[Biofuel] McDonald's Hamburger from 1996 (still "fresh")

[Keith Addison]

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008

McDonald's Hamburger from 1996



I've always wanted to do this, but never got around to it. Morgan 
Spurlock did it in Super Size Me, but for only about a year as I 
recall.

But Karen Hanrahan has kept a McDonald's hamburger since 1996.

Yup, she's had this burger for 12 years!

And it still looks ready to eat. That's frightening!

McDonald's (and presumably other fast food joints) use a lot of 
preservatives to keep their food fresh-looking (note that I say 
'fresh-looking,' not 'fresh') during it's production, transportation, 
and storage. This keeps their food looking fresh a lot longer than is 
natural. (See the end of this post for the current ingredients in a 
McDonald's Hamburger bun.)

Trust me, if you grilled a burger and put it on a bun and put it in a 
container for a month, you'd have to scrape the mold off just to see 
it.

As Karen says, "Ladies, Gentleman, and children alike - this is a 
chemical food. There is absolutely no nutrition here."

Karen is a wellness consultant and uses the 12 year old burger as a 
prop in her talks. See all the photos and read Karen's description on 
her blog, "Best of Mother Earth ~ Creating Healthier Lives".

UPDATE: Regarding the hamburger wrapper in the photo that is clearly 
a more current wrapper with the "I'm lovin' it" slogan, Karen 
explains this in her post: "The paper and bag in the backround is 
circa 2008 - to add decor to the photo. My friend Robyn's idea."

-

McDonald's Hamburger Bun ingredients (as of 2008):

Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, 
reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, 
high fructose corn syrup, yeast, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, 
soybean oil, canola oil, contains 2% or less of each of the 
following: salt, wheat gluten, calcium sulfate, soy flour, ammonium 
sulfate, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, 
ammonium chloride, baking soda, sorbic acid, deactivated dry yeast, 
dough conditioners (may contain one or more the following: distilled 
monoglycerides, DATEM, sodium stearoyl lactylate, calcium peroxide, 
ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, enzymes, 
guar gum), calcium propionate & sodium propionate (preservatives), 
soy lecithin.

Note: Calcium and Sodium Propionate are 'mold inhibitors,' hence the 
fresh looking 12 year old bun!




1996 McDonalds Hamburger

I teach a workshop titled Healthy Choices for Children.  It's a class 
for parents seeking solutions to how to improve the way they eat. 
It's about the alternative food market, organics, and the top ten 
food additives to avoid and why, menu planning and more.  It's a 3 
session fabulously informative interactive class.

Below is my absolutely favorite prop.

People are always astounded when I share this.

I have used this as show and tell for a very long time.



This is a hamburger from McDonalds that I purchased in 1996.

That was 12 years ago.

Note that it looks exactly like it did the very day I bought it.

The flecks on the burger are crumbs from the bun.

The burger is starting to crumble a bit.

It has the oddest smell.

The paper and bag in the backround is circa 2008 - to add decor to 
the photo. My friend Robyn's idea.



This is the retro welch's grape juice plastic container I have always 
kept it in. People always ask me - what did you do to preserve it ?

Nothing - it preserved itself.

Ladies, Gentleman, and children alike - this is a chemical food. 
There is absolutely no nutrition here.

Not one ounce of food value.  Or at least value for why we are eating 
in the first place.



The burger on the right, off the paper is a 2008 burger.  I had to 
buy it to get the groovy paper and bag.

The meat is a tad darker, the bun a little less golden but in 12 
years it will look exactly like that too.

Do you find this horrifying?

McDonalds fills an empty space in your belly. It does nothing to 
nourish the cell, it is not a nutritious food.

It is not a treat.

I marvel at how McDonalds has infiltrated our entire world. 
A hamburger here tastes exactly the same in China or some around the 
world place. 

It's cloned.

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Do me a favor and share this. 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

K a r e n H a n r a h a n
Wellness Educator/Nutritional Consultant
Mentoring YOU to Health Success
708.482.0678
 
Websites:
Nutrition 
Weight Loss 

Member of BNI - West Suburban BNI: "

[Biofuel] USA Today Dietitian Recommends Eating McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bell And Burger King On The Today Show

[Keith Addison]

Aarghh!!!



