This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
On Slime and Water
Slimy
Just saying the words, “Pink Slime” gives me the creeps. I’m not pleased to learn that I’ve been dining on this swill for the past sixty years. The US Department of Agriculture has made an interesting response to the public outcry about slime. (Link) Starting in September, every school district in the country will have the right to chose whether to buy burgers with or without slime.
Think where this goes. Beverly Hills schools will have no slime, while East LA is all slime. Scottsdale will go slime free, while Phoenix has slime-fattened burgers. Westchester will definitely go "No Slime", but I'm guessing the schools in the Bronx will opt for slime. Same for Bethesda versus the District of Colombia.
Should we see this new form of “red lining”, income disparity will be a topic of discussion. When school rolls around again, it will be at the height of the election. It will be interesting to see how the candidates handle slime.
The FDA left it up to restaurants and grocery stores to deal with slime as they wish. Without any rules, the public will decide what they want in their burgers.
Some tony restaurants have already changed their menus to assure their customers they are not eating slime. (If the menu has be changed, does that mean they were dishing up slime before?) It’s just a matter of time until more eateries follow suit. This has some interesting implications.
A fellow walks into McDees:
Can I have a quarter-pounder with cheese, fries and a coke?
Yes sir! How would you like that burger? With, or without slime?
It’s funny how a word can make a difference. I’m a big burger guy, so I went and bought a meat grinder and some chuck from the butcher. Delicious, made all the better knowing it wasn’t slimy. Very "Old School".
*************
Peak Water
Twenty thousand folks from all over the world showed up at the World Water Forum in Marseilles, France this week. For those who lose sleep at night worrying about peak oil, I suggest they re-direct their stress to Peak Water. Peak oil may scare us to death, but peak water will be what kills us. In less than forty years, two out of three people will be living in areas described as being in Severe Water Stress.
There are two ways of looking at consumption of water on a global basis. The first is per capita: (Total per capita use = Agricultural + Industrial + Municipal + Individual consumption / Population
The USA is the world’s water glutton based on this measure of consumption, due to our industrial water use. GDP is directly correlated to total water consumption. A second way to look at water consumption is by comparing total gallons used.
By this matrix, China and India are the truly big users. Now look at geographic areas that are “water troubled.” China and India jump out as problems. (Mexico too?) Most of India and substantial portions of China are already stressed:
With a population of 1.2 billion, India is already facing a water crisis in some areas.
.
The US is in a very favorable position when it comes to water. There is adequate rainfall in most areas; the Great Lakes hold 22% of all fresh water. If water is to be the difference in history, then the USA will probably be the last country drinking. Unless we screw it up….
.
»
- advertisements -
but peak oil (energy) IS peak water. ie we have no water shortage on this planet. what we have is not high enough purity water in the right places with population - this ends up being an energy problem, not a water one.
in CA they keep raising rates because of the cost of pumping water many many miles. the water grid is similar to the electric grid, built in a century when there were fewer people, the uses were industrial, (or agricultural) and the losses in the viaduct or electric grid were offset by economic growth. though i have been told by people who work there, that Phoenix for instance has a lot of water, their problem with growth has to do with sewage, or how to return that water to the source. their sewer and drain system is inadaquete to sustain more growth, but the water is there.
there are different problems in the midwest, the Ogalalla aquifer, which is being depleted nearly as fast as people and agriculture are moving out. In Colorado it is against the law to collect rainwater off your roof. the water belongs to the watershed which feeds into the Colorado River, and that water is owned by other users, many in LA. the Colorado river no longer makes it all the way to the Gulf of Cortez in Mexico, where some people are working on desalinization projects, so perhaps someday if you live in Colorado you can walk in the rain and let a few drops touch your tongue without being arrested.
