Archive for April 24th, 2011
I was reading recently a food article, and in it the writer stated that some people prefer organic produce because they believe it’s more nutritious—completely missing the point. The issue is NOT the nutritional value, the issue is the presence (or absence) of toxins—pesticides and herbicides and other things sprayed on food to kill various lifeforms. Like some, I prefer my food grown without spraying it with poison. YMMV.
Now Janet Raloff reports in Science News:
Children exposed in the womb to substantial levels of neurotoxic pesticides have somewhat lower IQs by the time they enter school than do kids with virtually no exposure. A trio of studies screened women for compounds in blood or urine that mark exposure to organophosphate pesticides such as chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion. . .
Two fascinating articles in Slate both by Brandon Garrett, with illustrative videos and photos:
It’s quite well known how to improve things, but somehow the district attorneys and police don’t bother: they now have what seems to be absolute immunity even for flagrant official misconduct (such as hiding exculpatory evidence in order to send an innocent man to prison—the Supreme Court of the US defends the practice).
The Younger Daughter passed along this interesting post (with brief audio). That will definitely impact this blog.
Interesting article on foraging—urban foraging in this case. Anyone who’s read Stalking the Wild Asparagus cannot escape becoming a fan of foraging, even if it’s but a literary appreciation. My interest in foraging is like my interest in gardening: I love to read about it.
At any rate, the article at the link has some good tips.
It’s becoming apparent that Obama was greatly oversold as a Constitutional scholar. He has now explicitly declare Bradley Manning (who has yet to come to trial) to be guilty—and note that the persons who will be judging Bradley Manning are under Obama’s command, so his declaration is likely to have impact.
Here’s an analysis. How can Obama have such a poor grasp of the Constitution? From the link:
. . . It’s long been clear that this is Obama’s understanding of “a nation of laws”: the most powerful political and financial elites who commit the most egregious crimes are to be shielded from the consequences of their lawbreaking — see his vote in favor of retroactive telecom immunity, his protection of Bush war criminals, and the way in which Wall Street executives were permitted to plunder with impunity — while the most powerless figures (such as a 23-year-old Army Private and a slew of other low-level whistleblowers) who expose the corruption and criminality of those elites are to be mercilessly punished. And, of course, our nation’s lowest persona non grata group — accused Muslim Terrorists — are simply to be encaged for life without any charges. Merciless, due-process-free punishment is for the powerless; full-scale immunity is for the powerful. “Nation of laws” indeed.
One final irony to Obama’s embrace of this lofty justifying term: . . .