from "Farmers Wary of GMO Crops," The Zimbabwean

I continue to be wary of the long-term health effects of some GMO crops, and the use of the poor, uneducated, and/or malnourished as guinea pigs plus the predatory practices of big BioAg doesn't put me any closer to being on the thumbs-up path; however, in the interest of education, this was a good read.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

Of course, I am looking for answers myself, and thus really try to check my skepticism, but this did stand out to me:

...the risk of [GMO crops] could be reliably tested, and had so far proved safe. "With scientists, we never say anything is 100 percent certain one way or another," Dr. Suzuki said. "We weigh conclusions on accumulated knowledge or evidence..." 

Yes, absolutely. But, the big BUT:  Like organic and conventional dairy and vegetables being deemed equal in nutritional profiles just a few years ago, or the scientific claim that thalidomide wouldn't cross the placental barrier, accumulated scientific knowledge sometimes goes horribly wrong. GMO crops should not be rushed to market or be allowed to propagate and be sold while in litigation, and should also be subject to litigation should there be health problems clearly associated with them; they should also submit to continual testing and monitoring once they are in the market (for now), and the patent holders/users be okay with informing the public with labeling so people have a choice.

I'm not one for a nanny state, but this should be the standard when we screw with the basic building blocks of life, especially ones that have the potential to have profound effects on the population.

There are so many promising things in GMOs, so I really hope I'm wrong, but we have to slow. down.

WHAAAAAAAAT?!



What if There was a Custom, Modular and Environmentally Friendly Phone?

Yes, please.

Hope

We [don't] get rid of a military regime [and] replace it with a fascist theocracy.



A Young Boy Explains Why Egyptians Threw Out the Muslim Brotherhood

We live in interesting times indeed.

3-D Printer Company Seizes Machine from Desktop Gunsmith

the Wiki Weapon project aimed to eventually provide a platform for anyone to share 3-D weapons schematics online. Eventually, the group hoped, anyone could download the open source blueprints and build weapons at home.

Hmmmm.

And I didn't know this:

It’s legal in the United States to manufacture a gun at home without a license — provided it’s not for sale or trade. But this doesn’t include all weapons. Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns are illegal to manufacture without a license. There’s also a law requiring “any other weapon, other than a pistol or a revolver … capable of being concealed on the person” to be subject to review by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms an Explosives (ATF).

Wow. I love the implications of 3-D printing technology, and I really don't have a problem with the Second Amendment, but ehhhh --  this stuff has to be regulated somehow. I grew up in a gun-owning, hunting home, and I know the drill:  laws tend to keep honest people honest, if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, etc., but having a gun blueprint available online, for free, to anyone, for download and printing? That's very different than having to build your own out of metal or go to a shop and buy one (or traffic with certain folks to get one illegally).

Oh jeez, it's a bunch of Libertarians. 

When asked about the possibility of a Wiki Weapon hypothetically being used by a child or a mentally unstable individual, Wilson, a fierce libertarian, defended the project.

"People say you're going to allow people to hurt people, well that's one of the sad realities of liberty. People abuse freedom," said Wilson. "But that's no excuse to not have these rights or to feel good about someone taking them away from you."

I am a great admirer of the oft-paraphrased Ben Franklin bit, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." But let's be reasonable about "essential liberty." Wilson is right that people abuse freedom, but you know, we're living in a society. We're supposed to act in a civilized way. Liberties such as these are limited to people who play nice -- free downloads for anyone is decidedly not the same thing. It's going to -- and should -- be regulated, and our government (which is there to protect us too, lest we forget) needs time to to figure it out. Cute little law project and 15 minutes of fame there, but it's pretty cut and dried. Give it a rest.

One other thing: I think it rips through your clothes when it takes you over. Windows found Bennings' torn and bloody clothes in the storage room after he was taken over. Earlier, Nauls found a pair of shredded and dirty longjohns in the kitchen trash can, but the nametag was missing. They could be anybody's. Nobody, nobody trusts anybody now, and we're all very tired. There's nothing more I can do, just wait. This is R.J. MacReady, helicopter pilot, US outpost #31...

Russian Scientists Bore Into Ancient Antarctic Lake

Great news, especially given the horrible accounts from the recent arrests in the Kosovo organ trafficking ring:

UCSF Team Working on Artificial Kidney

The artificial kidney is still at least five years away from being tested in a human patient.... if [Associate Professor Shuva] Roy's team is successful, the kidney will be about the size of a large cup of coffee, and it would last for years, maybe decades, and require no pumps or batteries. Patients wouldn't need anti-rejection drugs either, because there would be no exposed natural tissues for the immune system to attack.

Wow, sometimes I am totally stoked to be living in the 21st century:

Google Earth to allow Exploration of Oceans, Mars

YES! How exciting.