a socalled food expert on MSM last night gave the burgers the TASTE test, and he couldn't tell the difference (yumm) but you could see one burger sitting in a puddle of pink goo while it cooked, which brings up this matter. have you ever noticed that gray sludge that forms around your burger in the pan? perhaps slime is not new at all, but pink is. i have always noticed that good meat doesn't throw off a halo, or have a lot of water which cheap ground is made with lots of water. in the old days the butcher put his finger on the scale, now the FDA puts it there for him.
we went through this thing about hydolyzed vegtable protein a few years ago, remember when Taco Bell was caught selling 'beef' tacos which didn't have enough beef to meet the legal definition. turns out the legal definition is around 40%. our food has been crap for years, which is why bourdain and zimmern travel all over eating bugs and haggis and other crap that we mostly laugh at third world people eating this garbage. turns out the joke is on us
I see the koch bros are out in force today.
Time to Colonize Europa one must say, Shame that people think having kids to carry on something of their genes is killing the planet. Ties the tubes and who cares about having kids. What a crap load of ideology, family and crap.
Take oil of speculation. Observe the results across several categories. If the price per barrel declines, the speculators WERE the problem, past tense. If speculators are unemployed, tough luck.
Intelligent use of water is best left to the Democrats to figure out. We've seen the result of Phil Gramm and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which kept the bank system sound in this country, and the creation, in private and with no regulation, of secondare derivative financial products. Best reason in the world to ring fence Republicans and keep their bullcrap greed out of the decision making process.
While we're getting rid of universal human emotions such as greed, let's also work on getting rid of fear too. Your comment is extremely silly-but not in a Monty Python good way. You can't set a price on anything without speculation and a market mechanism. This is the problem with central control by "experts" like the FED who try to determine the "correct" price of money. Why do you think oil is so special? Its not different than water, milk, coffee, etc.
Please take that Left/Right bullshit and stuff it back up your ass where it came from.
Agreed, the LR dichotomy is BS, it fits right next to your naive political philosophy....
Is this one of MDB's alternate personas? I hope so.
Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, based on the advice of Rubin and Greenspan (along with the rest of Wall Street).
The availability of non-radioactive water is fast approaching zero, and no one knows the results when the radioactivity mixes with all the other man-made chemicals already infused and non-filterable, such as female hormones from all the birth control pills.
Will this accelerate the decrease of male sperm counts around the world, as it mutates our DNA?
Someone mentioned the Georgia Guidestones. They never anticipated they would be included. Their estimate of 500,000,000 total population will consist of mutated humans unable to reproduce healthy children.
I salute their ignorance.
ya see, the demand for water is in big numbers, bigger than oil - so it doesn't really matter if you have 22% in the great lakes, you still have to move some fraction of that 22% from there to somewhere else. The, the 22% has to 'replenish'; that is more problematic. I don't think there is anything that man can do to 'engineer' the water cycle, the trick is to have your source of water replenish at the same rate as you are depleting it.
The pollution carried along agricultural and industrial effluent - kills off coastal waters. Supposedly 70% of sea life lives in coastal areas, on corals. now largely bleached. Plankton IS the base of the food chain, which doesn't rely on the coasts, but they do rely on other sea-life. The loss of minerals transferance due to a collapse in sea-life would make diminish the capacity of the planet to support even land-based life.
Every seven-year old knows this. Why do you think whales commit suicide - the inability of men to be aware of consciousness in animals (so fucking stupid) - they're the largest of the sea, it's their responsibility. Man has murdered the sea, for ones and zeroes i turns out they could print just for the hell of it - how fortunate for the inhabitant of earth that he had freemasons in power, knowledge my left fucking arse.
How about when the world realizes all the water is contaminated with logarithmically-increasing amounts of Fukushima radiation? The radioactive rain contaminating all of our food supply? There's no filtering that. The mutation of global DNA is already taking place. Give this 5 years . . .
Over 50% of the world's oxygen comes from phytoplankton, which is highly susceptable to radiation damage. Between direct Fuku ocean dumping and the radioactive rain, our oxygen will only last so long. Can't buy more.
