"Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

​The Conversation
Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s still a workable distinction today: unlike “1+1=2” or “there are no square circles,” an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But “opinion” ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”

Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.

So what does it mean to be “entitled” to an opinion?

If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

On Monday, the ABC’s Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from – you guessed it – Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was “accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups.” But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called “debate” here is about the science itself, and the “choice groups” simply don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.

Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s no part of a reporter’s job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.

The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of “openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate.” This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all – or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it “confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue.” Again, two senses of “entitlement” to an opinion are being conflated here.

So next time you hear someone declare they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way."

Have you ever wondered what might happen to your body in space without a spacesuit? Is it really as dramatic as the movies make it out to be? Would you literally EXPLODE? Could you survive?

On Earth, we live a pretty cozy existence thanks to our protective atmosphere. It shields us from the Sun’s harmful UV rays, regulates temperatures and also maintains a nice atmospheric pressure. The vacuum of space, however, is much more hostile. Without this lovely thick atmospheric blanket, you’re exposed to all sorts of things.

The most serious dangers of exposure to outer space are a lack of oxygen and ebullism. Ebullism is the formation of bubbles in body fluids due to a reduction in ambient pressure. The pressure in the vacuum of space is so low that the boiling point of the fluids in your body decreases below the body’s normal temperature (37oC), which results in the formation of gas bubbles in your fluids that can really mess you up. You’ll swell up pretty bad, perhaps even up to twice your normal size, but you won’t explode as your skin is very stretchy. Your blood will also not boil. You will, of course, be in an immense amount of pain and your blood circulation will be impeded.

As mentioned, the other serious danger is a lack of oxygen. After around 15 seconds, your body would have used up all of the oxygen in your body and you’d lose consciousness. Some of you may be thinking “But I can hold my breath for minutes!” The situation in space is a little different than here on Earth due to the lack of outside pressure, and if you held your breath in space without a suit you’d be in a big trouble. This is because any remaining air would rapidly expand, rupturing the lungs.

After losing consciousness, you’ll probably last a couple of minutes maximum before you die. Of course, there’s all that nasty UV from the Sun which is going to give you horrific sunburn. UV and other high energy photons (X-rays and gamma radiation) would also damage the heck out of your DNA, leading to mutations that would likely cause cancer (if you survived). It’s also typically extremely cold, but you wouldn’t instantly freeze as the vacuum would cause heat to transfer away from the body very slowly.

In sum- you’d swell up, burn, mutate, pass out and your lungs might explode. Lovely. But don’t worry, if you’re ever in this sticky situation, you’ve probably got a solid minute or two to be rescued before you die, so chin up.

There is now a new hashtag, goes by '#ifiwereaboy', that's plastered on signs by women.

It's essentially a variation to the 'I need feminism because' theme. Funny, because when women spun around and posted 'I DON'T need feminism' sign pictures, they were heckled and told they were being juvenile for writing messages on signs. So, now they are doing it again, but it's different now!

Except it's the same.

And it's the same exact bullshit.

'#ifiwereaboy I wouldn't give people PTSD because of gender' (which is insulting and crude to compare whiny-hurt feelings with PTSD)

'#ifiwereaboy I'd put the seat down' (Men put it up, women put it down, but I guess that back and forth can be ignored)

'#ifiwereaboy I'd educate myself about feminism' (Although everything we learn about feminism we learn from feminists)

'#ifiwereaboy I'd treat women as people who deserve to be respected' (First off, respect is earned, second off, not all men treat women like garbage.)

'#ifiwereaboy I'd take the time to have a conversation' (Because no men take the time to have conversations)



It's just another wave of ludicrous radical nonsense and it makes me grind my teeth.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts."

Fuck Creationists who use this bullshit line.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

"Why should I deign to acknowledge you, a former lackey of a shrivelled corpse who comes begging to my master because of some pathetic tantrum? No, you are nothing to me, as insignificant as a raindrop in a storm."

-Prince Darcentile VI, Paragon of Slaanesh

The headless horseman rides tonight
through stark and starless skies.
Shattering the silence
with his otherworldly cries,
he races through the darkness
on his alabaster steed.
The headless horseman rides tonight where the fates would lead.