USA Today Dietitian Recommends Eating McDonalds, KFC, Taco Bell And 
Burger King On The Today Show (VIDEO)

Huffington Post   |  Katherine Goldstein

First Posted: 08-13-09

On The Today Show, Matt Lauer hosted dietitian Elizabeth Ward to 
discuss how to make "healthy" food choices on a road trip. Virtually 
the only measure Ward used to evaluate what was healthy was how many 
calories is in it.

She started out with breakfast at McDonalds, stating she was a big 
proponent of eating eggs. She recommended scrambled eggs and an 
English muffin. (This item doesn't actually appear on the menu, but 
these ingredients are served at McDonalds -- maybe she was suggesting 
making a special order, or throwing out the rest?)

For the record, scrambled eggs at McDonalds, which one could easily 
mistake for being comprised of well, eggs, actually contain the 
following:

>Pasteurized whole eggs with sodium acid pyrophosphate, citric acid 
>and monosodium phosphate (added to preserve color), nisin 
>(preservative). Prepared with Liquid Margarine: Liquid soybean oil, 
>water, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, salt, hydrogenated 
>cottonseed oil, soy lecithin, mono-and diglycerides, sodium benzoate 
>and potassium sorbate (preservatives), artificial flavor, citric 
>acid, vitamin A palmitate, beta carotene (color).

She goes on to recommend Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC Grilled Chicken 
(HuffPost bloggers have had a field day with this "healthy" 
alternative) and processed and packaged snacks. 


While Ward and Lauer tout the value of eating fruit as a healthy 
snack, for the most part this dietitian throws her support behind the 
idea that processed fast food, filled with additives, preservatives 
and factory farmed meat is good for us, as long as it doesn't exceed 
a certain number of calories.

My favorite thing to eat while traveling, food I made at home and 
bring with me, was not mentioned as an option.

For a full list of what Ward thinks is healthy to eat, check out her 
USA Today article.



Steer toward healthy road food

By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

Hungry highway travelers often stop at convenience stores, gas 
station snack shops or fast-food restaurants and hit high-calorie 
potholes. They end up grabbing giant candy bars, big bags of chips, 
fries, hamburgers, fried chicken, hot dogs, doughnuts and humongous 
sugary drinks.

But you don't have to throw your good nutrition intentions out the 
window when you're on the road, says registered dietitian Elizabeth 
Ward of Reading, Mass., a nutrition blogger for USA TODAY.

Ward visited convenience stores and other typical highway food stops 
in search of better eating options for a joint project between USA 
TODAY and NBC's Today show.

Yes, most of these stores feature high-calorie, high-fat foods that 
are best left on the shelf, but Ward found plenty of foods that could 
be combined to make "good meals, not meal wreckers. The most 
satisfying snacks and meals deliver protein and fiber - nutrients 
that have staying power."

They help you feel full longer "and will keep you from pulling off 
the road in a hour or so to fill up your belly," says Ward, who is 
the author of several nutrition books including Expect the Best: Your 
Guide to Healthy Eating Before, During and After Pregnancy.

"How much you should eat each day varies depending on your age, 
gender and activity level," she says. "Most adults need about 2,000 
calories a day, so you should probably try to stick with meals that 
are about 550 calories or less and two daily snacks with no more than 
250 calories each." With that in mind, she created a list of 
recommendations.

Ward gives hungry travelers some smart snack and meal ideas:

Snacks that are 250 calories or less from convenience stores or gas 
station marts:

*Two small Fig Newtons, 8 ounces low-fat milk, one small apple.

*3-ounce can of Fritos Bean Dip, 1-1/2-ounce-bag of Baked Lay's Potato Crisps.

*8-ounce carton of 1% milk or container of low-fat yogurt and single 
serving of Cheerios.

*3/4 ounce cheddar cheese and 5 cups popped light microwave popcorn. 
That's about a mini-bag or half of a regular bag. Some brands are 
lower in calories than others. Some stores have a microwave so you 
can pop it there.

*12-ounce container of V8 Vegetable Juice and 1 ounce of peanuts 
(about 25 nuts).

*Single serving (7.5 ounces) of Chef Boyardee Beefaroni and small apple.

*1 ounce string cheese and half an 8-ounce can of pineapple.

*Hard-cooked egg, medium banana.