The US push for war is the last gasp of a dying aristocracy willing to go down in flames, for their own perverted sense of glory. Actually, it's more like, "If we can't have it, you can't have it, either". A global version of the Japanese government's push for national suicide by not evacuating and spreading the radioactive debris around, while the wind and rain will complete their plan.
With all their money and power, they can't prevent the destruction of their own DNA within two generations. It's over for them, and we will all suffer their madness.
Krasting - I'm calling you out on a bullshit post. Your implication is we will someday drain our lakes and rivers dry by fracking. Do some research before you make bogus claims. Add up all of the water used to frack and divide it by any measure of the amount of water that is available.
You imply the Great Lakes is a one off resource that we might deplete some day. Perhaps you have never been to Niagra Falls? Where do you suppose all of that excess water that flows into the sea comes from? Ever seen the Mississippi flood, the Red River, the Allegany?
Scare tactics of the progressives to hide their real agendaes.
Oklahoma and the "water privatization debate." Read up on it.
Some points to ponder.
That water evaporates, becomes rain..flows back to the sea again. Hydrologic cycle - powered by the Sun.
This process also purifies and cleans the water same as distillation would. So cool!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1:7&version=KJV
As that water flows over Niagara falls, it erodes the edge of the falls. This erosion is measurable. IF the falls are 'billions' of years old, why is there only about 4000 years of erosion there.
As natural erosion takes place, dirt is washed into the river deltas. This erosion is measurable. Why is there only about 4000 years worth of eroded dirt in the deltas?
"My Big Bang is different than your Big Bang".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY#t=26m20s
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act said:
Your premise is faulty. Niagara Falls was formed about ten to eleven thousand years ago following the retreat of glaciation at the end of the last ice age.
Also, while the erosion is measurable, it is not constant. The current rate of erosion is about one foot per year, which is down from the historical average rate of three feet per year. Given that historical knowledge of the falls goes back about four hundred years, our knowledge of its erosion rate is limited to a snapshot of the most recent four percent of its existence. Thus the erosion you attribute to "only about 4000 years" is just as plausibly attributed to eleven thousand years.
By the way, if you're trying to infer scientific evidence that the earth was formed several thousand years ago rather that 4.5 billion years ago, you're making two major mistakes.
First, a huge scientific consensus agrees that evidence across a variety of scientific disciplines supports the current estimate of 4.5 billion years as the earth's age. Various theories across multiple scientific fields align in their support of this estimate. Because the level of theory is the highest attainable level by an explanation in the scientific realm, replacement of any one of them will require a preponderance of evidence to justify the change. Changing the earth age estimate from billions of years to thousands of years would require compelling evidence for the replacement of many theories across multiple fields.
The second major mistake is that if you require a refutation of current scientific consensus in order to accept your religious beliefs, all you are doing is exhibiting a lack of faith. Faith is a major component of many religions. If you don't have faith, you're doing it wrong.
Ok... we now know where the deer in the head-light mentality comes from...
Not that you strike me as a bad person....
ahhh, I'm beginning to see your flavour.
Imapopulistnow,
You are absolutely right. The best minds are working on the problems. There will be enough water, and hearty high protein food. it just requires development. Now that we have genetically modified crops, we can concentrate on the protein side of our food chain.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/19/10449704-lab-grown-hamburger-due-to-be-served-up-this-year-for-330000
I wonder if they will be good whitefish can be grown to replace the carp in the Great Lakes.
And now I'm calling you out on a bullshit comment. He's referring to the proven ground water contamination due to fracking jackass.
It is the salt mines you gotta watch out for. Cue dramatic music and sinister/serious narrator voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sABTJW-ix9k
Oopsie.
Yeah, I am going just leave this video here for people to consider. Matter (things like water) is not created or destroyed. It can change form..but that is about it. The earth is a closed system with a external energy input.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EI7FxbdsUE
Consider all the hysteria around mines like these. Then consider..is metallic lead water soluble? What about its oxides. What about the salts. Look at the stuff they are diving in. Look clean to you? Would the water in this mine be polluted? Just look at it. This is the worst of the worst after all....I mean...a LEAD mine..gasp..shudder... I mean the only thing scarier might be a cinnabar smelter...
