Massive Use of Hydroxic Acid In Animal and Crop Production

Potatoes sprayed with Hydroxic Acid

Animals and crops in American food production are given massive doses of hydroxic acid. Hydroxic acid is a colorless and tasteless liquid that is used in animal production externally as a sanitation agent, but it’s also ingested in major quantities by animals that end up on your dinner plate. It is a naturally occurring compound that usually does not harm humans unless exposed to the lungs, but it tends to absorb other toxic and non-toxic compounds easily making it potential dangerous to humans.

Hydroxic Acid application system for cattle

Cows are exposed to hydroxic acid externally to fight off disease inducing bacteria and viruses; however, cattle have evolved to be completely dependent on internal use of hydroxic acid for normal bodily functions. All fish and shellfish are immersed in hydroxic acid before they are processed and the compound is typically used in the cleaning and preparing process.

Hydroxic Acid has become so significant to food production that the University of Nebraska is hosting the fourth annual World Conference beginning on May 30th to discuss the use of it for food production. Among the topics to be discussed are the future of hydroxic acid in food production and creative application of the compound in various food production environments.

Paul Kiser – author and consumer of hydroxic acid

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has specific guidelines on the use and quality of hydroxic acid; however, there seems to be no effort to curtail its use in food production other than to avoid the waste of the compound. It is apparent that hydroxic acid will continue to be a part of America’s food chain whether we understand it or not. 

For further information regarding hydroxic acid click on link.

Nevada Newspaper Goes Behind the Wall…to Die

RGJ’s main bunker…entrance in Reno

The Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) recently decided to lock themselves behind a wall and it will cost you at least $12/month to see what they have hidden. Does anyone else see the problem with this business model?

Allow me to reconstruct the history of news media in America to understand why this is a death sentence to the RGJ.

In the 1800′s newspapers owned the information world

1700-1900
In the 1700′s, newspapers became the source of community news. These newspapers often portrayed a political view, but were THE source of information in a society where travel was limited and information scarce. Writers and editors often became key figures in the social and political structure as the gatekeepers of what would be printed.

Radio was faster, but newspapers were corporeal

1900′s
The invention of radio and television gave new options to the public on how they accessed news. The radio offered broadcast news that reached more people faster; however, newspapers remained the source of news because it existed in corporeal form. News transmitted on radio waves disappeared if a person wasn’t in front of the radio during the broadcast. Newspapers; however, almost always gave more a more in-depth account of the events.

Television came shortly after radio and added the exciting features of seeing the reporter and moving images of events; however, newspapers continued to be the best source of significant events.

CNN was to newspapers what Wal-Mart was to Mom & Pop stores

1980
CNN was the first real threat to newspapers. It offered news 24/7/365 and it often relayed events in progress. People no longer had to wait for a newspaper’s version that would come the next day. The newspaper still had the corporeal advantage because CNN would eventually move on to the other news while newspapers could be read anytime. Newspapers also still gave more in-depth reporting on local news issues.

1995
It wasn’t until the creation of the Internet that newspapers faced a challenge that would threaten their existence. The public use of the Internet stripped newspapers of almost every advantage they held. News was not only reported, it was discussed and people reacted in real-time. With the development of the Google search engine topics could be accessed and researched at any time anywhere there was Internet access. The news was no longer filtered and limited to what an editor thought people should know, but rather raw information reached individuals who made their own decisions on what was significant to them.

Reporters who spent years in college and thousands of dollars in tuition and books now found themselves competing against bloggers who had no editors to please. Reporters might get the story and accurately report it to their community but in a real-time world their information was just following up to what people already knew. Newspapers have adapted by presenting an online version of the information that will be in the next day’s paper and that has helped writers compete and be read; however, investors want profit and that is the heart of the dilemma.

The Reno Gazette-Journal has decided that they will create demand and increase revenue by limiting access. That is a rational position to take if you have a product that has significant value and demand, but newspapers and their value appeals to a diminishing demographic. Older white males are dying off at an incredibly rapid pace and newspapers have little demand or value to younger, non-white, non-male demographics. How does RGJ expect to gain new readers by charging for access who have free access to local online news through three Reno television news station’s webpages?