The headless horseman rides tonight
begarbed in robes of black
to bear a being from the earth
never to bring him back.
He is evil’s foul embodiment,
with laughter on his breath.
The headless horseman rides tonight,
The minister of death.

The headless horseman rides tonight,
he rides the wind alone.
Beneath his arm he tightly tucks his head of gleaming bone.
His voice is harsh and hollow,
it is horrible to hear.
The headless horseman rides tonight
to fill the earth with fear.

The headless horseman rides tonight
upon his fateful trip.
With silvery scythe of steely death
held fast in bony grip,
he sweeps it swiftly forth and back
as over the earth he glides.
And none in the world is safe tonight
for the headless horseman rides.




—from The Headless Horseman Rides Tonight - More Poems to Trouble Your Sleep by Jack Prelutsky, illustrated by Arnold Lobel

"Shut up. Shut the fuck up. Take stock of your fucks, Byron, and be sure to shut them immediately, because I swear to God there's a storm coming, you hear me? There's a god damn typhoon bearing down on you right now with a righteous fucking fury. So you batten down those fucks, okay? You keep 'em closed up real tight, and you just be as quiet as you can be. You concentrate on getting me back where I can see as fast as you can, without bashing my fucking shin-bones to pudding in the process. Or else I swear to Christ, as soon as I can see again, I will hold your prissy head underwater so long it'll make a giant batch of asshole tea out of the entire fucking reservoir."

"But religion doesn't do anything bad!"

Well...yeah, apparently it does.

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/religious-children-struggle-separate-fact-fiction

Internet activism -- particularly with the weird culture that seems to pervade Tumblr -- isn't about making a difference, or even raising awareness; it's just about proving how superior the writer is to his or her audience. Tumbloggers (or whatever you call them) with blogs like Shutthefuckupsexists.tumblr.com or IWillLiterallyMurderYouIfYouMakeARapeJoke.tumblr.com aren't actually trying to spread awareness or insights. They're just trying to outdo each other, to win this weird competition that has nothing to do with anything but their own egos. They all want to find the new, more nuanced, more complicated social problem ("adult privilege" refers to the injustice that teenage voices aren't valued, and "tall privilege" refers to fuck knows what) that no one else has heard of. They're treating social issues the way hipsters treat bands: using the advantage of knowledge to make it painfully, irrefutably obvious that they are better than you.

According to Tor Wager, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at CU-Boulder and probable Star Wars character: "Right now, there's no clinically acceptable way to measure pain and other emotions other than to ask a person how they feel."

http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

Male privilege is being condemned to 3 times the sentence that a woman would for the same crime.

Male privilege is sustaining 97% of the combat deaths in the military.

Male privilege is being denied the right to a paternity test in Europe and India, but still having to pay child support.

Male privilege is having only 2 shelters for battered men in the U.S.

Male privilege is continuously being blamed for committing the most abuse against children, sexual or violent, when studies say that women are the most common culprits.

Male privilege is having the court system favor women in regards to divorce, rape charges and allegations, and child custody, regardless of how unfit the mother is for being the parent.

Male privilege is having to explain that, while most CEOs are male, the number of ditch diggers, truck drivers, and menial labor workers are far greater, but somehow that's perfectly fine.

Male privilege is being unable to defend yourself if a woman attacks you.

Male privilege is being arrested if you call the police because your wife or girlfriend attacked you with a weapon.

Male privilege is being labelled guilty and made a social pariah because of a false rape allegation, both in court and in the living neighborhoods.

Male privilege is being forced to pay child support, even if you have the child the majority of the time.

Male privilege is being labelled vile and evil, even if just for standing while peeing or sitting on a tram with your legs spread.

Male privilege is having a shorter life expectancy than women, but the demand that you work 5 years longer before you retire.

Male privilege is being more likely to commit suicide, be homeless, be denied welfare, be denied child custody, and having to fear commitment because 75% of women are the instigators in divorce.

Male privilege is having to deal with the hypocrisy of Post Modernism (demands men look good, are insulted for wanted physically appealing partners, etc).

Male privilege is contending with 93% of industrial and work related deaths and injuries.

Male privilege is being told to be quiet, that you are not allowed to have an opinion, even when people are shrieking agreement that we need to get rid of Father's Day or Kill all Cis Men or have a National Castration Day.