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/080/index.html#sample2
Consider also that ALL of the lead ever produced by this mine also still exists (though not necessarily in usable form). For whatever reason, humans like to turn this particular element into bullets and then spend their time shooting it back into the earths crust again.
Now consider fossil fuels. Where does that stuff go? Remember...matter is not EVER destroyed. What about things like Styrofoam. What is that stuff made from exactly? Hydrogen and Carbon Atoms. Look up polystyrene on Wikipedia. Ever burn a Styrofoam cup? Looks terrible? Black smoke? Looks toxic? It is just finely divided carbon soot and hydrogen. Some of the hydrogen even turns to water during combustion.
Consider the vast underground reservoirs like this - some of them miles deep. Crystal clear Water. Yes that limestone is like one great big giant self cleaning Brita filter. Oxidation, bacterial action, chemical combination..amazing really. Consider also the vast reserves of crude like this. They also exist. The earth is an insanely huge place.
Fracking...pfft...like setting off a firecracker in the ocean.
Some people need to go back and look at the 1950's science textbooks again. What do you get with human activity and carbon dioxide release? Bigger plants. It is an automatic self regulating mechanism. Human activity is part of the eco-system! Kinda like it was made that way. Oh wait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
Holy shit, I'm not even sure where to start with that insane amount of garbage spewing from your dirty suck. Ever stood over that burning styrofoam cup and breathed in? Did it feel like you were breathing clean air and some "water"? Matter might not ever be destroyed, but it can be changed to something toxic to humans...the earth is massive but also finite.
Interesting response.
Yes...the earth is finite. Let's put that into terms of landfills. Not a big fan of Penn and Teller but they knock it out of the park on this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvz-z7CvsYA#t=4m32s
Please watch. There has never been a time like this in history when people can actually find out the truth.
Even water can be toxic to humans if you inhale it into your lungs. My point is that the by product of burning styrofoam is not a toxic substance. It is plain old simple carbon soot. Would I put it in my lungs? No. Yes. Can it be converted back to something harmless by burning? Yes. We have all kinds of rules, codes and regulations now that have unintended consequences. One that I can think of in particular is the laws against long standing forrestry practices like burning brush. Instead, we chip, and haul and compost which probably releases more harmful things like methane into the air than a good old fashioned bon-fire.
There is this idea that CO2 is somehow a bad thing and should be regulated. CO2 is the very breath of life. Ever wonder why so many species trees are getting diseases and dying? Ever think it might be because they are suffocating because they don't have enough CO2? It is what they take in and use in the process of photosynthesis. Most of the actual plant material comes from taking in carbon from the air. It doesn't come from the dirt.
We have these laws not because of logic or common sense or science. Far from it. Most of them come from someone being offended and saying 'there oughtta be a law'. Or maybe because someone had a economic or political motive for passing those laws. Go and learn about the company ENRON.
Liberty and Freedom and the protection of property rights will encourage people to be good stewards of the land more than any rules, regulations or codes. It takes people to find the highest and best use for land. They have to be given the freedom to do that and the guarantee that if they do, they will be able to keep the fruits of their labor. Government serves it's highest and best use when it protects peoples rights, liberties and freedoms.
Here's the problem with your "analysis"-entropy. When you use relatively pure water (in a low entropic state) to frack rock by adding surfactants, electrolytes and other chemicals known to be toxic, what do you do with the complex mixture when you're done? Store it in pools above ground is the current answer-like big toxic mine tailings or leach pools-also complex mixtures. Now to restore those complex (high entropy) mixtures to a lower pure state takes work and energy-just like all water purification does-or any process that reduces the entropy of a system (e.g. life itself). So, you better get more energy out of the gas released by fracking than it takes to restore the water to its initial state. But you can't do it. This is the key problem with fracking and mining and oil sands as well. The producers shove their purification and restoration problems back on someone else-the public. You know the old banking theme-private profits, public losses. But hey, its other people's money (OPM).
indeed, I have been wondering
and my wondering led me to do some research, some personal observation of the skies, and some chatting with people - here's some of what I've found so far:
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20100416.htm
it's a good article to get started with. . .