There is another problem with RGJ’s decision that may impact the quality of writing. A writer for RGJ has to accept that their audience will be extremely limited. Blogs will exist for decades and are be searchable to anyone in the world. An RGJ reporters work is locked away behind a wall forever. Who wants to dedicate their life to writing and have it unread? Over time writers will have to decide how much damage RGJ is doing to their career by locking their work behind a pay wall. Once the good writers are gone, what value will the Reno Gazette-Journal have to anyone, paying or otherwise?

Should Conservatives Be Put In Time Out?

When reason fails it’s time to try a Time Out

My six year-old son is mostly well-behaved; however, there are times he throws a tantrum that makes one wonder if an exorcism is appropriate. Anyone with a small child has probably seen their pride and joy go into a fit of shouting and anger where he/she can’t be reasoned with or talked back down to reality. It is at those times we send our son into his room for a few minutes to collect himself and try to re-engage with life in this world.

Swiss Citizen Michele Bachmann – Voted Most Likely to Know God…and He’s a Conservative!

My experiences with this type of behavior makes me well-versed in recognizing similar behavior in adults, a behavior that Conservatives seemed to have adopted as a way of life. In issue after issue Conservatives seem to take the most ridiculous position that can only be supported if one assumes we live in an alternate universe where logic and reason don’t apply. Applying the remedy that usually works with a six year-old, maybe it’s time for America to put Conservatives in Time Out.

Don’t get me wrong, I value the counter-balance that Conservatives give to the Liberal point-of-view. The input of both political ideologies are vital to help guide our nation through the constantly evolving challenges of human endeavor.

Rick Santorum – Extremist’s Lap Dog…but he’ll support Romney…didn’t you get his email?

However, Conservatives have been hijacked by a mob that sees compromise as the work of Satan. They believe that any viewpoint that doesn’t agree with the wild-eyed, gun-tote’n, racist, Bible thumpin’, right-wing ideology just ain’t American. Today these people are the face of Conservatism and are leading the Republican party around by the nose hairs.

Why are normally rational people allowing extremists to use their political party as their doormat? The answer lies in one simple fact, Conservatism is not what America needs now and rather than be put on the shelf for several years, Conservatives are trying to shore up their dwindling ranks with anyone that can fog a mirror and vote for their party.

Mitt Romney – It’s all Obama’s fault and I saved the auto industry!

Conservatives have never been successful at economic recovery, probably because their policies have a history of destroying economies, so when the chips are down Conservatives don’t get a lot of popular support by the rational-thinking public. Historically, this has meant that the Democratic party takes over and pulls America back on even keel.

However, in 1980, Conservatives like Ronald Reagan began creating a mythology to put the Republican party in power and pull the nation hard right. Their method required Americans willingly suspend disbelief and be led by faith, not by fact. Conservatives use short statements that rely on a hate-based philosophy that sounds great, but fails the truth test. A famous example is Reagan’s blame the government quote:

Ronald Reagan used words like the bullets in a prop gun. They looked real, but were just blanks

“….government is not the solution to our problem. The government is the problem.”

That statement sounds like a great truth, but it is just a hate-based strategy that uses a partial truth to make a false conclusion. Reagan could have just as easily said:

“….humans are not the solution to our problem. Humans are the problem.”

In the second statement, the partial truth is that humans and human nature is the source of our problems, but does that mean humans are not also capable of being part of a solution. Do we need to eliminate humans to solve our problems? It’s a silly statement.

Statements like these are meant to evoke emotion. The intention is to rile up a crowd and create a lynch-mob mentality. Extremists (at either end of the spectrum) eat up hate-based statements like these as if they were candy. Extremists don’t need a cause, they just need someone hate.

For decades Conservatives have been trying to stay in power by running into the political theatre and yelling ‘FIRE’ in order to direct us away from solving our problems. That’s not going to work forever because as Abraham Lincoln said:

You can fool all of the people some of the time
You can fool some of the people all of the time
But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

We need the Conservatives to be there to keep us Liberals in check, but to perform that role they need to be firmly rooted in reality and they are not. Until Conservatives can calm down and play nicely with everyone else they need to sit in the corner a while and think about how they can cooperate with the rest of us Americans.

Conservatives Casting Themselves in WWII Sitcom?

Mitt Romney as the 'I-do-what-i'm-told' Schultz and John Boehner as the bumbling Colonel Klink

The more I listen to the public statements of the top Conservatives, the more I’m convinced that they are trying to play out the roles of the German soldiers in the late 60′s/early 70′s sitcom Hogan’s Heroes.