Meals that are under 550 calories from fast-food restaurants and 
convenience stores:

Breakfast

McDonald's:

*   Egg McMuffin, small orange juice.
*   Fruit and yogurt parfait with granola, English muffi

[Biofuel] 15 Horrifying Reasons to Never Let Anyone You Love Near a McDonald's

[Keith Addison]

15 Horrifying Reasons to Never Let Anyone You Love Near a McDonald's

By Sarah Irani, EcoSalon

Posted on August 15, 2009, Printed on August 16, 2009

The Golden Arches: the ultimate American icon. Super Size Me taught 
us that fast food culture brings obesity, heart disease, hypertension 
and a whole slew of other problems. How bad do you really want that 
Big Mac? Here are 15 reasons you'll never let anyone you love get 
near those Golden Arches.

1. Real food is perishable. With time, it begins to decay. It's a 
natural process, it just happens. Beef will rot, bread will mold. But 
what about a McDonald's burger? Karen Hanrahan saved a McDonald's 
burger from 1996 

 
and, oddly enough, it looks just as "appetizing" and "fresh" as a 
burger you might buy today. Is this real food?

2. You would have to walk 7 hours straight 
 
to burn off a Super Sized Coke, fries and Big Mac. Even indulging in 
fast food as an occasional treat is a recipe for weight gainŠunless 
you're planning to hit each treadmill in the treadmill bay afterwards.

3. Containing less fat, salt and sugar, your pet's food may be 
healthier than what they serve at McDonald's. 


4. In 2007, the employees of an Orlando-area McDonald's were caught 
on camera 
 
pouring milk into the milkshake machine out of a bucket labeled 
"Soiled Towels Only." That particular restaurant had already been 
cited for 12 different sanitary violations. Though McDonald's proudly 
stands by its safety standards, and not every restaurant has such 
notorious incidents, the setting of a fast food restaurant staffed 
with low-paid employees at a high turnover rate arguably encourages 
bending the rules. (McDonald's isn't alone in this, of course - 
Burger King is actually ranked as the dirtiest of all the fast food 
chains .)

5. McDonald's supports the destruction of the Amazon rainforest 
. Much of the 
soy-based animal feed used to fatten fast-food chickens is grown in 
the Amazon. Are those chicken nuggets really worth acres of 
irreplaceable trees? (Especially considering how important carbon 
sinks like the rainforest are to halt global warming!) Fast food 
supports a completely unsustainable system of agriculture 
.
 
It's cruel to animals , unhealthy for humans, 
and bad for the planet 
.

6.  Even Prince Charles, while touring a diabetes center in the 
United Arab Emirates, commented that banning McDonald's 
 is key to health and 
nutrition. Don't let the salads and chicken breasts fool you. The 
"chicken" at McDonald's, by the way, comes with a whole lot more than 
chicken 
 
[Not Found].

7. As if feeding children high-fat, high-sodium, low-nutrition "food" 
weren't bad enough, some Happy Meals in 2006 contained toy Hummers 
.
 
It's as if McDonald's was encouraging a whole generation of kids not 
only to guzzle food, but to guzzle gas as well. Would you like a few 
barrels of petroleum with that?

8. The processed fat in McDonald's food (and other fast food) 
promotes endothelial dysfunction 
 for up to 5 
hours after eating the meal. Endothelial tissue is what lines the 
inside of blood vessels.

9. For those who enjoy sex, take note: erectile dysfunction is 
connected to endothelial dysfunction. Morgan Spurlock of Super Size 
Me commented that his normally healthy sexual function deteriorated 
in just one month when he ate only food from McDonald's. Even his 
girlfriend commented on camera that "he's having a hard time, you 
know, getting it up." 


10. How many cows does it take to keep the world loaded with Big 
Macs? I had to do a some research and a little math, but according to 
a brief video inside one of McDonald's 6 meat processing plants, 
about 500,000 pounds of beef is processed per day, per plant. If an 
average beef cow weighs 1,150 pounds, that means 2609 cows a day are 
turned into burgers. That's 952,285 cows per year. And that's just in 
the United States. Eating a hamburger may not be worse than driving a 
Hummer 

Re: [Biofuel] They've already got uniforms...

[Keith Addison]

Hi Bob

Thanks for this.

The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War
by Prof. Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, August 11, 2009

I'll post the whole thing below, the archives will like it.

>Fascism/Schmashism, if it walks like a duck...

:-) But you don't want to believe that if you're in the US during the 
hunting season and you happen to be a duck. Well, okay, decoy ducks 
don't walk, they float and look contented. Unless it's a newfangled 
military-industrial-counterterrorism complex-style nanotech walking 
killer robot decoy duck, of course.