The outcome of peak oil is really simple to understand: during the 10,000 years since H sapiens figured out agriculture, the planetary human population bumped around 500 million. After humans discovered how to mine coal and pump oil, the population soared to over 7 billion. Once the economically recoverable coal and oil are gone (probably mid-century), the population will quickly return to 500 million (probably less due to topsoil and ground water losses).
The planet is serenely unimpressed with all rationalizations and fantasies to the contrary.
You are making a huge assumption that oil is the only answer and that we will always rely on oil to provide energy. I will concede the point that large corporate farms rely on fossil fuels to produce food, for fertilizer, etc. I would also argue that this nation was much stronger and healthier when we had a large number of small family farms providing our food. The fact that a large number of these farms were foreclosed and placed into dead corporate hands is important to note. mort-gage = dead-pledge. Henry Ford's vision was that farmers could provide the fuel for his cars and tractors by devoting a portion of their corn production to fuel production. Henry Ford had 'flex fuel' cars before 'flex fuel' was cool. Remember..that fuel you burn is not destroyed. It returns to the air...the corn plants growing in a farm field can take it back in and ..recycle it.
People owned their land. No property taxes. Free and clear - safe and sound. They passed it down to their children. Because of this, it was in their best interests not to pollute the land and it was natural for them to be good stewards of it and take good care of it.
We also had a huge and complex public transportation system via streetcars, trolleys, etc. in our cities...this was all dismantled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcars_in_North_America
If people are free and they have a sound monetary system, they will solve the problems. Only people can do this. Not corporations. Not government. Not committees. Before 1913, we had no debt, no income tax and made 50 percent of the worlds goods here in the USA. I would like to go back to that system.
Here is the difference, the money was 'coin' in the hands of the people. The money power rested with the people and they made the highest and best use of it. Where does the money power rest now?
"We have been dealing with the effect of things rather than with the cause of things."
http://www.afn.org/~govern/mcfadden_speech_1932.html
"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." - John Adams
Also consider this film. There is plenty of land out there for every American that wants a farm like this.
http://www.archive.org/details/victory_garden
Revert..., solar flux is intermittent (think nighttime), low intensity, and diffuse (distributed over a very large area). By the time you allow for food consumed by draft animals and insects as well as land left in timber for construction and process heat, the combination of well-watered arable land and solar flux permitted a population of around 500 million. Fossil fuels represent solar energy stored over literally 100's of millions of years. Their exploitation was a game-changer, and their exhaustion will be, too.
I believe it is possible to discern truth.
I believe that the 'truth' is often very different than what we are taught.
You state 'billions of years' to store up that energy.
You state that fossil fuels will be 'exhausted'.
100 years ago, nuclear energy would have been a fantasy. Now it is reality.
Do you know for sure that fossil fuels will be exhausted? Do you know for sure that technology will not come up with an alternative?
I would ask that you take another look at this subject. Start at the beginning and look again.
Examine your belief system in the light of logic. Sometimes the best way to do that is to take someone far outside your belief system and listen to what he says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY#t=26m0s
I think you will be surprised if you have the patience to watch this whole video and then do your own research.
You make some good observations... but it is far more complicated than that...
In essence you are arguing that we must return to an low technology agrarian society...
Are you aware of what fraction of the current 18 million barrels a day are related to food production and distribution in the US?