House Speaker John Boehner rants on as if he’s in charge of everything just like Colonel Wilhelm Klink who was the figurehead of his command.

Mitt Romney could also be cast as Colonel Klink, but he would be more appropriate for the role of Sargent Schultz who knows “nothing” and sees “nothing” even thought reality is staring him in the face.

Karl Rove even looks like General Burkhalter

In contacts, a WWII German officers cap and uniform, Rove could be General Burkhalter

Another key player in this political year sitcom is Karl Rove, who acts as General Burkhalter as he rarely gets his hands dirty with the details, but seems to have the power to make idiots more idiotic as he pushes absurd plans of conquest onto Colonel Klink and his underlings.

A typical script for their recasting:

(Colonel Klink and Sargent Schultz are in the Colonel’s office.)

Schultz: (Romney speaking with a bad German accent): Colonel, I know I’m not supposed to understand anything, but it does seem that the prisoners are not taking us seriously anymore.

Klink:  (Boehner speaking with no accent at all)  Schultz! How dare you question the authority of your superiors!

Schultz:  Yes sir! I-I-I mean NO sir…I mean I was only trying to say….

Klink:  Oh, shut up Schultz. Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. We tell the Americans…uhm, the prisoners what they are supposed to think and they go off and think whatever they want to. They seem to believe facts now rather than what we tell them.

Schultz:  I know what you mean, sir. I tell them women are unimportant and they don’t believe me. I tell them it’s the economy and they seem to know it was our policies that caused the problems. I tell them the rich are job creators and they want to know why they are not creating jobs now that they are richer than ever…

Klink:  Yes, yes, Schultz, I am perfectly aware of what the prisoners think of us.

(Enter Karl Rove as General Burkhalter speaking in a nasal bad German accent.)

Burkhalter:  KLINK! Is this all you do is stand around and talk all day! Tell me you have something better to be doing!

Klink:  No Sir! ….I mean YES, sir…I mean…Sargent Schultz, tell him what I mean….

Schultz:  Ya Voldt, Herr Commandant! What the Colonel means to say–

Burkhalter:  Oh, shut up Schultz!

Schultz:  Ya Voldt, GenER-al Burkhalter, SIR!

Burkhalter:  Klink, we have a problem with the prisoners.

Schultz:  The Colonel and I were just–

Klink:  Shut up, Schultz! …uhm, you heard the General…now, what were you saying?

Burkhalter:  I said, we have a problem with the prisoners.

Klink:  And which problem do we have with the prisoners, General?

Burkhalter:  They don’t believe us anymore!

Klink:  Exactly! We were just saying that the prisoners don’t believe us anymore! The Americans think we don’t know what the issues are and they know we caused many of the problems. They’re blaming us!

Burkhalter:  And what was your plan to take care of this, Klink?

Klink:  I…we…wanted to hear your opinion before we took any action, General Rove…I mean Burkhalter.

Burkhalter:  The solution is so easy I’m amazed you didn’t come up with it on your own.

Klink:  Well, we didn’t want to take credit for the General’s ideas…WHICH we knew you would eventually tell us. So what is the plan that we came up with before you told us?

Burkhalter:  Klink, it is simple. When they say something is our fault we blame them!

Klink:  We blame them?

Schultz:  Excuse me, General, won’t they know we were to blame?

Burkhalter:  The Americans are stupid.

Klink:  So when they say we turned a blind eye to corrupt banking practices, and sent billions of dollars overseas to fight two unnecessary wars led to the economic collapse of the nation?

Burkhalter:  We didn’t do it. It was the policies of the past three years, not the incompetence of the previous eight years.

Schultz:  The economy is getting better?

Burkhalter:  It’s their fault it’s not getting better faster.

Klink:  Our abuse of women and ignorance of their issues?

Schultz: They created the issue, we love women!

Burkhalter:  …women in their place, of course, but you’re getting the idea.

Klink:  General, you always know what’s best!

Schultz:  That is why he is the General and you are….uhm.

Klink:  Schultz….!

Burkhalter:  I must be going, by the way, I’m taking your Secretary into town to visit a sick brother. She will be back tomorrow.

Klink:  Of course, General Burkhalter. Please let her know that if there is anything we can do….

