This was so ripe I had to pick it.
I was listening to a talk-radio station here in NC last week, the topic was regarding getting your news and forming opionions regarding political/world issues.
Caller: "I watch all the different news stations - Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC; I get all sides of the story."
Host: "That's great to hear, do you watch or listen to MSNBC also?"
Caller: "I sure do; I want to make sure I'm getting all there is to know before I make my opinion or cast my votes for our public offices; I don't think most people do as much reading and listening as I do"
Host: "That's great to hear, a well-rounded, informed caller"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...anyway -
All I can say is wow
See some links to your right to look for alternative news sources that are not known to be owned by corporate financiers of the world.
-enjoy
17 August 2008
The game of life; and truth.
Today I was reading U.S. History; specifically the life and impact of the figure John Brown in the 1850's. Depending on the source of said 'History' one can get some varying view points. This makes it all the more crucial to try and research all sides of the story: Inside and out!
Why is it in life we get various takes on Truth? Can't there be only one TRUTH?
John Brown seems to be one person who was honest in nearly all he did; sometimes brutally so. He didn't answer to anyone but his own soul and that of the needs of his family. He placed an an oath to defend the rights of the enslaved; both Negroes and Whites - he was not discriminatory in this.
Some 'historians and journalists' claim he was a terrorist. I will give in to an Anarchist label for him, but terrorist? please...labels aside, this man was acting on the side of honor; had pushed himself to the extreme to defend the rights of others. This in my view is the noblest of endeavours. John Brown felt his hand forced to deliver justice; after civil obedience went no-where fast, he decided this movement needed action. This also came at the cost of violence, of his own doing and that of the pro-Slavery movement (aka "border ruffians".)
All in all, the deaths of men were directly linked to the cause of freedom for slaves on one side; and the pro-slavery state on the other. What seems ideally 'wrong' with this comparison? John Brown was tried and hung for Treason and Murder; but those who defended pro-slavery (general injustices of murder, robbery, kidnapping and the like) are on the side of the law? This is not meant to lighten the cost of any life, but to ask the question: Who is has committed the treasonous act in this case? (Research "Bleeding Kansas" and "Harper's Ferry" for more info on details of skirmishes)
Thoreau seems to sum up the the spirit of John Brown in his essay "A Plea for John Brown" (from Gutenberg Project):
The only government that I recognize,--and it matters not how few
are at the head of it, or how small its army,--is that power that
establishes justice in the land, never that which establishes
injustice. What shall we think of a government to which all the
truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between
it and those whom it oppresses? A government that pretends to be
Christian and crucifies a million Christs every day!
I'm not attempting to glorify John Brown, although I think he was a noble and truthful person from what I've read. My attempt here is to show the fact that many attempts have been and continue to be cast toward "Evil" on noble men and their endeavors. This is especially true when these hit on a major vein regarding the stability of government, rule, or justice.
With the current state of world politics, economy, governments, figureheads, and elections in full swing...
How many truths are there? "Truth is one, paths are many" - Swami Satchidinanda
Be brave and noble, start your path now.
-Enjoy
JB
Why is it in life we get various takes on Truth? Can't there be only one TRUTH?
John Brown seems to be one person who was honest in nearly all he did; sometimes brutally so. He didn't answer to anyone but his own soul and that of the needs of his family. He placed an an oath to defend the rights of the enslaved; both Negroes and Whites - he was not discriminatory in this.
Some 'historians and journalists' claim he was a terrorist. I will give in to an Anarchist label for him, but terrorist? please...labels aside, this man was acting on the side of honor; had pushed himself to the extreme to defend the rights of others. This in my view is the noblest of endeavours. John Brown felt his hand forced to deliver justice; after civil obedience went no-where fast, he decided this movement needed action. This also came at the cost of violence, of his own doing and that of the pro-Slavery movement (aka "border ruffians".)
All in all, the deaths of men were directly linked to the cause of freedom for slaves on one side; and the pro-slavery state on the other. What seems ideally 'wrong' with this comparison? John Brown was tried and hung for Treason and Murder; but those who defended pro-slavery (general injustices of murder, robbery, kidnapping and the like) are on the side of the law? This is not meant to lighten the cost of any life, but to ask the question: Who is has committed the treasonous act in this case? (Research "Bleeding Kansas" and "Harper's Ferry" for more info on details of skirmishes)
Thoreau seems to sum up the the spirit of John Brown in his essay "A Plea for John Brown" (from Gutenberg Project):
The only government that I recognize,--and it matters not how few
are at the head of it, or how small its army,--is that power that
establishes justice in the land, never that which establishes
injustice. What shall we think of a government to which all the
truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between
it and those whom it oppresses? A government that pretends to be
Christian and crucifies a million Christs every day!
I'm not attempting to glorify John Brown, although I think he was a noble and truthful person from what I've read. My attempt here is to show the fact that many attempts have been and continue to be cast toward "Evil" on noble men and their endeavors. This is especially true when these hit on a major vein regarding the stability of government, rule, or justice.