It does not have to be a 'low-techonology' agrarian society. It does not have to be strictly agrarian. Why place limits? I would argue that all of the regulations on chemicals, etc. now deny people the abillity to innovate and invent. I think people should have the freedom to acquire and use resources as long as they do not do injury to their fellow man. I think limited government as originally envisioned by the people who started this country is the best path. A government that protects peoples rights, liberties and freedoms.
Read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
He argued that all real wealth and prosperity comes from excess production on farms. You cannot have anything else until you have enough food. Farmers are a very special breed of people and deserve a certain amount of respect. I can't imagine why anyone would even want to be a farmer today. Why on earth would you want a government that imposes so many rules and regulations on farmers? Every single one of those rules, regulations and subsidies has unintended consequences. They even regulate what the farmers can and cannot grow. For instance the USA has several areas that would support Opium production. This would be a high value crop. Farmers cannot grow this crop. Why? It makes no logical sense. We place the supply of an important medicine at the mercy of foreign nations. We limit scientific innovation and improvement in medicines like this because of government regulations. Why does government ever feel the need to control production of this crop? Let the free market do it.
The enumerated powers in the Constitution and no more. The people who wrote that document were very wise. They left plenty of documentation outside of the Constitution on how things would work best The system was proven for about the first 100 years of the countries existence and continues in part to this day. There is no reason to re-invent a system that worked so well. We just need to start following it again. Forgive all of the stupid debts, discount the notes in circulation to their true value and move on. Re-establish the pubic mints and assay offices to draw all of that silver and gold out of the bank vaults and sock drawers and back into circulation. That will create prosperity. Everything else will take care of itself. You have to fix the money system first. There is no way to ever settle accounts with the current system. Fix that and everything else will fall into place. First key is understanding how that system worked.
http://www.archive.org/details/coinsfinancialsc00harvuoft
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
The game has changed....
You type like you are still enamoured with "American Exceptionalism"...
Sorry, that myth has been busted...
Care to compare food yield by farming method?
Do you think 1% of the population is going to feed the rest with "Victory Gardens"?
The US produces a huge amount of "factory food", the problem is that most of it is no good for you...
I happen to think that a hell of a lot more people than 1 percent would choose that lifestyle if given the liberty to do so.
I also happen to think that if you brought a person of average intelligence from just 100 years ago forward in time and he saw how we live and how land and resources are wasted, he would think we are nuts.
TIME TRAVELLER: You have land and you don't have a few chickens and a milk cow? Why?
Because the HOA says in their rules and regulations that we can't have chickens.
TIME TRAVELLER: Who is the HOA?
It is a bunch of people who get together and pass rules to help us keep our property values up.
TIME TRAVELLER: But isn't land is worthless if you can't use it for something or be free on it?
Yes but we have to keep our property values up.
TIME TRAVELLER: So is your property really valuable?
No..actally, people are moving out to the country now where there aren't any HOA's so that they can have chickens and our property values have fallen.
---------------
Another thought: You should get a early McGuffey's reader on Ebay. You need to get an 1853 or earlier version. You will be amazed at the contents. The 3rd Grade reader contains what would be considered college level material today.
if we're playing alphabet agencies, who needs a HOA when we have a bought & paid for (corp.) FDA?
FDA escalates war on Amish dairy farmer Dan Allgyer over raw milk crossing state lineshttps://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/fda-escalates-war-on-amish-da...
would that life were simple.
That simple? Made me laugh.
Typical US citizenism.
Oh the crime of slime. While I have long known that pig snouts and other bits of meat were included in hot dogs and sausage I was ok with that as a snout was just a snout not a hideous soylent pink concoction being extruded into hamburger meat. If you've ever seen a skinned python that is what pink slime looks like. Yeech. This has got to be impacting fast food restaurant sales. I pulled into a Burger King a few days ago not thinking about pink slime till the voice from the menu board asked me for my order. I hesitated as the image of the pink slime appeared in my minds eye. "I'll just have a coke and some onion rings was my reply"
might want to put "Rumsfeld + aspartame + diet coke" into a search engine before your next trip to the drive-through.
and if it wasn't "diet" coke, then substitute "High Fructose Corn Syrup" gmo-flavour. . .