Male privilege is being circumcised when you are too young to be able to protest and none of the women complain, but the circumcision of females at any age is considered 'cruel and barbaric'.

Male privilege is being told that men need to 'stop the cycle of violence', despite studies showing that middle class women hit their children 932 times a year, the children being between 7 months old and 4 years old.

Male privilege is being forced to accept male disposabilty as a reasonable social requirement (Women and children first, while many men on the Titanic died).

Male privilege is having to listen to women screaming 'check your privilege', despite the prejudice it entails.

Male privilege is being mistreated by radical feminists and told by everyone else 'That's not what feminism is about', before being denied the rights given to women.

Male privilege is being ignored by 86% of the people you turn to if you are sexually assaulted, molested, or raped.

Male privilege is being labelled a psychopath and hate-monger if you join an MRA group for support in times of stress, but when women join a radical feminist group preaching free-bleeding and castration, it's considered empowering.

Male privilege is being told you aren't allowed to cry by a woman, and then told she's leaving you because you don't show your emotions.

Male privilege is having to accept a 14 year old boy being raped by his female teacher, and the dismissal of her trial, as 'acceptable'.

Male privilege is being forced to sign up for the draft.

Male privilege is being denied access to your children, and your home, if the woman in your life deems you a threat (whether this is true or not has shown to be of little concern of the courts).

Male privilege is not being allowed to sit next to children on British Airways or Virgin airlines.

Male privilege is being unable to recover losses to himself or his business from the government due to his gender.

Male privilege is having NO say in whether a child can be put up for adoption.

Male privilege is being terrified of hooking up while out at a bar for fear of being accused of 'date raping' his partner.

Male privilege is being considered privileged for having a sexual preference.

Male privilege is being forced into the role of a negative stereotype, and condemned for attempting to correct the false accusations of society.

Male privilege is being denied the right to apply for Federal Child Benefits in Canada unless you get a written note from the mother.

Male privilege is being called 'lazy around the house', despite a 2013 meta-analysis of the American Time Use survey, Pew Survey, and a nationally representative sample of 2511 adults finding that, between genders, housework is carried out equally.

Male privilege is being fined over $20,000 and facing a year in prison in France for a male soliciting a paternity test.

Male privilege is not having a say in the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

Male privilege is bogus.

The List of Things the Tech Priest is No Longer Allowed to Do In Dark Heresy

The tech priest is not allowed to quote Emperor Palpatine every time she uses Luminen Shock.
The tech priest will refrain from yelling binary across the table at other gamers.
Dubstep is not an appropriate way to pass a Fellowship check with another tech priest.
The tech priest will not have a slap fight with the Assassin character after receiving above average quality augmetic arms and will incur all costs for his medical treatment if this goes ahead.
The Mimic Talent is a privilege, not a right.
The tech priest will not have their arms replaces with augments, put on a stylised face mask and stomp about electrocuting people yelling “DELETE! DELETE!”.
Collecting a bunch of metal dildos and using Ferric Lure or other talents to impale enemies is not a valid ballistic OR melee attack.
The tech priest will not communicate in hashtags. Or tweets. Or memes.
Tech Knock does not require the tech priest to disrobe at any stage of the Rite.
There is never an appropriate time to deliver “Surprise Slaught” with a medical mechadendrite.
Walking up behind an enemy PC and saying “You’re working too hard”, followed by shocking him to death will result in the forfeiture of xp.
Just because you have the Disturbing Voice Trait does not mean you automatically sound like a Dalek. Or Christopher Lee.
The tech priest will not get into the Walker and charge the enemy monster shouting “Get away from her you bitch!”.
The tech priest does not have a gadget belt. Or a gadget butt.
No, you don’t have a mechadendrite for that.
The tech priest will not communicate in indecipherable beeps and whistles, or in a metallic British accent.
Security feed hacking is for missions, not for personal use.
Tech priests do not use Ferric Lure to remove Sister of Battle armour.
Maglev Grace/Transcendence cannot be used to avoid your Inquisitor telling you off.
Tech priests do NOT have neurotoxin grenades, and their MIU controlled servitors do NOT say “Dispensing product” before firing.
You will not call your servo skull “Johnson”.

http://bibviz.com/

Loli porn for a friend. You know who you are.

