powder is walnut, black sesame and cocoa.

>> ^bobknight33:

What did he wrap in the honey? do you then just eat it? cook it? What?
Very neat though.


I believe the sign said peanuts, almonds, and I couldnt make out the 3rd option (walnuts maybe?).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I can see how this reasonableness offended you and how you needed to express the opinion that had nothing to do with this speech
If you can't see his rank hypocrisy in giving 'the media' a hard time for being divisive and then turning right around to go do the same exact thing on my show then you, sir, are in fetters. Stewart can take his smugness and cram it sideways with walnuts. He does the same crap he's staring down his nose at, and he wants a free pass? I'll let the fanbois, biased cheerleaders, and other zombies slurp that koolaid down. Clown nose off... "Hey - I'm "reasonable...!" Clown nose on... "So now I'm gonna go be unreasonable - haw haw".


All little bitches need to turn off the TV...it's bedtime.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I can see how this reasonableness offended you and how you needed to express the opinion that had nothing to do with this speech
If you can't see his rank hypocrisy in giving 'the media' a hard time for being divisive and then turning right around to go do the same exact thing on my show then you, sir, are in fetters. Stewart can take his smugness and cram it sideways with walnuts. He does the same crap he's staring down his nose at, and he wants a free pass? I'll let the fanbois, biased cheerleaders, and other zombies slurp that koolaid down. Clown nose off... "Hey - I'm "reasonable...!" Clown nose on... "So now I'm gonna go be unreasonable - haw haw".


I agree to a point - Jon will hide behind comedy when it serves him, when debating with O'Reilly for example. I wish he wouldn't, he doesn't need to. That being said, I value the message (both funny and serious) he and his show puts forth. Personally, I think the message the we need to chill the fuck out *cough*, see through our differences, and work together is important... and not hypocritical.

P.S. Do I only respond to trolls?

I can see how this reasonableness offended you and how you needed to express the opinion that had nothing to do with this speech

If you can't see his rank hypocrisy in giving 'the media' a hard time for being divisive and then turning right around to go do the same exact thing on my show then you, sir, are in fetters. Stewart can take his smugness and cram it sideways with walnuts. He does the same crap he's staring down his nose at, and he wants a free pass? I'll let the fanbois, biased cheerleaders, and other zombies slurp that koolaid down. Clown nose off... "Hey - I'm "reasonable...!" Clown nose on... "So now I'm gonna go be unreasonable - haw haw".

That perception is largely confined to the tortured psyches of left wing extremists Net. The vast majority of Tea party members are just average folks who are fed up with big government and believe it is time for a long overdue correction. They aren't birthers, and they aren't racists. The whole NAACP thing is nothing more than an attempt to angry up the blood of minority voters while at the same time trying to take the Tea party off message. They want the Tea party to be constantly apologizing about race instead of harping on high taxes, Obama's massive debt, and Obama's massive government power grabs of finance, medicine, and energy. The Tea Party - very wisely I think - has mostly stayed on message and ignored the NAACP's crocodile tears over 'racist elements'. There's 'racists elements' in the NAACP too, but I don't hear the same calls for constant self flagellation. The NAACP can cram it sideways with walnuts.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

So - what happens when 'the group' decides what 'the individual' wants is unacceptable? And what happens when 'the individual' tells 'the group' to cram it sideways with walnuts? And by what moral system are these decisions measured?

That's the age-old question of politics.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I know that the neolib left has long engaged in a mastubatory fantasy that somehow hippies were 'wise'. The reality is that hippies were just rebellous baby boomers who wanted meaning in their lives, but at the same time rejected the values of the previous generation.
Here is a little clip from Dragnet that everyone who thinks hippies were 'cool' should see.
http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo2hhvvlpw&feature=PlayList&p=11559F2B8F7E2A4B&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=25


It's kinda funny, that clip basically says nothing to support your argument. The upshot wasn't "shut up you fucking spoiled children", it was "don't give up your passion, but don't expect to win overnight, and don't try to start a revolution because you're impatient".

That speech applies a lot better to the modern-day teabaggers than it ever did to actual (non-strawman) hippies.

PS: For the millionth time, neoliberal doesn't mean what you want it to mean!

It will have to allow for individuals to make important decisions with the consent of the group -- as the group will need to realize that every individual choice is important, but it can't forsake an individual's right without circumstance. This issue is decided by both the individual and the group to have the same value/decision.

So - what happens when 'the group' decides what 'the individual' wants is unacceptable? And what happens when 'the individual' tells 'the group' to cram it sideways with walnuts? And by what moral system are these decisions measured?

I know that the neolib left has long engaged in a mastubatory fantasy that somehow hippies were 'wise'. The reality is that hippies were just rebellous baby boomers who wanted meaning in their lives, but at the same time rejected the values of the previous generation.

Here is a little clip from Dragnet that everyone who thinks hippies were 'cool' should see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZo2hhvvlpw&feature=PlayList&p=11559F2B8F7E2A4B&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=25

that was fucking awesome!
you made me sound coherent and i LOVED how you filled in those pesky blanks where i am thinking and clacking but then my brain skips too far ahead.
thats it!
i am going to have to go back and relearn proper grammar and sentnce structure.
you want fudge?
walnuts maybe?