(not pickin' on you, just a thread-FYI)
Pink slime is completely harmless. They strain the amonia from the ground up carcas bath so you just are eating small amounts of amonia. It's not like you're drinking a whole pint of it. That would kill you. You probably only consume a shot glass worth with 2 school lunch burgers and since you have a full stomach it helps you not notice the ill effects. Just like fluoride in limited ammounts it will not kill you...and it's practicaly impossible to prove it's poisoning you because you're not a scientist so why argue with our Central Planning Committee who employs scientists and always looks out for our best interests. With the money our government saves giving our school kids pink slime instead of ground beef we can build extra munitions for the war efforts. This isn't really the time to be complaining about burgers with an amonia after taste. If you prepare them with enough salt you can barely taste the amonia so I wish people would just stop complaining. Iran could attack us at any minute.
Caught the sarc in time.
Whew!
The left is preparing for the demise of global warming with the "peak water - we are all gunna die" meme.
Pink slime who give a rats ass if somebody eats a goddamned MEAT SMOOTHIE!
Sam Kinnison sums up the water issue rather well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylyts7L6Hwg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
“I’m like anyone else on this planet — I’m very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving, and very depressed. I watch those kids and I go, ‘F–k, I know the FILM crew could give this kid a sandwich!’ There’s a director five feet away going, ‘DON’T FEED HIM YET! GET THAT SANDWICH OUTTA HERE! IT DOESN’T WORK UNLESS HE LOOKS HUNGRY!!!’ But I’m not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to stop world hunger? Stop sending these people food. Don’t send these people another bite, folks. You want to send them something, you want to help? Send them U-Hauls. Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, ‘Hey, we been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldn’t BE world hunger, if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A F–KING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A F–KING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA — WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM, A–HOLES!”
A lot of US cities are smack in the middle of deserts where nothing grows.
Kinnison was a funny guy, but it's not like he was well informed. If you asked him, I doubt he'd have screamed that all the residents of LA should give up and move to Pennsylvania.
Gully, you might want to reconsider using comedians as wise counsel.
True, desertification is a bitch. Did you know that before H sapiens arrived, Greece, Lebanon, Haiti, Easter Island, and parts of Australia were densly forested? All you gotta do is go for short-term benefits (cut down all the trees) to get these long-term 'benefits': lower rainfall (disruption of water storage) and topsoil loss. You too can turn your country into a sun-blasted wasteland!
Holy shit you DID NOT take Easter Island and then just extrapolate it to an entire planet!?
Please, bitch! Take that smelly NWO cunt cheese somewhere else.
you really are a fine flag waver for your self-professed "Libertarian" belief system, dude.
And what fundamentally is the difference between the two?
One is merely a much larger version of the other....
I wonder...
If your meat has slime it in, does that get counted in CPI-U? It's not the same thing as true ground beef. Is there a negative hedonic adjustment for Slime-Beef?
This is one of those issues that kills a multi-national food distributor like McD's. Feeder cattle is up like 100% over the past 2+ years, but McD's only raised their prices by about 10-20%. There margins are not declining. They're offsetting it by feeding you ground garbage. Disgusting.
Bruce, put a slice of bacon when you're grounding the meat. The fat adds a delightful emulsifying property to a beef patty that traps juice in the burger. You can cook the beef at a high temp without drying it out.
It gets counted as a positive hedonic adjustment because it's not necessary to chew it as much. There's also energy savings as well, not to mention the value of not having bones that one may choke on (lowers the cost or health insurance or increases the bonuses of the executives). Pink slime may be a perfect food, (at least for the proles).
absolutely, the "meat" in fast fuds is full of fillers, diluted as the price rises - Taco Bell & wood pulp (sawdust) was yet another *tell*
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11012915/1/cellulose-wood-pulp-never-tast...
now bacon, that's a fine cellulose substitute!