tagged w/ Greens
-
Adaptogenic herb specialist Professor TR Nimbus takes us out into the wilds of Quebec to show us a variety of Adaptogenic herbs. An adaptogenic substance is one that demonstrates a nonspecific enhancement of the body's ability to resist a stressor. These would include Hawthorn,Gill grow over the ground ,Dandelion greens and more. Known as Plant steriles these herbs are a variety of ingredients used by the ancient Greek physician GalenAdaptogenic herb specialist Professor TR Nimbus takes us out into the wilds of Quebec... more
-
-
Five criteria determine whether or not someone is serious about cutting the federal deficit. When you measure the political parties and many political VIPs against those criteria, the majority come up short.Five criteria determine whether or not someone is serious about cutting the federal... more
-
-
Two groups of mice were tested with daily dosages of acetaminophen (Tylenol). One group in the study was given chicory along with the medication.Two groups of mice were tested with daily dosages of acetaminophen (Tylenol). One... more
-
-
-
Every now and again there comes along a scientific study that proves beyond reasonable doubt what you instinctively know to be true: wine is good for you, exercise is dangerous, and self-righteous environmentalists are lying, cheating, thieving degenerates.
I'm exaggerating only a little. Do Green Products Make Us Better People?, a paper in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science, argues that those who wear what the authors call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. Faced with various moral choices – whether to stick to the rules in games, for example, or to pay themselves an appropriate wage – the green participants behaved much worse in the experiments than their conventional counterparts. The short answer to the paper's question, then, is: No. Greens are mean.
The authors, two Canadian psychologists, came up with an intriguing explanation for this. "Virtuous acts," they write, "can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviour." It's the yin-yang theory of psychology, or "compensatory ethics", to give it its proper name. Buy an organic potato, then go home and beat your wife with The Guardian. Hop smugly into a green hybrid car, then use it to run over little old ladies doing their shopping.
This "moral balancing" argument, however, clearly has its limits. Most people are sufficiently balanced without having to swing to opposite ends of the moral spectrum. We can give money to charity without dipping into the company till at the same time. Every good act doesn't necessitate a bad one. To every action, there is not an equal and opposite reaction. Buying an expensive courgette with a bit of mud on it need not turn you into a tyrant.
No, what this study really does is to confirm our deep-rooted suspicion that there is something fishy about people who profess to be greener than thou. Those climate-change scientists in East Anglia didn't do their cause any favours with their emails. The most inconvenient truth for Al Gore was when reporters discovered just how large his home energy bills were.
As with the worst type of religious zealot, there is nothing more annoying than the zeal of the converted, especially when it is tainted with the hypocrisy of self-righteousness. As we report today, people are more likely to buy environmentally friendly produce in shops than on the internet. Being seen to be green is more important than anything else. I wonder whether that will change if it now becomes a case of being seen to be mean.
We should, of course, distinguish between the quiet, worthy faith of the majority, who recycle when they remember and try not to fly long-haul to New Zealand more than twice a month, and the infuriating, evangelical minority, who pour white paint all over nice, black 4x4s.
We've always suspected they were bullies. In the Seventies British film Nuts in May, Mike Leigh hilariously skewered the sort of couple whose supposed love of the environment – and why do so many of these people live in towns? – is really just a device to stop everyone else having fun.
And now, at last, we have confirmation that they're tight as well. They might be willing to pay over the odds for a lovingly tended carrot, but in every other area of normal human activity, their greenness is merely a mask for miserliness. The wind turbine, the tandem bike with a dangerous little buggy on the back for the twins, the self-denying holidays in Wales… Get a boiler! Get a car! Get out of here!
We have been kind to these unkind people for far too long. Now that their halo has fallen and they can no longer boast their green credentials as a shorthand for moral superiority, it is time to fight fire with fire. How about a little compensatory ethics of our own? Double the tax on organic food as a deterrent; it is clearly a starter drug to a lifetime of amorality. Stop and search anyone in a Prius. Conduct dawn raids on north London allotments. Otherwise, one can only imagine the sort of dystopia that would ensue if these mean little green men were allowed to run amok.Every now and again there comes along a scientific study that proves beyond reasonable... more
-
-
Coakley lost.
And she should have lost too.
She had absolutely no grasp of retail politics whatsoever. She seemed to be relying on the fact that the Massachusetts Democratic party is a 500 pound gorilla that wins everything ever, and that this fact alone would sweep her right into office, without any regard for campaigning.
Coakley overlooked a simple fact of politics. It's the voters that put you into office. Your votes aren't granted to you, you have to EARN them.
This is a fact that the Democratic party seems incapable of learning, over and over and over again.
In fact, the Democratic party is SO adverse to learning this lesson, that they come up with excuses left and right to avoid facing this simple truth.