Burkhalter:  No Klink. I will have everything in hand. Goodbye! (Burkhalter leaves)

Schultz:  That is strange, Herr Commandant.

Klink:  What’s that Schultz?

Schultz:  Your secretary was just telling me she is an only child.

(Cue music.)

The Second Coming of Mitt Romney

The 'Next' Mitt Romney is Coming

Mitt Romney now has been anointed by the Republican party to be their nominee for President. The crown of thorns will be placed on him in August, but the Victor of The GOP Hunger Games has been decided. To gain this ‘honor’ Romney had to become someone who was ‘seriously conservative.’ To appease the wackos in the far right he had to remake himself into a blue jeans-wear’n, women hate’n, gun-luv’n, good ole white boy. 

Now that he has completed his mission, he is absolutely unelectable as President. The Spring 2012 version of Mitt Romney has become someone everyone can hate. To women he is the symbol of the Republican desire to dominate and control them. To the middle class, he is a rich, arrogant millionaire. To the far right he is the worst best-case scenario. Despite polling data that currently puts him close to President Obama, Romney carries so much baggage that he can’t say anything without contradicting himself.

To have a chance of winning in November, the Romney image must die and be reborn. His campaign knows this and they have been planning for the Second Coming of Mitt Romney. On March 21, senior campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom was questioned by CNN about the problem of being too conservative in the primaries to win the moderate vote in the general election. Fehrnstrom answered with the now infamous ’Etch-a Scetch‘ response:

“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,…It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”

Romney’s campaign has obviously been constructing a ‘new’ Mitt Romney; however, the candidate cannot afford to lose the wacko right, so the Vice-President honor has to go to someone who will suck in those from the Church of Christians in Name Only. Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin are possibilities for that role. Newt Gingrich is only in the running for the position of “Most likely to be an answer on Jeopardy®” ¹

(¹In the category of Famous Hypocrites: In 2012, he ran a Presidential campaign complaining about the size of the Federal Debt, while running up a debt of almost $4.5 million himself.)

Romney to be recreated in whose image?

Many political analysts predict Romney’s running mate will be Hispanic, but that seems unlikely as Romney has family roots in Mexico that have yet to be exploited in his campaign. There is the issue of the reason he has family in Mexico, but there are many ways that the connection to Mexico could be made without highlighting the Mormon Polygamy Colonies from where his father, George Romney was born.

Part of Romney’s extreme makeover has to be a move back to a more moderate position on all issues. This can best be achieved by the technique of plausible denial of responsibility. In Romney’s case he needs to separate himself as the decision maker on all hot button issues. His answer to Planned Parenthood’s future? That will depend on who the people elect to Congress in 2012. On Immigration? That depends on who the people elect to Congress in 2012. On Obamacare? Well, you see the pattern. By shifting the decision to ‘the people’ he will absolve himself of appearing too moderate or too extremist.

The Next Mitt Romney will be vastly different from the one that was ‘seriously conservative;’ however, if anyone can pull off a Second Coming it will the Mr. Blue Jeans common man…I mean Mr. Suit millionaire…the destroyer of companies…uhm…the creator of jobs….I mean the Mormon from Massachusetts, Michigan, Mexico,…I mean the …oh who knows…? 

Romney Defending Women? Who is He Kidding?

“the Democratic Party has done an effective job trying to mischaracterize our views”

Mitt Romney, regarding  women’s issues. April 2012

Romney keeping his hands clean from touching women's issues

According to Mitt Romney the reaction of women to the Republican view of issues important to them (women’s health choices, birth control, education, social justice, etc.) is part of an evil plot by the Democrats. Romney seems to feel that the GOP’s well-documented misogynistic views would not be an issue, if only women and the other political party would conveniently ignore them.

Among the many alleged ‘mischaracterizations’ was last month’s tirade by Rush Limbaugh who made a horrific personal attack on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, calling her a slut and a prostitute because she voiced her support to require mythological-based institutes to offer physician ordered pharmaceuticals even if it was contrary to their mythology. 

If Romney was not just another Conservative Pig-in-a-Suit he COULD have said:

Mr. Limbaugh’s characterization of Sandra Fluke was slanderous and outrageous. His attack on this honorable American was absolutely and unequivocally inappropriate for in any decent society. Mr. Limbaugh should immediately apologize to Ms. Fluke and to women in general. This type of discourse should never occur in the media or on the street as it lessens the moral character of every citizen of this great country.