With the current state of world politics, economy, governments, figureheads, and elections in full swing...
How many truths are there? "Truth is one, paths are many" - Swami Satchidinanda
Be brave and noble, start your path now.
-Enjoy
JB
13 August 2008
"No soup...er...Milk for you!!"
How can this be? I want to have some fresh milk, I mean straight from the cow's udder. However, my government tells me it's "dangerous" for me and everyone else. So what do they do? They make it ILLEGAL for farmers to sell fresh, unpasteurized milk to consumers in the State of North Carolina. Well, how 'bout that?
Not only that, one used to be able to purchase a 'cow share'. This was a practice where you would take part ownership of a dairy cow, it would be stabled, fed, and cared for by a dairy farm/pasture of your decision. The farmer would milk the cow on his land/dairy/pasture and you get the milk. My wife's Grandmother and friends took part in this practice years ago and reaped the benefits of healthy Fresh Milk from their own cow for years, none the sicker and all the more wise! This is now illegal as well (since 2004.)
Just recently a passage of House Bill 2524 was enacted to removed charcoal dye that was added to "pet milk"; which is milk to be used for milking newborn animals (orphaned or otherwise in need) - the charcoal bit was actually added because Agriculture Dept. officials noticed that farmers and consumers were partaking in sales that both sides were aware that were intended for human consumption.
So how did ultra-fresh milk (I won't call it raw milk for reasons about to be explained) become the ONLY Illegal food in North Carolina (and several other states)?? There are some great articles HERE and HERE. This report from the CDC is about a 2001 outbreak of Listeriosis Monocytogenes, from 'raw' goat cheese (queso fresco) in North Carolina.
I call it Fresh Milk because'raw milk' is the phrase that the government uses to categorize ANY milk that is unpasteurized. Whether it has been produced on a manufacturing style farm that is pasteurizing milk or a private farm that produces only dairy that is pasture fed and cared for, where the milk is fresh and not intended for pasteurization.
What's the difference? To me, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. If one looks at the milk of a large scale farm that is producing milk for a pasteurization process line, this milk is full of...well anything! If it's meant for pasteurization processes, the milk need not be 'clean' or withing limitations in terms of bacterial counts. I believe it's 100,000 bacterium per liter. Why so high? because when you pasteurize the milk (heating it to 161'F) you kill everything in it. Fresh Milk produced in a properly sanitized environment (which pasteurization cows/dairies DO NOT FOLLOW) which comes from a cow that is properly cared for and grazed on pasture land will produce milk that is HEALTHY AND SAFE for consumption for MOST people.
I do give credit to the fact that Fresh Milk is likely not for ALL people, that being said neither is pasteurized milk (see lactose intolerance). Though, in fact there are many cases (see www.realmilk.org) where lactose intolerant individuals have tried Fresh Milk and are now able to drink this milk...except you can't get it legally in North Carolina because it's dangerous.
It's an interesting situation that begs the question - why Milk? Why not spinach, tomatoes, or pasteurized milk products (by-the-way, all of which outnumber properly prodcued Fresh Milk in reported illnesses and deaths)? What is it about milk that it needs to be governed by Federal legislation to 'protect the people'? Who started this whole party? See federal legislation, lobbyists, dairy commissions, pharmaceutical companies, Agricultural commissions. Check their pockets if you know what I mean.
Well there is definitely more research to be done. Don't let me or the milk producers, farmers, your cousin, Louis Pasteur himself (highly suggest some intense study of that man) or especially not anyone from Mainstream media lead you down the primrose path. Do your own investigation on what goes into your mouth; and look at who's hands are in the pockets of the producers of that product. I think it's quite true that one doesn't bite the hand that feeds you, so if farmers** are subsidized by government to grow certain things under certain conditions...how likely are they to call a foul when something is run-a-muck? (**insert, chemists, FDA,CDC,USDA,Big BEEF, Big Dairy etc)
Good luck -
Not only that, one used to be able to purchase a 'cow share'. This was a practice where you would take part ownership of a dairy cow, it would be stabled, fed, and cared for by a dairy farm/pasture of your decision. The farmer would milk the cow on his land/dairy/pasture and you get the milk. My wife's Grandmother and friends took part in this practice years ago and reaped the benefits of healthy Fresh Milk from their own cow for years, none the sicker and all the more wise! This is now illegal as well (since 2004.)
Just recently a passage of House Bill 2524 was enacted to removed charcoal dye that was added to "pet milk"; which is milk to be used for milking newborn animals (orphaned or otherwise in need) - the charcoal bit was actually added because Agriculture Dept. officials noticed that farmers and consumers were partaking in sales that both sides were aware that were intended for human consumption.
So how did ultra-fresh milk (I won't call it raw milk for reasons about to be explained) become the ONLY Illegal food in North Carolina (and several other states)?? There are some great articles HERE and HERE. This report from the CDC is about a 2001 outbreak of Listeriosis Monocytogenes, from 'raw' goat cheese (queso fresco) in North Carolina.