They are so convinced that 51% of the votes are already theirs that when they run a terrible campaign and lose, they quickly scan the scene for somebody else to blame. They blame Nader. They blame the Green Party. They blame the weather. They even blame the voters. It's not the voters' fault that you lose elections. Its your own fault, for not earning their vote.
Now the talking heads are all saying that this race is going to change the results of the 2012 election, because if the healthcare bill fails, then Obama will be a failure, and the voters won't re-elect him.
WRONG. I've taken a course in statistical analysis, and the cardinal rule of statistical analysis is that "correlation does not determine cause and effect."
If Obama loses in 2012, it's not going to be because of this one race. This one race is maybe, possibly, perhaps, an indicator of the national political climate. Maybe. Or maybe it's just that Coakley was such a terrible candidate that Democrats couldn't stomach voting for her, and just stayed home.
Let's say that it is an indicator though. Am I really supposed to be upset that the corporate give-away that is the current healthcare bill is going to fail? And why can't the Democrats pass a bill, when they have a larger majority in the Senate than the Republicans have had in the past 23 years?
Why was it that George W Bush was able to ram anything he asked for through congress? Was it because the Republicans had a marginal majority? Or was it because the majority of Democrats in Congress voted along with George W Bush? Was it because George W Bush was a more effective president? Or was it because the Democratic leadership offered absolutely NO meaningful opposition?
Let's say that Obama DOES lose in 2012. If he does indeed lose, he's likely going to lose not because of the healthcare bill passing or failing.
He's going to lose because the healthcare bill that came out of the Senate was a corrupt bill that forced consumers by Federal law to purchase a financial product from a private, for-profit enterprise or be subjected to thousands of dollars in fines.
He's going to lose because he spoke about ending the war, and not only continued the two we had, but started two more-- one in Pakistan, and one in Yemen.
He's going to lose because he promised healthcare reform, and allowed the Congress to give us corporate welfare for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
[read the rest at the link]Coakley lost.
And she should have lost too.
She had absolutely no grasp of retail... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The Italian parties don't shine for consistency with their own programs. To understand our bad political situation is interesting to examine the strange metamorphosis through which the parties went through in the last few years. Forza Italia was born, at least on paper, as a center-right Liberal Party who wanted to modernize the Italian economy. In 1994, the official stance was to condem corruption of the old parties and even trying to bring former judge Di Pietro in their field.
http://www.inaltreparole.net/en/whatpoliticiansdo/partititaliani311209.htmlThe Italian parties don't shine for consistency with their own programs. To... more
-
-
Ready for nettles and dandelions on your plate? Langdon Cook talks foraging, the next (cheap!) step in local food
It's been three decades since Alice Waters made microgreens a culinary cliché, and by now most diners take the lingo of local food for granted: chefs who raise their own heritage chickens, restaurants with hand-lettered blackboards that outline the lineage of every lamb chop, and salads that sport farmers' Christian names. But what if the next menu you picked up offered nettle pesto picked from the ditch next to Route 6? Or garlic-sautéed dandelion greens gathered from the overgrown lot behind the grocery store? As the meanings of "organic" and "local" grow ever more slippery -- and in lean times, when fewer folks than ever can afford to pay a premium for dinner -- are wild edibles poised to emerge as the next gastronomic zeitgeist?
Langdon Cook, the author of the new memoir-cum-cookbook "Fat of the Land: Adventures of a 21st Century Forager," and a popular blog by the same name, might put money on it -- but he isn't waiting around for the masses to catch up. Cook, an outdoorsman, amateur naturalist and former editor at Amazon.com, first began foraging as a trailside diversion but has spent the better part of the last decade getting in touch with his inner hunter-gatherer, schooling himself in the art of "shooting" razor clams, mapping out burn sites for signs of morels, and cataloging a veritable crisper-full of delectable weeds. That education -- combined with a year spent living off the grid in southern Oregon with his wife and young child, growing and canning most of their food and foraging the surplus -- proved a transformative experience for Cook, and inspired him to bring the gospel of wild food (in all of its muddy, wet, prickly and, yes, tasty glory) to the wider world. His message: Foraging food will make you a healthier, happier eater, a more thoughtful consumer and a more adventurous cook. And his best evidence? Himself. This is, after all, the same guy who once, in order to woo a lady, bragged about making a killer Egg McMuffin.
Now settled in Seattle, Cook does most of his foraging in the mountains and waterways near Puget Sound, but sometimes even a stroll around his urban neighborhood leads to an unexpected edible encounter. (Case in point: The dried buds of the lowly pineapple weed, a common sidewalk crack-filler and relative of chamomile, makes excellent iced tea.) Salon spoke with him recently about recession-proof dining, the large-scale sustainability of foraging, the hidden charms of the stinging nettle, and why it's time we all got out there and started searching for our suppers.Ready for nettles and dandelions on your plate? Langdon Cook talks foraging, the next... more
-
-
Fresh off getting kicked to the curb on the sly, Van Jones, may be getting a new position. Obama's former Green job's advisor found himself under a barrage of political attacks after a video leaked of him stating the obvious and saying Republicans are “assholes” and Bush is a “crack head.”
Following the leaks, he found himself silenced saying what millions of people were thinking, and had to formally “resign.” Now he's getting his past due and will reportedly be the Green Party's candidate for President in the 2012 election. The Green Party is sticking up for the brother and denouncing the Republican party for attacking Black politicians saying,
“The targets tend to be Black - consistent with Republican fury over the election of Barack Obama to the White House.”
As t the Green Party is jumping to the aid of this brother, and tightening him up to lead their party, Green Party co-chair, Mike Feinstein sang praises to the advocate for environmentally friendly jobs, saying:
“Like the Greens, Van Jones sees green jobs and a healthy environment as interconnected pillars of a sustainable and just economy. We encourage Van to bring that agenda into the electoral arena as a Green Party member, leader and possible future candidate, either nationally, statewide in California, or locally in Oakland, his home.”
If Jones does get the nomination he can shut the mouths of people like everyone's favorite racist Fox News commentator, Glen Beck. Beck spearheaded the smear campaign against Jones digging up the old videos and also Jones' signature on a petition asking for further investigation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The petition reportedly questioned the government's role in the event, again another opinion reflective of many people's sentiments. Good for Jones, the brother deserves a break for all the political hell he went through for practicing free speech.Fresh off getting kicked to the curb on the sly, Van Jones, may be getting a new... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
While the focus is on Dick Cheney’s role, the U.S. has long had a bi-partisan assassination program.
By Jeremy Scahill
Members of Congress have expressed outrage over the “secret” CIA assassination program that former vice president Dick Cheney allegedly ordered concealed from Congress. But this program—and the media descriptions of it—sounds a lot like the assassination policy implemented by President Bill Clinton, particularly during his second term in office.
Partisan politics often require selective amnesia. Over the past decade, we have seen this amnesia take hold when it comes to many of President Bush’s most vile policies. And we are now seeing a pretty severe case overtake several leading Democrats. It makes for good speechifying to act as though all criminality began with Bush and—particularly these days—Cheney, but that is extreme intellectual dishonesty. The fact is that many of Bush’s worst policies (now being highlighted by leading Democrats) were based in some form or another in a Clinton-initiated policy or were supported by the Democrats in Congress with their votes. To name a few: the USA PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, the attack against Afghanistan, the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, the widespread use of mercenaries and other private contractors in US war zones and warrant-less wire-tapping.
Regarding the Bush-era assassination program, there is great reason to be skeptical that the program CIA Director Leon Panetta alleges was concealed from Congress is actually the program the public is currently being led to believe it is. Why would the CIA need to conceal a program that never was implemented and, if it never was implemented, why did Panetta need to shut it down? Moreover, who was running this inactive program from the minute Obama was sworn in until June 24 when Panetta supposedly announced its cancellation? This program—as it is currently being described— should hardly be a major scandal to members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as some are now treating it. As they well know, President Obama has continued the Bush targeted assassination program using weaponized drones and special forces teams hunting “high value targets.” As former CIA Counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro and others have pointed out, “The CIA runs drones and targets al Qaeda safe houses all the time.” Cannistraro told Talking Points Memo that there is no important difference between those kinds of attacks and “assassinations” with a gun or a knife.
Now, if it turns out that the actual plan Cheney allegedly concealed is something other than what has been publicly described, that will be a different matter. For instance, if the CIA had a secret post-9/11 program planning assassinations on US soil or of US citizens and it was ordered concealed by Cheney. Or, if it was a plan to target in other ways “enemies of the state” within the U.S. as Seymour Hersh has suggested: “The Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state,” Hersh said in March. “Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.”
Let’s look at the program the Democrats claim was kept secret. The Bush administration reportedly authorized the CIA to use small paramilitary teams to hunt down and assassinate “al Qaeda” leaders around the world. It is currently being reported that this plan was never implemented and was born after 9/11. Both of these assertions are very, very doubtful.
The plan, as currently described in the press and by Democrats, is one that continues to exist under the Obama administration right now. In fact, this program has been part of official U.S. policy—under Democratic and Republican administrations—for decades.
[continues at link]While the focus is on Dick Cheney’s role, the U.S. has long had a bi-partisan... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The media consortium that controls televised leaders' debates has yet rule on the Greens' status in debates.
The media consortium that controls televised leaders' debates has yet rule on the... more
-