But crypto-fascists don't walk like a duck, and no uniforms as such, 
they're whiteshirts.


"Hints for a modern gentleman - The 10 things you really should know 
about white shirts", Charles Tyrwhitt, tailors of Jermyn Street, 
London.
"Sales of white shirts are soaring... Proving its resilience and 
classic trustworthiness, the white shirt is once again at the front 
of city boys' wardrobes in these credit crunching times. Gordon 
Gekko-style ostentatiousness, loud colours and eye-catching ties are 
out and a new sober seriousness in - and nothing says 'let's get down 
to business' like the rolled-up sleeves of a white shirt."

Oh, is that what it says like nothing else. I thought rolled-up 
sleeves meant you were actually doing it already, not just talking 
about it. But maybe in Jermyn Street... However, yes, perfect for 
cryptos.

>The Real Grand Chessboard and the Profiteers of War
>
>6PALv4xVdRFvmWc_pH_TsNHvtpdjixYYXqbr1UNsIoN9J_xucqTAKXNruemHifWIOMkjeSeVhM0U
>z8td8AmTTnRBi7EtC61xlSGxzb7nqsMPOOFGIQYdRmD8mCq0esimW6twpxQkptdz0rYEjrKw=>

Informative, as ever with Peter Dale Scott, but he's also not a 
one-stop-shop for BS debunking, you have to pick and choose.

Eg, he looks at the maxims of control-freak empires heading for a 
fall, starting with the British Empire: "... Sir Halford Mackinder in 
1919: 'Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the 
heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island 
commands the World'", and then updates it, quoting Brzezinski:

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age 
of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial 
geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence 
among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to 
keep the barbarians from coming together."

But I don't think he gets it quite right.

He writes: "Kissinger for one appears to have learned this lesson, 
when he wrote that: 'By geopolitical, I mean an approach that pays 
attention to the requirements of equilibrium.'[6] But (largely 
because of his commitment to equilibrium in world order) Kissinger 
was swept aside by events in the mid-1970s, leading to the triumph of 
the global dominance mindset, as expressed by thinkers like Zbigniew 
Brzezinski.[7]"

I wouldn't say Kissinger learned that lesson. I suspect he saw 
"equilibrium" as something it took the overwhelming power of empire 
to maintain. That's what Rockefeller seems to think too, among other 
things. Kissinger is also a scion of Rockefeller, as is Brzezinski, 
as Scott notes: "As I have argued elsewhere, Brzezinski (though he no 
doubt thinks to himself in terms of strategy) thus promotes a policy 
that very much suits the needs of the oil industry and its backers. 
These last include his patrons the Rockefellers, who first launched 
him into national prominence.[16]"

Kissinger rose to power after working for the Rockefeller Brothers 
Fund as director of their Special Studies Project on future US 
national policy, and then as advisor to Nelson Rockefeller in his 
three bids for the Presidency:

"Kissinger owed his political career since the late 1950's to his 
stint as a researcher for the Rockefeller family, and owed his rise 
to power to their backing. The Rockefeller family had been at the 
center of US oil and raw materials geopolitics since early in the 
1900's, when the Standard Oil Trust was built. Kissinger was well 
aware of the importance of food and energy to US national interests." 
- "Seeds of Destruction: The Geopolitics of GM Food", William 
Engdahl, Current Concerns (Zurich) n.5, 6mar2005


Once a Rockefeller man always a Rockefeller man, and it has continuity.

How did Scott miss this classic Great Game quote from Kissinger? 
"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control 
the people; control money and you control the world" (Henry Kissinger 
in 1970, when he was Nixon's National Security Advisor).

I don't think Kissinger was swept aside: "Thank you for that 
wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As 
the most recent National Securit

Re: [Biofuel] Chilling stuff...

[Keith Addison]

Hi Chris

Quite so.

> i think what keith really meant re holding obama's feet to the
>fire, was mass action.

Yes.

For instance, Israel's assault on Gaza at the end of last year 
probably outraged Americans about as much as everyone else.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 02, 2009
"First Poll on US Opinion on Gaza: Democratic Politicians Ignore 
Public Opinion"


What would Obama do about it?