Yo, vaccines.

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/immunizations/tp/Anti-Vaccine-Myths-and-Misinformation.htm

Later this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture may approve the Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden, the first genetically modified apples to hit the market. Although it will probably be another two years before the non-browning fruits appears in stores, at least one producer is already scrambling to label its apples GMO-free.

The looming apple campaign is just the latest salvo in the ongoing war over genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—one that's grown increasingly contentious. Over the past decade, the controversy surrounding GMOs has sparked worldwide riots and the vandalism of crops in Oregon, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Philippines. In May, the governor of Vermont signed a law that will likely make it the first U.S. state to require labels for genetically engineered ingredients; more than 50 nations already mandate them. Vermont State Senator David Zuckerman told Democracy Now!, "As consumers, we are guinea pigs, because we really don't understand the ramifications."

But the truth is, GMOs have been studied intensively, and they look a lot more prosaic than the hype contends. To make Arctic apples, biologists took genes from Granny Smith and Golden Delicious varieties, modified them to suppress the enzyme that causes browning, and reinserted them in the leaf tissue. It's a lot more accurate than traditional methods, which involve breeders hand-pollinating blossoms in hopes of producing fruit with the desired trait. Biologists also introduce genes to make plants pest- and herbicide-resistant; those traits dominate the more than 430 million acres of GMO crops that have already been planted globally. Scientists are working on varieties that survive disease, drought, and flood.

So what, exactly, do consumers have to fear? To find out, Popular Science chose 10 of the most common claims about GMOs and interviewed nearly a dozen scientists. Their collective answer: not much at all.

1) Claim: Genetic engineering is a radical technology.


Humans have been manipulating the genes of crops for millennia by selectively breeding plants with desirable traits. (A perfect example: the thousands of apple varieties.) Virtually all of our food crops have been genetically modified in some way. In that sense, GMOs are not radical at all. But the technique does differ dramatically from traditional plant breeding.

Here's how it works: Scientists extract a bit of DNA from an organism, modify or make copies of it, and incorporate it into the genome of the same species or a second one. They do this by either using bacteria to deliver the new genetic material, or by shooting tiny DNA-coated metal pellets into plant cells with a gene gun. While scientists can't control exactly where the foreign DNA will land, they can repeat the experiment until they get a genome with the right information in the right place.

That process allows for greater precision. "With GMOs, we know the genetic information we are using, we know where it goes in the genome, and we can see if it is near an allergen or a toxin or if it is going to turn [another gene] off," says Peggy G. Lemaux, a plant biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "That is not true when you cross widely different varieties in traditional breeding."

2) Claim: GMOs are too new for us to know if they are dangerous.



It depends on how you define new. Genetically engineered plants first appeared in the lab about 30 years ago and became a commercial product in 1994. Since then, more than 1,700 peer-reviewed safety studies have been published, including five lengthy reports from the National Research Council, that focus on human health and the environment. The scientific consensus is that existing GMOs are no more or less risky than conventional crops.
3) Claim: Farmers can't replant genetically modified seeds.



So-called terminator genes, which can make seeds sterile, never made it out of the patent office in the 1990s. Seed companies do require farmers to sign agreements that prohibit replanting in order to ensure annual sales, but Kent Bradford, a plant scientist at the University of California, Davis, says large-scale commercial growers typically don't save seeds anyway. Corn is a hybrid of two lines from the same species, so its seeds won't pass on the right traits to the next generation. Cotton and soy seeds could be saved, but most farmers don't bother. "The quality deteriorates—they get weeds and so on—and it's not a profitable practice," Bradford says.
4) Claim: We don't need GMOs—there are other ways to feed the world.



GMOs alone probably won't solve the planet's food problems. But with climate change and population growth threatening food supplies, genetically modified crops could significantly boost crop output. "GMOs are just one tool to make sure the world is food-secure when we add two billion more people by 2050," says Pedro Sanchez, director of the Agriculture and Food Security Center at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "It's not the only answer, and it is not essential, but it is certainly one good thing in our arsenal."
5) Claim: GMOs cause allergies, cancer, and other health problems.