But sometimes, I am both stoked and totally frightened:

'Fantastic Voyage' Revisited: The Pill That Navigates

Philips Research in Eindhoven, the Netherlands, has developed a prototype for a pill that can be programmed to navigate toward a specific trouble spot in the body and deposit its medicine there, radioing dispatches to the doctor as it travels.

This is HUGE. But eek, scary implications for things like biological weapons, suicide bombers, privacy, and personal freedom.

On a side note about personal freedom, oy vey, guess which catalog arrived for me at my generally gun-shy workplace?

Trevor and I also got one at home a few days ago, and I was wracking my brain thinking about how we could have gotten on their list, until I got the one at work today. We had bought each other these sweet tactical flashlights last year (I shipped his to my work), so it's obvious Surefire thinks we are militia members and our names got sold to into proper channels!

But truth be told, as someone who loves authentic (and vintage) military equipment, cheap ammo, and shooting mad guns, the catalog is RAD. But there are some creepy things in there. Like the Kuwait Liberation Medal, "awarded to members of the U. S. Armed Forces who participated in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces between 1990 and 1993."

I suppose there are collectors of that kind of stuff, but c'mon, you just know who else, among others, is buying this stuff and why. Thinking about it makes me do the wince and squirm that I do when other people are embarrassing themselves!

I'm sure many have noticed (ha, how I flatter myself) how I have been ducking the issue of who to endorse for US President in this blog. That's because I had thought I was having a hard time with this upcoming election.

A little background: I turned 18, registered as a Democrat, and began voting around the Persian Gulf War. I re-registered under the Green Party years ago for many reasons -- mainly because I support their platform around social and environmental justice, but almost equally because I think the Democrats have lost their progressive way.

Don't get me wrong, though. If we begin with the establishment bleh of Al Gore and John Kerry, I can say I am regularly in awe of how far the United States has come Democratic candidate-wise during the cold and dark grip of 8 years of Bush/Cheney. I've been reading voraciously about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- a black man and a woman! Both of whom have credible chances of effectively leading the most powerful country in the world (for now). But funny that therein was part of my so-called difficulty.

As much as I would like a woman or black president for the US, it seems unconscionable to me to vote for a candidate based solely on gender or race. But then, here's this article from the Economist last month about how the rest of the world would see the election of a black man or a woman to the American presidency as an act of atonement.

It is striking that many Europeans skate over the political views of Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama and instead treat their fight as a simple Rorschach test of the health of the American dream.

So, yes, unconscionable or not, it's the truth of our human struggle and the reality of global relations. I suppose it's a good thing it's these two running and not catch-all Condi!

But who are they beyond color, gender, liberal soundbites? Obama is young, and -- relative to Clinton -- politically green, but also educated and motivated, and a long-time progressive activist. He's also a born-again who seems to take Thomas Jefferson's separation of church and state to heart. Clinton is more establishment, but she's also a social liberal, and has got the political know-how and experience in Washington as well as internationally.

As someone with a distrust of the old boy network, and with a perpetual optimism that grassroots can always kiss it and make it better, I definitely leaned toward Obama from the beginning. But nagging me was the stark reality that no matter how much political idealism one has, one must remember that cronyism is the way the political game works. Detested as she is by the far right, Hillary has connections in spades, and she's a hell of a lot better than the Republican alternatives. But something still just wasn't right for me with Hillary.

Yesterday, I read a simple and short article by Christopher Hayes in the current issue of The Nation about the fundamental difference between Obama and Clinton. My answer was there all along, but I needed a look at it laid out plain for me to realize it: it really comes down to Clinton's foolish, rash, and cowardly initial 2002 vote authorizing the use of preemptive force against Iraq vs. the unpopular vocalization against it by Obama (joining the brave and consistent anti-war stance of my own US Representative, the admirable Barbara Lee). Another truth: After the catastrophe of the last 8 years, America -- and the rest of the world, for that matter -- needs an American president who will lead us with a voting history of consistent integrity around the health and well-being of our global community. Therein lies the promise of real progressive change that can conceivably translate into reality. So the answer is Barack Obama. And it seems I'm not the only one who thinks so.

It is true that I will support Hillary if she is the candidate who is chosen to lead the Democratic charge -- it is imperative to oust the greater of the two evils if we're to salvage any shred of dignity we have as a nation and contribute to global affairs in any constructive way. But a Democratic ticket with Barack Obama as president, now that would make me proud to vote Democrat again.

Boy, we're really getting the hang of this genome thing, eh? Jeebus.

So very very close to the only thing my friend wants out of stuff like this: a plant that produces meat products, or more colloquially, a chicken bush. Really, that's all he wants.