>>"With the American political establishment firmly behind Israel's
>>attack, and Obama's foreign policy team heavily weighted with
>>pro-Israel insiders like Dennis Ross and Hillary Clinton, any efforts
>>to hold Israel accountable in the United States will depend upon
>>American citizens mobilizing a major grassroots effort behind a new
>>foreign policy that will not tolerate any violations of international
>>law, including those by Israel, and will immediately work towards
>>ending Israel's siege of Gaza and ending Israel's occupation."
>>-- War of Choice: How Israel Manufactured the Gaza Escalation
>>Steve Niva | January 7, 2009 

Also:

>"Obama Won't Have to Kiss AIPAC's Ring -- Progressive Alternative to
>Hawkish Mideast Policies Emerges"
>By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet
>Posted on January 12, 2009, Printed on January 12, 2009
>
>
>He'll kiss it anyway though...

:-(

>there has been a remarkable lack of it.  did
>obama's campaign machinery just chew up all the different grass roots
>groups that gravitated to him?  imho the only way there will be even a
>slim hope of seeing anything that resembles the kind of change obama
>spoke of while campaigning, is a sustained campaign of mass action.
>on a scale similar to the marches against the second iraq war, but
>much more drawn out.  like from now until the mid-term elections at
>least.  and obama has to be constantly reminded that these throngs of
>marchers represent the votes he will lose next time around if he
>doesn't deliver.

The Noam Chomsky piece I mentioned (other email) puts it in context, IMHO.


I'll post it in full.

Best

Keith


>"just another step in the maturation of human affairs.  Maybe it will
>get bad. . .but we will persist. . . ."  don't be so sure.  there are
>two very crucial things we mustn't forget.  firstly, that neither
>germany nor japan were undisputed hegemonic superpowers with global
>reach, nor had they nuclear arsenals.  secondly, the only reason the
>nazis lost their grip on power was because they were utterly defeated
>militarily.  if the day of "righteous tyrrany" comes to this country,
>it will not just run its course.  it could very well be the end of all
>of us.  many
>people nowadays have this notion about fascist germany along the lines
>of  "well, it was
>unfortunate, but we survived it, and we learned from it."  but did we
>really?  does the grotesque history of carnage of the past 60 years
>tell you so?  does this butchery, much of it perpretated either
>directly by our own government, or at its behest by our client states,
>honor those tens of millions who died so that we could "learn"?
>there's no reason every war or bloody conflict shouldn't be the last,
>but we just keep right on going.  of course, on one level "we" isn't
>really we, us, you and me.  it's the puppetmasters.  and they're
>really good at what they do.  but on another level, we really does
>mean all of us.  as long as we fail to effectively oppose the kinds of
>policies which use and perpetuate war and violence as a means (and for
>some, like the military industrial complex, war in itself is not the
>means, but the end),
>then we too are responsible.  don't misunderstand me, i think the
>ability to view things from a philosophically detached perspective is
>a good thing.
>   but it can also be a hindrance. *<>*<>*<>* i started writing this
>earlier today but had to set it aside for a few hours.  i have since
>read your last contribution and it seems pretty clear you understand
>this.  i think what keith really meant re holding obama's feet to the
>fire, was mass action.  there has been a remarkable lack of it.  did
>obama's campaign machinery just chew up all the different grass roots
>groups that gravitated to him?  imho the only way there will be even a
>slim hope of seeing anything that resembles the kind of change obama
>spoke of while campaigning, is a sustained campaign of mass action.
>on a scale similar to the marches against the second iraq war, but
>much more drawn out.  like from now until the mid-term elections at
>least.  and obama has to be constantly reminded that these throngs of
>marchers represent the votes he will lose next time around if he
>doesn't deliver.  you said you've been doing some things locally.  i'd
>love to hear more about it.  feel free to contact me offlist.


___
Biofuel 

[Biofuel] Noam Chomsky: "What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World"

[Keith Addison]

Noam Chomsky: "What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World"
November 24, 2008

World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discussed the meaning 
of President-elect Barack Obama's victory and the possibilities ahead 
for real democratic change at a speech last week in Boston. It was 
his first public appearance since the election. Chomsky has been a 
professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
for over a half-century and is the author of dozens of influential 
books. [includes rush transcript]

Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology for over a half-century and is the author of dozens of 
influential books on US foreign policy, the role of intellectuals and 
the function of mass media.

AMY GOODMAN: President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden 
are holding a news conference in Chicago today to formally announce 
their team of economic advisers and their plans to rebuild the 
faltering economy.