Instead Romney’s reaction was:

“I wouldn’t have used those words.” 

What words would Romney used? Would he rather Limbaugh called her a whore or a bitch? Romney inferred his approval of Limbaugh’s statement in general, just a difference of verbiage.

In addition to his impotent reaction to Limbaugh’s remarks, when asked about Planned Parenthood, a program that provides a wide range of low and no cost health care for women, Romney has been quoted as saying:

“…we’re going to get rid of that!” (Romney, March 2012)

Despite his clear views against women and issues they care about, multi-millionaire, jean-clad Romney is now trying win women back. His campaign is surrounding him with women at political events where, rather than listening to them, he talks down to them. He tells women that the economy is what they care about and that a recovering economy under Obama is bad for women. Romney wants women to support him in his bid to return to the Republican policies of deregulation that destroyed our economy at the hands of Conservative business men who decided “Greed is Great” even when it put our country at the brink of disaster.

Ann Romney betraying American women with a kiss

Ann Romney, Mitt’s spouse, has been put front and center as the face of ‘the average’ woman. As a homemaker raising five boys she would seem to be a great image to counter the chauvinism of the Republican party; however, there is a disconnect between the difficulty the spouse of a multi-millionaire might have raising five boys and that of a woman of five boys whose husband has just laid off because Mitt Romney’s investors have just purchased his company and sliced it up and sold it off for the capital. Somehow the challenges Ann Romney may have had in deciding which SUV to take to the boy’s soccer game just doesn’t seem to be a fair portrayal of women.

Romney’s campaign was up in arms about one Democrat who said that Ann Romney “has not worked a day in her life.” While that remark was  poorly worded, there is no comparison between the resources Ann Romney had with millions of dollars at her disposal and the average American woman. If Romney feels that is a ‘mischaracterization’ he can kiss my Karl Rove.

Romney is Wrong

“Liberals don’t like business.”

Mitt Romney, April 2, 2012

Mega-millionaire Mitt Romney trying to look 'common' to the little people with Senator John McCain

Mitt Romney is wrong…in so many ways,…but this week Mr. I-wear-jeans-so-I’m-just-like-you got it wrong at a political event in Wisconsin. Romney claimed to know what liberals think, and he thinks liberals don’t like business. That fodder is being served up to Conservatives who have spent years characterizing liberals as the spawn of Satan, but per normal, the truth is far from the five cent analysis offered by the Republican Presidential nominee (stick a fork in the GOP selection process, the wanna-bes are done.)

Liberals don’t trust business, but liberals do respect the importance of business in a healthy society. Not trusting business does not equate to not liking business.

Liberals are justified in their skepticism. Business is driven by profit. It is the alpha and omega of all enterprise. Business typically doesn’t believe in fair play, sympathy, or what is right for America. In fact, business has little interest in doing what is right even for its own customer. In publicly owned companies, the investor and next quarter’s profitability usually trumps the wants and expectations of the customer. Consider banks, airlines, and oil companies. Those are three major industries that have proved over and over that the individual customer is a piece of meat to be used and abused. Airlines fight even basic human rights for their passengers.

The fact is that business can’t be trusted. Business fails…. a lot, and they fail, not because government drove them to failure, but because the leaders of those companies were greedy, stupid, or both. Most companies last a few decades before they do something stupid, or fail to be smart about the future. A recent example is Kodak. For decades it was the dominant players in the camera film industry, then it had competition, and then it failed to adapt to a digital world. Where is Kodak now?

On Monday, Romney singled our the United States steel industry as an example of how government regulation has killed business. Again, Romney was wrong; however, he gave a classic example of how greed and stupidity by business executives destroyed their own companies. During the 20th century America’s steel industry failed to reinvest and upgrade their steel plants, believing that they were too big to fail. They were wrong.

There is no doubt that labor unions also played a role in escalating costs of United States steel; however, even an executive of US Steel admitted it was the shortsightedness of management that opened the door for competition to challenge and overtake the domination of the United States in steel production in the 1970′s and 80′s.

There is no doubt that private business is important to America’s economy. Yet, business needs oversight to keep them honest and to save America from the greedy and the stupid.

Mitt Romney might think that pandering to the myths of the right will make him a good President, but he would be wrong.