I call it Fresh Milk because'raw milk' is the phrase that the government uses to categorize ANY milk that is unpasteurized. Whether it has been produced on a manufacturing style farm that is pasteurizing milk or a private farm that produces only dairy that is pasture fed and cared for, where the milk is fresh and not intended for pasteurization.
What's the difference? To me, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. If one looks at the milk of a large scale farm that is producing milk for a pasteurization process line, this milk is full of...well anything! If it's meant for pasteurization processes, the milk need not be 'clean' or withing limitations in terms of bacterial counts. I believe it's 100,000 bacterium per liter. Why so high? because when you pasteurize the milk (heating it to 161'F) you kill everything in it. Fresh Milk produced in a properly sanitized environment (which pasteurization cows/dairies DO NOT FOLLOW) which comes from a cow that is properly cared for and grazed on pasture land will produce milk that is HEALTHY AND SAFE for consumption for MOST people.
I do give credit to the fact that Fresh Milk is likely not for ALL people, that being said neither is pasteurized milk (see lactose intolerance). Though, in fact there are many cases (see www.realmilk.org) where lactose intolerant individuals have tried Fresh Milk and are now able to drink this milk...except you can't get it legally in North Carolina because it's dangerous.
It's an interesting situation that begs the question - why Milk? Why not spinach, tomatoes, or pasteurized milk products (by-the-way, all of which outnumber properly prodcued Fresh Milk in reported illnesses and deaths)? What is it about milk that it needs to be governed by Federal legislation to 'protect the people'? Who started this whole party? See federal legislation, lobbyists, dairy commissions, pharmaceutical companies, Agricultural commissions. Check their pockets if you know what I mean.
Well there is definitely more research to be done. Don't let me or the milk producers, farmers, your cousin, Louis Pasteur himself (highly suggest some intense study of that man) or especially not anyone from Mainstream media lead you down the primrose path. Do your own investigation on what goes into your mouth; and look at who's hands are in the pockets of the producers of that product. I think it's quite true that one doesn't bite the hand that feeds you, so if farmers** are subsidized by government to grow certain things under certain conditions...how likely are they to call a foul when something is run-a-muck? (**insert, chemists, FDA,CDC,USDA,Big BEEF, Big Dairy etc)
Good luck -
28 April 2008
Global warming...How about Global Ice age...
What chu' talking 'bout Willis?!?
This former astronaut thinks its global cooling, not global warming that's the coming issue.
You decide - read here - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
enjoy,
JB
11 April 2008
more lobbying
Here is more lobbying for the US to get further involved in creating dangerous alliances, getting the U.S. (and others) into unnecessary interventions. Hasn't this gone on long enough? We just keep perpetuating the cycle...
Doesn't it sound so nice, that our federal government officially support groups like this?
Isn't our government happy enough with costly and ineffective interventions within our own borders? (See the Fed Bank/Economy mess here, here, and here...)
But it's not futile, we can inform ourselves of these issues and decide for ourselves. We can choose to elect invididuals that we can trust, wow, yes I said it. People that we can trust, I think that is going to be a phrase you can actually use someday; maybe sooner than later. This happens locally, so get to know your neighbors and local politicians and groups. Stop entrusting your liberty and freedoms to those you don't know and trust and start getting involved.
Oh, and have a nice weekend, enjoy,
JB
Doesn't it sound so nice, that our federal government officially support groups like this?
Isn't our government happy enough with costly and ineffective interventions within our own borders? (See the Fed Bank/Economy mess here, here, and here...)
But it's not futile, we can inform ourselves of these issues and decide for ourselves. We can choose to elect invididuals that we can trust, wow, yes I said it. People that we can trust, I think that is going to be a phrase you can actually use someday; maybe sooner than later. This happens locally, so get to know your neighbors and local politicians and groups. Stop entrusting your liberty and freedoms to those you don't know and trust and start getting involved.
Oh, and have a nice weekend, enjoy,
JB
10 April 2008
Some great thoughts to get your head out of .....
Here are some ideas on politics and world views to help clear your head, hopefully.
I do sit everyday and wonder where we are headed currently.
enjoy -
JB
I do sit everyday and wonder where we are headed currently.
enjoy -
JB
From wooden instruments to wooden noggins - this Blog is changing gears
With the political cycle running at nil for the time being, but still running (for the love of pete, please let this thing end!) until November; this blog will transform into my own expose of economics, politics, and pundits. Oh, and also noticing some just terrible exploits in bad reporting by media outlets, so bad i'm not even going to mention them specifically; they don't need anymore press.
Hope you enjoy and you take criticism well, there will be plenty of it. I am no expert, but am offering a simpe opinion in the race to the elected offices of this (county, state, country, etc) land.
enjoy,
JB
Hope you enjoy and you take criticism well, there will be plenty of it. I am no expert, but am offering a simpe opinion in the race to the elected offices of this (county, state, country, etc) land.
enjoy,
JB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)