But as Obama assembles his cabinet and prepares to take over the 
reins from President Bush, more questions are being raised about the 
kind of change he'll bring to Washington and the world. Progressives 
who supported Obama's candidacy, celebrated his historic victory, are 
dismayed by his consideration of Clinton-era figures as his key 
advisers, many of whom championed financial deregulation and are 
hawkish on foreign policy.

World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discussed the meaning 
of Obama's victory and the possibilities ahead for real democratic 
change at a recent address in Boston. He's been a professor of 
linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for over a 
half-century and written over a hundred books. In his first public 
appearance since the election, Professor Chomsky spoke last week to a 
packed audience in Boston at an event organized by Encuentro 5. His 
talk was called "What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the 
World."

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, let's begin with the elections. The word that 
rolls off everyone's tongue is "historic"-historic election-and I 
agree with that. It was a historic election. To have a black family 
in the White House is a momentous achievement. In fact, it's historic 
in a broader sense. The two Democratic candidates were an African 
American and a woman, both remarkable achievements. If we go back, 
say, forty years, it would have been unthinkable.

So something's happened to the country in forty years. And what's 
happened to the country, which we're not supposed to mention, is that 
there was extensive and very constructive activism in the 1960s, 
which had an aftermath, so the feminist movement, mostly developed in 
the '70s, the solidarity movements in the '80s, and on 'til today. 
And the activism did civilize the country. It's an important 
achievement. The country is a lot more civilized than it was forty 
years ago, and the historic achievements illustrate it.

And that's also a lesson for what's next. What's next will depend on 
whether the same thing happens. Changes and progress very rarely are 
gifts from above. They come out of struggles from below. And it's up 
to-the answer to what's next depends on people like you. Nobody else 
can answer it. It's not predictable.

In some ways, the election-the election was surprising in some 
respects. Going back to my bad prediction, if the financial crisis 
hadn't taken place at the moment that it did, if it had been delayed 
a couple of months, I suspect that prediction would have been 
correct. But not speculating, one thing surprising about the election 
is that it wasn't a landslide. By the usual criteria, you would 
expect the opposition party to win in a landslide under conditions 
like the ones that exist today. The incumbent president for eight 
years was so unpopular that his own party couldn't mention his name 
and had to pretend to be opposing his policies. He presided over 
maybe the worst record for ordinary people in post-war history, in 
terms of job growth, real wealth and so on. Just about everything the 
administration has touched has turned into a disaster. The country 
has reached the lowest level of standing in the world that it's ever 
had, and the economy was tanking. Several recessions are going on, 
not just the one on the front pages, the financial recession, but 
there's also a recession in the real economy, the productive economy, 
under circumstances-and people know it. So 80 percent of the 
population say the country's going in the wrong direction. About 80 
percent say the government does not work for the benefit of the 
people, it works for the few and the special interests. A startling 
94 percent complain that the government doesn't pay any attention to 
the public will. And on like that. Under conditions like that, you'd 
expect a landslide for the opposition, almost whoever they

Re: [Biofuel] Chilling stuff...

[Keith Addison]

Hi Jim

>Keith,
>
>Take it personally? Of course I do, but not in an offended sense.

:-) That's cool.

>  >Not to be disparaging, but are you holding his feet to the fire? Are
>>you getting any results?
>
>Yes, I did and so did many others I know personally if by that you mean did
>we take the next step and voice our opinion on appointments and policy after
>the election. Not that it had much impact. Some, but not much. The Democrats
>think we are safe votes if the alternative is neocon psychopathy.
>
>The nettlesome thing is that we live in a republic, not a democracy. We vote
>for candidates and only in rare occasions on policy and never at the Federal
>level. Once voted in, they have an annoying habit of doing what they want
>and if one doesn't like it then the fires of retribution are pretty feeble
>at that point.
>
>>If you're disgruntled that means you're awake now,
>>excellent, but were you awake then?
>
>Yes, I think so. I grew up in Mississippi during the civil rights movement
>in the fifties and sixties. I am white but I saw first hand the brutal
>divide between the ideal rule of law and the fascist, crypto or otherwise,
>behavior that is possible on the street. That has a way of wrenching one's
>paradigm permanently.

Indeed it does. I can also testify to that.