Many people worry that genetic engineering introduces hazardous proteins, particularly allergens and toxins, into the food chain. It's a reasonable concern: Theoretically, it's possible for a new gene to express a protein that provokes an immune response. That's why biotech companies consult with the Food and Drug Administration about potential GMO foods and perform extensive allergy and toxicity testing. Those tests are voluntary but commonplace; if they're not done, the FDA can block the products.
One frequently cited study, published in 2012 by researchers from the University of Caen in France, claimed that one of Monsanto's corn GMOs caused tumors in lab rats. But the study was widely discredited because of faulty test methods, and the journal retracted it in 2013. More recently, researchers from the University of Perugia in Italy published a review of 1,783 GMO safety tests; 770 examined the health impact on humans or animals. They found no evidence that the foods are dangerous.

6) Claim: All research on GMOs has been funded by Big Ag.



This simply isn't true. Over the past decade, hundreds of independent researchers have published peer-reviewed safety studies. At least a dozen medical and scientific groups worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have stated that the GMOs currently approved for market are safe.


7) Claim: Genetically modified crops cause farmers to overuse pesticides and herbicides.



This claim requires a little parsing. Two relevant GMOs dominate the market. The first enables crops to express a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to certain insects. It's also the active ingredient in pesticides used by organic farmers. Bt crops have dramatically reduced reliance on chemical insecticides in some regions, says Bruce Tabashnik, a University of Arizona entomologist.
The second allows crops to tolerate the herbicide glyphosate so that farmers can spray entire fields more liberally yet kill only weeds. Glyphosate use has skyrocketed in the U.S. since these GMOs were introduced in 1996. But glyphosate is among the mildest herbicides available, with a toxicity 25 times less than caffeine. Its use has decreased reliance on more toxic alternatives, such as atrazine.

8) Claim: GMOs create super-insects and super-weeds.



If farmers rely too heavily on Bt or glyphosate, then pesticide resistance is inevitable, says Tabashnik. That's evolution at work, and it's analogous to antibiotics creating hardier bacteria. It is an increasing problem and could lead to the return of harsher chemicals. The solution, he says, is to practice integrated pest management, which includes rotating crops. The same goes for any type of farming.


9) Claim: GMOs harm beneficial insect species.



This has been been partly debunked. Bt insecticides attach to proteins found in some insects' guts, killing select species. For most insects, a field of Bt crops is safer than one sprayed with an insecticide that kills indiscriminately. But monarch butterflies produce the same proteins as one of Bt's target pests, and a 1999 Cornell University lab experiment showed that feeding the larvae milkweed coated in Bt corn pollen could kill them. Five studies published in 2001, however, found that monarchs aren't exposed to toxic levels of Bt pollen in the wild.
A 2012 paper from Iowa State University and the University of Minnesota suggested glyphosate-tolerant GMOs are responsible for monarchs' recent population decline. The herbicide kills milkweed (the larvae's only food source) in and near crops where it's applied.

10) Claim: Modified genes spread to other crops and wild plants, upending the ecosystem.



The first part could certainly be true: Plants swap genetic material all the time by way of pollen, which carries plant DNA—including any genetically engineered snippets.
According to Wayne Parrott, a crop geneticist at the University of Georgia, the risk for neighboring farms is relatively low. For starters, it's possible to reduce the chance of cross-pollination by staggering planting schedules, so that fields pollinate during different windows of time. (Farmers with adjacent GMO and organic fields already do this.) And if some GMO pollen does blow into an organic field, it won't necessarily nullify organic status. Even foods that bear the Non-GMO Project label can be 0.5 percent GMO by dry weight.

As for a GMO infiltrating wild plants, the offspring's survival partly depends on whether the trait provides an adaptive edge. Genes that help wild plants survive might spread, whereas those that, say, boost vitamin A content might remain at low levels or fizzle out entirely.

The Rise of GMO Crops

In the U.S., farmers have been planting increasing amounts GMO crops since the seeds became commercially available in 1996. Corn, cotton, and soy—which together occupy about 40 percent of U.S. cropland—are the three crops with the highest GMO fraction by area, each more than 90 percent in 2013.


The GMO fraction by area of corn, cotton, and soy in the top states that grow those crops. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Graphic by Rebecca Lantner.

