new

As for Neil deGr4ass Tyson, he's a fucking idiot. A failed physicist plucked out onto the corporate media arena as the spokesman for all that Wall Street wants you to believe about science.

A PR hack. Has always been. And this latest step into a genuine scientific controversy with stomping boots is the science equivalent of World Wrestling.

Hilariously, in Tyson's bio on Wikipedia, someone wrote:

He was 18th author on a paper with Brian Schmidt, a future winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics

LOL. He knew a real Nobel prize winner!!!

HERE'S THE DEAL:

Right now, Monsanto and others have altered the genes of some food plants to make them actually PRODUCE A PESTICIDE.

Yum!!!

Other modifications create organisms that are RESISTANT TO PESTICIDES.

Yum again!!!

You don't have to be a scientist to know that there are risks inherent in such radical alterations of the foods we eat.

And you have to be a complete idiot to deny that we can so dramatically alter our foods without the potential for unseen consequences.

Our bodies didn't evolve over millions of years eating these genetically modified organisms. Most of them are probably harmless, other than the fact that they taste like shit.

But for the wrongest of the wrong:

Global warming and GMOs are two completely different, completely unrelated issues.

To try and link them together the way Tyson and others have done here is pure smear technique, straight out of Propaganda 101.

It is a ridiculously transparent attempt to falsely equate legitimate and scientific concern about the risks associated with GMOs with the completely unscientific denial of climate change.

Anyone using this smear, is either a Monsanto sockpuppet, or a natural born sleazebag.

Because "the damn South" already did "secede."
The FUCKING NORTH is still gloating over how hard they kicked our asses -- slavers over the prospect of wiping us the rest of the way out whenever the subject arises -- to the point of dragging it up out of the fevered swamp of Yankee imagination whether it's called for or not -- because we were such subhuman mongrel slaveholding antebellum rotten bastards.

Even though we were, as a group, not.
Yes. Plantations existed.
Yes. Slave states existed.
Yes. Slavery --and remember that it applied to whites and was practiced by American Indian tribes on blacks, whites, and one another, as well as by whites, and that there were black slaveowners as well -- and contrary to Northern mythology not every single one of those owners bought somebody's freedom to give it back to them -- was and is a horror beyond description, and a major cause of the War Between the States -- there is NOTHING "Civil" about any war any where any time -- it was NOT the sole and only cause, and not every soldier in butternut gray was a slaveholder.

Economics was a factor in that war.
Politics was a factor in that war.
Fear was a factor in that war.
Prejudice was a factor in that war.
MONEY was the biggest single factor in that war, though.
It's been sugar-coated as anti-slavery in revisionist history.

Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.

That's not me defending a horror: that's a historical fact.

The Constitution was written to only count 3/5 of every slave as a human being for purposes of representation -- to suit the NORTH, who were afraid of real honest representation drowning them out, just as today's GOP is afraid of real honest voting beating them back under their rocks.

Other things were at work then just as they are now. Firebrand political hucksters demanding their way or destruction of everything first-and-foremost among those factors; just as Rupert Murdoch wants to destroy the USA today because he finds us reprehensibly not like him, and the Gee O Pee are eating out of his and the banksters' hands for the MONEY. Got nothing to do with freedom or rights or justice.

Forgetting that Sherman burned his way to the sea, and some people even right here have claimed he didn't do enough damage, remember this: as long as you give hatred you should expect it right back in your face.