>Vietnam and Nixon cemented the deal. The financial
>collapse and bailouts confirmed it.
>
>In the Obama campaign, I never bought into the 'here comes the promised
>land" level of rapture some seem to think we all campaigned under. Obama
>wasn't my first choice, Kucinich was, because I, and others, aren't content
>to accept the status quo on Military Commissions, gun violence,
>assassination as a foreign policy (we must kill Osama Bin laden to stop
>terrorism), preventive detentions,  'clean coal", or a host of other policy
>positions. But again, we vote for candidates, not policy, and there is
>little question he was better than McCain.
>
>So, you are right when you say that that is only half the job. And we've
>been doing the other half for years. But I, for one, haven't found the magic
>bullet that "forces the White House" to do what we want. If we mobilized
>like the Iranians, we might scare them enough to at least take notice

Yes, but you'd (plural) have to keep it up. Constant vigilance!

Noam Chomsky: "What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World"
November 24, 2008


You say "like the Iranians", why not like the 60s? Or like Seattle in 
1999? Or the war protests?

>but I
>can tell you from personal experience that visits to Congressmen, rallies,
>petitions, emails, phone calls, letters to the editor, ad nauseum (starting
>immediately after the election, at Obama's invitation), are like flea bites
>on elephant hide. The only thing left is to continue to build it ourselves
>and lead from behind.
>
>>You certainly weren't offered either of those.
>
>Maybe not, but "she should have stopped hitting the snooze button 8 or 10
>(or 15
>or 20) years ago at least. " sure sounds condescending to me.

I don't know if she voted for Obama. Chris wrote "while i commend 
sarah for finally waking up, she should have stopped hitting the 
snooze button 8 or 10 (or 15 or 20) years ago at least", referring to 
Sara Robinson, author of one of the links I posted in the original 
message:

Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
August 9, 2009
by Sara Robinson


She doesn't even mention Obama.

>I may be babbling somewhere on the fringe on this topic but creating a
>social fabric wholecloth or a gestalt seems to be no easy task, regardless
>of one's will or intentions. I don't know what it is like in other political
>systems but steering a new course with the US ship of state is ponderous.
>The civic id is powerful and the predators well entrenched. I would love to
>accelerate the pax Americana but can't seem to lay my hands on the fairy
>dust at the moment.
>
>In the meantime, we will keep creating what beauty we can in our sphere of
>influence and stoking our ambitions.  If someone has a better plan, let's
>hear it.

I reckon the only better plan is for everybody to do that. I think 
most of them would be doing it, but for the consent manufacturing 
industry - of course it's not the only obstacle, but I think it's the 
most important one. The Chomsky piece is worth a read.

Thanks Jim, I think we share a lot of things.

All best

Keith


>Jim
>
>On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:21 AM, Keith Addison
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>  Hi Jim
>>
>>  >"...but I think if a disgruntled Obama voter had a read of Paxton and took
>>  >another look at the
>>  >election and since, it might wake him up a bit."
>>  >
>>  >Speaking as one of those disgruntled Obama voters, I think I am more or
>>  less
>>  >awake. And also not sitting on my ass, either. Some of us are discouraged,
>>  >yes, but not so much so that we are not doing anything about it

[Biofuel] Depopulation? In their own words

[Kirk McLoren]

 airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in
humans. Killing humans. Think about that. “You know, the bird flu's
good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine”

 —Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and
lizard expert, showed solutions for reducing the world's population to
an audience on population control







 "No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make
a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he
will take a Luciferian Initiation."


—David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations







 "The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world
carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth
rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met
in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This
must be done by whatever means necessary."


—Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER







 “In South America, the government of Peru goes door to door
pressuring women to be sterilized and they are funded by American tax
dollars to do this.”


—Mark Earley in The Wrong Kind of Party Christian Post 10/27 2008








—"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature"


Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones





"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer 
virus to lower human population levels."


—Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth's husband, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of 
the World Wildlife Fund







 Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless
the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be
required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."


—David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club








“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to 
cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."


—Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes







 "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was
concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations
that we don’t want to have too many of."


—Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg







 “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for
determining the optimum population for the world and for each region
and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional
limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of
each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the
agreed limits.”


—Obama's science czar John P. Holdren: From a book he helped write 
'Ecoscience'







 "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a
one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the
same tent, all under their control Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do.
I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope,
generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."


—Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 
that was shot down by the Soviet Union






 
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090816/1f9cd6eb/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Chilling stuff...