Dinner, Dissected

Very few genetically modified crops end up on plates, but the ones that do can be found in roughly two-thirds of processed foods sold in the U.S. Genetically modified bacteria and yeasts are also critical to the production of some foods, including many wines and cheeses.

Cheese

Rennet is key in making firm cheeses—specifically, an enzyme called chymosin in the rennet helps harden cheese. Traditional rennet comes from the lining of calf stomachs, but an estimated 80 to 90 percent of hard cheeses in the U.S. are made with bacteria modified with the rennet-producing cow gene.

Corn

Trait: Tolerates herbicides; resists insects
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 85% herbicide-tolerant; 76% insect-resistant
Found in: Processed foods, such as crackers and cereals; corn on the cob; livestock feed

Cotton

Trait: Tolerates herbicides; resists insects
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 82% herbicide-tolerant; 75% insect-resistant
Found in: Processed foods, including salad dressings; livestock feed

Papaya

Trait: Resists ringspot virus     
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: More than 50%  
Found in: Whole fruit and other products

Rapeseed

Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: More than 50%  
Found in: Canola oil; processed foods

Soy

Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 93%
Found in: Processed foods, such as cereals and breads; food additives, such as lecithin; livestock feed

Squash

Trait: Resists various viruses
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 12%
Found in: Whole vegetables and other products

Sugar beets*

Trait: Tolerates herbicides
Total U.S. crop, by acreage: 95%
Found in: Refined sugar

Wine

Certain wine yeasts have been modified to remove histamines that can trigger migraines. One example is yeast strain ML01 in the U.S., which also boosts taste and color.

*No modified proteins remain in the final product.

The Future Of GMOs: Gene Editing

Today's most common GMO technology, recombinant DNA, inserts genes into a plant's cells via bacteria or specialized delivery tools, but it involves some trial and error. A new method called gene editing uses enzymes to snip out a specific bit of DNA to either delete it or replace it. This allows for more precise changes to a plant's genome. Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley are already working with it to create virus-resistant cassava.

Gene editing may also provide fodder for fresh controversy. Current GMO methods leave a trace behind—for example, a bit of the DNA from bacterium used to insert new genes. The enzymes used in gene editing don't leave such a fingerprint, so future genetically modified plants will be harder to detect with tests.

Birfday for me!

"

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/when-a-girl-hits-you/

A new study by Sonja Starr, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan, found that men are given much higher sentences than women convicted of the same crimes in federal court.

The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts with men receiving 51.52 months of imprisonment time as compared to women receiving 18.51 months for the same crime.

Men account for over 90% of combat deaths historically, 93% of workforce deaths and injuries, and 80% of suicide rates, but only account for 34% of divorce initiations and only 16% of custody battle winners.

Out of youths with issues (suicide, dropping out, behavioral issues, prison), most stem from fatherless households, with the minority stemming from motherless households. 63% of the suicides were from fatherless households, 90% were homeless or ran away, 85% with behavioral issues, 70% placed in state-run institutions, and 85% were sent to prison.

Men also account for 76% of homocide victims, and 86% of men who are sexually assaulted or raped are not believed. Men have access to all of 2 domestic violence shelters in the U.S.

Of the 80.1 percent of the parental abuse committed against a child, 17.9 percent was committed by fathers, 0.9 by fathers and another adult figure, 16.8 by mothers and fathers together, 5.7 percent of mothers and another adult figure while 38.7 percent was perpetrated by mothers alone according to a study done in 2007, and “Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004” , child fatalities perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 40.6% of all child fatalities.


I firmly believe there is no real equality in our country.



NIOS
DOJ
CDC
US. Dept. of Health/Census
Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-36
National Principles Association Report
Rainbows For All God's Children
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1998
Fulton co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction
http://thewall-usa.com/information.asp
http://thewall-usa.com/women.asp
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/other/stats/warcost.htm
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/female,aspx
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
http://hatsrcool.com/Americas-Major-Wars.html
http://www.pobronson.com/blog/2006/07/will-this-marriage-last-who-wants-out.html
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID-4887lxo
http://fallenfathers.blogspot.com/2007/03/children-without-fathers-statistics.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/finaldeaths03_tables.pdf
http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_factsaoutprisons.pdf
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/index.html
Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004
Child Maltreatment 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm