Organic doesn't even mean no pesticides are used, but rather they can use non-synthetic pesticides.
The text of the National Organic Program bans certain pesticides. That's really it. Otherwise, you're free to use anything that's not on the unapproved list.
Water quality is a bit of a separate issue. Runoff is always a problem, but organic farms produce runoff just as much as non-organic farms.
I'll have to talk to our PDP folks. They routinely test water samples from across the nation for pesticide residues. I don't remember what the levels are like, but they're not too bad.
When you look at lists of pesticides allowed in organic agriculture, you find warnings such as, "Use with caution. The toxicological effects of [organic pesticide X] are largely unknown," or "Its persistence in the soil is unknown." Again, researchers haven't bothered to study the effects of organic pesticides because it is assumed that "natural" chemicals are automatically safe.
Are you trying to imply that opednews is an unbiased source of information? I can play the argumentum ad hominem game too and call out opednews for not being a credible source of information. If the charts are wrong prove them wrong.
Any source I provide that is against a govt plan is likely to fall under your 'not a very credible source' argument simply because the divide on this issue is heavily along party lines. Unless you have a source that disputes the findings in the chart above I'm simply going to ignore your use of the argumentum ad hominem.
Actually, that one chart that is being shown around to prove how complicated this is was originally made by republicans in congress to be purposefully dense and confusing. Since it was one of the few charts available, the major news sources kept rebroadcasting it. The primary source for some of these charts are biased.
Water quality is a bit of a separate issue. Runoff is always a problem, but organic farms produce runoff just as much as non-organic farms.
Sure thing. The basic thing I am arguing, though, is that heavily industrialized agriculture is not a problem to you in what you eat, but in many other ways. Think of the examples of: [ feeding cows antibiotics] -> [manure into the water supply] -> [produces a resistant bacterial infection] or [farmer sprays crops with nasty chemicals] -> [runoff] -> [mutations and massive die-offs of fresh water species].
Water quality is a bit of a separate issue. Runoff is always a problem, but organic farms produce runoff just as much as non-organic farms.
Sure thing. The basic thing I am arguing, though, is that heavily industrialized agriculture is not a problem to you in what you eat, but in many other ways. Think of the examples of: [ feeding cows antibiotics] -> [manure into the water supply] -> [produces a resistant bacterial infection] or [farmer sprays crops with nasty chemicals] -> [runoff] -> [mutations and massive die-offs of fresh water species].
The problem is that, yes, while heavily industrialized agriculture causes lots of pollution, it's also a lot more efficient. Organic farming is less harmful but is also less efficient. Ergo, in order to output the same amount of food, you need to farm more acreage, which will use more fertilizers and so forth.
There's really no way around polluting the environment through farming.
Steve, as usual, you yell "ad hominem" when you fail. It's not an ad hominem argument to question the credibility of sources. As Emily said, your sources are of questionable credibility at best.
It's YOUR argument. YOU are the one who has the burden of proof. If your source is not credible, then you fail.
Heritage is the lie factory that all your heroes like Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, and O'Reilly use as a source. Any information originating from that source is highly suspicious.
Maybe you should read some more about ad hominem arguments, try very, very hard to understand what you read, and then stop playing with the bad people at heritage.org. They are lying to you.
When did a thread about Obama turn into a thread about organic foods?
Anyway, there's several issues I have with this whole health care thing.
Firstly, private insurance companies are doing a shitty job for everyone except the healthiest of the wealthy and the lucky. They have a financial incentive to not cover people who need insurance the most, which is baffling to me. My father, for example, had cancer a few years back. He was insured through his employer, but when he was laid off, he was unable to find a single other provider who would take him because he was "high risk". He had to stay on his previous insurance (ONLY because they couldn't legally kick him out), and every month his rates went higher and higher, becoming something like ten times his original rate in the span of the ten years it took him to finally get another plan (and that was ONLY because my mother got a new job which could provide him with coverage).
Secondly, the government has one of the best health care plans in the country at the moment (just ask any senator or government employee). Why people are scared of the government running health care is beyond me.
Thirdly, it's not like private health insurance will suddenly go poof when a public option is instituted. It's a public OPTION for a reason, and as in any capitalist society, there will continue to be private companies trying to make money (you can go to the post office to send a package, or you could go to many other private companies for the same thing).
This just scratches the surface of my opinions on health care, but I don't have the time or resources to go into it in depth right here right now.
The really funny thing about this discussion is that the one person who is totally dead set against a public option and who is the big advocate for the free market says he has a great health plan through his union.
Aren't unions somehow antagonistic to the free market? What would happen if this person, who has good health care from his union, lost his job?
Secondly, the government has one of the best health care plans in the country at the moment (just ask any senator or government employee). Why people are scared of the government running health care is beyond me.
If the govt option was the plan currently being enjoyed by Congress and the President I would support it.
Is this legal?
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we canÂ’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, weÂ’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov
According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”
According to5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”
It depends one whether they are making a list of E-mail addresses that are circulating the misinformation. I figure they are looking for chain letters that they have not seen yet, so they can come up with responses. Any sort of record of actual people probably doesn't exist. (if there was one my dad would be on it)
If you send an email to someone without a pre-existing agreement that the contents are to be kept secret, it is the receiver's right to do what they want with the information. Including sending a copy to the White House email address.
Regardless of the laws, I think this idea is a really good one!
Isn't the email itself a record of someone exercising their First Amendment rights?