[Jim Worthy]

House acts as if the whole
> >>  >>  thing simply never happened and gets on with business-as-usual, in
> >>  >>  almost every sphere. The media (or some of them) duly note the
> >>  >>  disconnect, but nothing happens. Paxton has quite a lot to say
> about
> >>  >>  that kind of behaviour.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  The "Change!" voters don't see Obama as any kind of fascist, let
> >>  >>  alone perhaps a crypto one, but do they know what a fascist is?
> Maybe
> >>  >>  not, or perhaps probably not, the term is so denatured now that it
> >>  >>  probably doesn't mean much more than "nasty person" to most people.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  The current crescendo, the maddened mob of birthers and deathers in
> >>  >>  the opposite camp, are completely clueless about it, as with
> >>  >>  everything else. David Michael Green just commented: "What sort of
> >>  >>  powerful drugs does one have to be on to make the argument that
> this
> >>  >>  rather considerably conservative president is a socialist? And then
> >>  >>  to call him a fascist in your next breath, blissfully unaware that
> >>  >>  the chasm separating the two ideologies not only makes them wholly
> >>  >>  different, but, indeed, oppositional." - "My 1933 Nightmare", David
> >>  >>  Michael Green, August 11, 2009
> >>  >>  <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/11>
> >>  >>
> >  > >>  "Ideology"? Well, never mind. On the other hand, for the voters to
> >>  >>  think this "rather considerably conservative president" was the
> >>  >>  messiah isn't that much less deluded. Spin is spin. The
> >>  >>  birther/deather nutters are beyond hope, but I think if a
> disgruntled
> >>  >>  Obama voter had a read of Paxton and took another look at the
> >>  >>  election and since, it might wake him up a bit.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  Green says: "Everybody talks about fascism nowadays, not least
> those
> >>  >>  on the right who remarkably manage to call Barack Obama a fascist
> in
> >>  >>  the same breath as they label him a socialist. The term has been
> >>  >>  beaten into near meaninglessness from ubiquitousness of
> application.
> >>  >>  (Could this be another extremely clever semantics ploy of the
> >>  >>  right-wing marketing machine, taking the term out of use now that
> it
> >>  >>  is legitimately applicable, by over- and ab-using it? Damn, these
> >>  >>  guys are good.)"
> >>  >  >
> >>  >>  I don't think he's necessarily being paranoid in the last bit, but
> he
> >>  >>  might not reach far enough in attributing it to the right-wing
> >>  >>  marketing machine, it goes deeper than that.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  Green says: "There are many examples of this, but one of the most
> >>  >>  clever has been the defining of wholly corporate center-right
> >>  >>  political figures like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama as extreme
> >>  >>  leftists, and the defining of the mainstream media as hopelessly
> >>  >>  biased toward liberalism."
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  He adds: "The Democratic Party is nothing more than the sorta
> >>  >  > not-Republican Party, and stands for nothing other than a quieter
> and
> >>  >>  more slowly-unfolding version of the GOP's crimes."
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  In other words, the Bush-Cheney regime was a much faster and more
> >>  >>  in-your-face version of Clinton's crimes, and Obama is once again a
> >>  >>  quieter and slower version of the same thing. It has continuity,
> the
> >>  >>  crimes don't change.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  I think sideshows like the current birther/deather fiasco are just
> a
> >>  >>  distraction, it works well, good cover for any crypto-fascists in
> the
> >>  >>  White House. Give Green a read and see how it distracts him.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  But it's chilling nonetheless. Green talks of tens of millions of
> >>  >>  people, filled with anger, with a credulity that cares nothing
> about
> >>  >>  being rational; he see them as a force being used to drag the US
> back
> >>  >>  into the 17th century. I don't think he's exaggerating much.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  I don't think very many Americans are aware of how the rest of the
> >>  >>  world gets the horrors when the US does this kind of stuff. :-(
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  >i think the
> >>  >>  >only way the fascist dynamic in this country will switch from the
> >>  >>  >crypto to the full-on, jack-booted mass rallies variety, is either
> in
> >>  >>  >response to a major existential crisis such as a major, truly
> lethal
> >>  >>  >pandemic, or if they (the powers that be) decide that war with
> china
> >>  >>  >is simply unavoidable.
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  You're probably right (unless you get both of them at once, each a
> >>  >>  cover for the other).
> >>  >>
> >>  >>  Regards
> >>  >>
> >  > >  > Keith
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000
> messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>



-- 
Regards, Jim
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090816/db6d1eef/attachment.html 
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/