From 552a definitions:
the term “record” means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph
Doesn't seem that way. There is no collection of information about the senders of the e-mails. You could argue that they would be doing that if the emails had signatures with real-world contact information, but this is also the Internet, and it's difficult to prove that you actually are who you claim you are. If they're not logging IP addresses, then they just have email addresses and names.
That still doesn't prove that the email came from the person who allegedly wrote it. A punk kid in somebody's house could easily send an e-mail using that person's contact information.
They need not record those. They just want to collect the misinformation so they can debunk them. You can still say whatever you want, but they might call you on it if you're just making it up.
They need not record those. They just want to collect the misinformation so they can debunk them. You can still say whatever you want, but they might call you on it if you're just making it up.
Yea, I highly doubt they are making a record of E-mail addresses from the E-mails, Thus there would not be a record of a "individuals" first amendment speech. So the white house can not have a copy of Martin Luther King Jr. Speeches because it would be keeping a record of a individuals freedom of speech?
You're really desperate for this to work out the way you'd like, aren't you? Well, the people who can understand what they read have already told you why you're wrong about this. Give it up.
It's odd that none of the conservatives were so worried when GWB was doing his domestic spying and wiretapping shenanigans. Now, however, they're all of a sudden concerned. Awesome.
I guess we'll see if anyone is disappeared over this, because all of Steve's arguments against public healthcare made have been sent to flag@whitehouse.gov along with all of Steve's personal information. If he suddenly starts posting from Gitmo, I guess we'll know that there was a problem. LOL.
It's odd that the liberals who were so worried when GWB was doing his domestic spying and wiretapping.Now, however, they're all of a sudden not concerned. Awesome.
It's odd that theliberalswho were so worried when GWB was doing his domestic spying and wiretapping.Now, however, they're all of a suddennotconcerned. Awesome.
Hypocrisy, it's a wonderful thing.
Hey, I figure anyone getting one of those E-mails should get a mandatory class on how to fact-check information they get :-p
Don't think this is worth talking about? How about the liberal hypocrisy in regards to deficits? As bad as Bush was on increasing the size of the federal govt and spending Obama is worse yet no outcry over this?
LOL. Notice how Steve suddenly wants to talk about the deficit now that he knows anything he says about healthcare is going directly to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Don't think this is worth talking about? How about the liberal hypocrisy in regards to deficits? As bad as Bush was on increasing the size of the federal govt and spending Obama is worse yet no outcry over this?
I actually saw an interview on the daily show with the guy who helped draw up the budget. The short of it is that we're so completely out of whack that it's going to take years to get the deficit under control.
Comments
Water quality is a bit of a separate issue. Runoff is always a problem, but organic farms produce runoff just as much as non-organic farms.
I'll have to talk to our PDP folks. They routinely test water samples from across the nation for pesticide residues. I don't remember what the levels are like, but they're not too bad.
Are you trying to imply that opednews is an unbiased source of information? I can play the argumentum ad hominem game too and call out opednews for not being a credible source of information. If the charts are wrong prove them wrong.
Any source I provide that is against a govt plan is likely to fall under your 'not a very credible source' argument simply because the divide on this issue is heavily along party lines. Unless you have a source that disputes the findings in the chart above I'm simply going to ignore your use of the argumentum ad hominem.
There's really no way around polluting the environment through farming.
It's YOUR argument. YOU are the one who has the burden of proof. If your source is not credible, then you fail.
Heritage is the lie factory that all your heroes like Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge, and O'Reilly use as a source. Any information originating from that source is highly suspicious.
Maybe you should read some more about ad hominem arguments, try very, very hard to understand what you read, and then stop playing with the bad people at heritage.org. They are lying to you.
Anyway, there's several issues I have with this whole health care thing.
Firstly, private insurance companies are doing a shitty job for everyone except the healthiest of the wealthy and the lucky. They have a financial incentive to not cover people who need insurance the most, which is baffling to me. My father, for example, had cancer a few years back. He was insured through his employer, but when he was laid off, he was unable to find a single other provider who would take him because he was "high risk". He had to stay on his previous insurance (ONLY because they couldn't legally kick him out), and every month his rates went higher and higher, becoming something like ten times his original rate in the span of the ten years it took him to finally get another plan (and that was ONLY because my mother got a new job which could provide him with coverage).
Secondly, the government has one of the best health care plans in the country at the moment (just ask any senator or government employee). Why people are scared of the government running health care is beyond me.
Thirdly, it's not like private health insurance will suddenly go poof when a public option is instituted. It's a public OPTION for a reason, and as in any capitalist society, there will continue to be private companies trying to make money (you can go to the post office to send a package, or you could go to many other private companies for the same thing).
This just scratches the surface of my opinions on health care, but I don't have the time or resources to go into it in depth right here right now.
Aren't unions somehow antagonistic to the free market? What would happen if this person, who has good health care from his union, lost his job?
Is this legal? According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”
Regardless of the laws, I think this idea is a really good one!
It's odd that none of the conservatives were so worried when GWB was doing his domestic spying and wiretapping shenanigans. Now, however, they're all of a sudden concerned. Awesome.
I guess we'll see if anyone is disappeared over this, because all of Steve's arguments against public healthcare made have been sent to flag@whitehouse.gov along with all of Steve's personal information. If he suddenly starts posting from Gitmo, I guess we'll know that there was a problem. LOL.
edit: dammit.
Don't think this is worth talking about? How about the liberal hypocrisy in regards to deficits? As bad as Bush was on increasing the size of the federal govt and spending Obama is worse yet no outcry over this?