http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=rivers Sat, 18 May 2013 19:33:16 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=rivers Sun, 12 May 2013 10:18:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14f_1368367704 Donegal The 1968 speech given by Enoch Powell known as The Rivers of Blood speech. Read In full by Martin Willett. No editing, cuts, omissions, spin, commentary, propaganda or tricky sound effects. Just the speech. Judge for yourself. "A nation with multiple cultures cannot be as strong as a nation with a strong common shared culture. Divided nations become nasty and mean. Strong coherent nations care more for their weaker members, they are nicer places to live." Martin Willett http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14f_1368367704 Donegal &quot;<span class="highlight">Rivers</span> of Blood&quot; Full speech. Enoch Powell 1968 Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood, Martin Willett, History Tue, 14 May 2013 09:31:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c01_1368537139 CaptainJamaicanNinja Former minister admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2million Labour sent out 'search parties' for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted. In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers. He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party's traditional supporters are now unable to find work. By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour. Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham. The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009. Lord Mandelson's remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain. Mr Neather said the policy was designed to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'. He said there was 'a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'. Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade. But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: 'In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.' He said: 'The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.' When Labour encouraged new arrivals 'we were almost ... a full employment economy' but, he admitted: 'The situation is different obviously now. 'We have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs. 'For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.' His words are far franker than Mr Miliband's. Asked earlier this month whether 'too many people were allowed to come', he replied: 'I wouldn't put it that way, no.' Tory chairman Grant Shapps said: 'Peter Mandelson's candid admission that Labour were purposefully letting immigration spiral out of control when in government is yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.' Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said: 'This is an astonishing admission from the highest level that Labour's mass immigration policy was entirely deliberate. 'It will be a very long time before their own working class supporters forgive them for the enormous changes that have been imposed on their communities.' Gordon Brown yesterday accused the Tories of emulating Enoch Powell by using immigration to head off the growing electoral threat from UKIP. Mr Powell's 1968 'rivers of blood' speech ignited huge controversy in the debate on immigration. Former prime minister Mr Brown - who once called for 'British jobs for British workers' - told a pro-union rally in Glasgow: 'A party that was anti-Powellite on immigration is now becoming very close to being Powellite on that issue.' http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c01_1368537139 CaptainJamaicanNinja Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson immigration, not welcome, fuck off, awful leadership, labour destroyed the UK Tue, 14 May 2013 04:10:50 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef3_1368518520 english-patriot33 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324112/Immigrants-We-sent-search-parties-to-come--hard-Britons-work-says-Mandelson.html#ixzz2TFU4eUYL Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson :Former minister admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration :Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2millionLabour sent out 'search parties' for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted. In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers. He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party's traditional supporters are now unable to find work. By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour. Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham. The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009. Lord Mandelson's remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain. Mr Neather said the policy was designed to 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'. He said there was 'a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural'. Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade. But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: 'In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.' He said: 'The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.' When Labour encouraged new arrivals 'we were almost ... a full employment economy' but, he admitted: 'The situation is different obviously now. 'We have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs. 'For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.' His words are far franker than Mr Miliband's. Asked earlier this month whether 'too many people were allowed to come', he replied: 'I wouldn't put it that way, no.' Tory chairman Grant Shapps said: 'Peter Mandelson's candid admission that Labour were purposefully letting immigration spiral out of control when in government is yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.' Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said: 'This is an astonishing admission from the highest level that Labour's mass immigration policy was entirely deliberate. 'It will be a very long time before their own working class supporters thank them for the enormous changes that have been imposed on their communities.' Gordon Brown yesterday accused the Tories of emulating Enoch Powell by using immigration to head off the growing electoral threat from UKIP. Mr Powell's 1968 'rivers of blood' speech ignited huge controversy in the debate on immigration. Former prime minister Mr Brown - who once called for 'British jobs for British workers' - told a pro-union rally in Glasgow: 'A party that was anti-Powellite on immigration is now becoming very close to being Powellite on that issue.' http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef3_1368518520 english-patriot33 Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson immigration, gates need to be shut now, disband the labour party, Mon, 13 May 2013 15:12:40 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c2_1368472062 omniradar Guatemala Illuminates its Dark History With a Stunning Guilty Verdict for Rios Montt Monday, 13 May 2013 10:27 By Lauren Carasik , Truthout Op-Ed After years of tireless effort and weeks of proceedings in the trial of US-supported former Guatemalan dictator Jose Efrain Rios Montt for genocide and crimes against humanity, Judge Jazmin Barrios delivered a stunning victory for truth and justice. Though her voice quivered initially under the gravity of her charge, as she detailed the court's findings, Judge Barrios was eloquent, forceful and righteous, vindicating all those who toiled for years and risked their lives to shed light on the bloody past. Declaring Rios Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentencing him to 80 years in prison, Judge Barrios echoed the voices of the victims: "For there to be peace in Guatemala, first there must be justice." This historic verdict will reverberate from the packed courtroom to the highlands where the rivers ran red with blood, to the global community, to send an unmistakable message that justice can prevail over the most ardent efforts of those whose ruthless acts are cloaked by impunity. The process was fraught with delay, vitriol and unexpected turns, caused by relentless defense efforts to delegitimize the tribunal rather than present a substantive rebuttal to the charges. It was uncertain whether the Guatemala genocide trial would ever reach its dramatic conclusion many years after survivors first availed themselves of the legal system to find truth and justice for the unspeakable brutality that claimed over 200,000 lives and devastated countless others. Rios Montt and his chief of military intelligence, Jose Maurico Sanchez Rodriquez, who was ultimately acquitted, were charged were the deaths of 1,771 Maya Ixiles in the Department of Quiche from 1982 to 1983, along with a deliberate campaign of state-sponsored terror intended to destroy the Ixil culture. Weeks of trial included the haunting testimony of survivors, whose palpable grief flowed from newly reopened wounds and the methodical and exhaustive presentation of carefully orchestrated forensic, military and other experts. Even as the world waited expectantly for the trial to conclude, the legal maneuvering continued to plague the process. Judge Carol Patricia Flores, in charge of preliminary matters before she was recused - after a motion by the defense - and subsequently reinstated, sent the process careening into turmoil with her April decision annulling all trial proceedings that happened after she was removed from the case in November 2011. Amid multiple appeals that engendered confusion and uncertainty, a ruling from the Constitutional Court allowed the trial to move forward. The trial was convened briefly on Tuesday before being recessed, after defense attorney Garcia Guidel informed the tribunal that he was gravely ill. Guidel was photographed later that afternoon in the public ministry, apparently in fine health. When the defense failed, yet again, to produce witnesses, Judge Barrios put an end to the stalling tactics and moved the trial to its final phase. This announcement provoked another tirade from Garcia Guidel, who threatened that he would not rest until the judges were in jail. With unfailing grace and dignity, Judge Barrios neither reacted to the antagonism nor buckled under the unrelenting pressure of presiding over this contentious trial and calmly read the Code of Ethics provisions mandating respect for the tribunal and toward all human beings. Rios Montt, who declined opportunities to address the tribunal and remained silent and mostly impassive during the proceedings, demanded to address the court at the very end, despite the procedural irregularity of doing so. Determined to avoid accusations that she deprived the defendant of his voice, Barrios allowed Rios Montt to launch into a meandering statement. As Rios Montt's cadence varied, he declared his innocence, denied centralized control over the military and claimed that the behavior of soldiers was the responsibility of field commanders, attributing any atrocities committed in various regions to their local command. Rios Montt's denial was eviscerated in part by his own arrogant statement, preserved for perpetuity on videotape and played for the court earlier in the trial, in which he confidently affirmed his control over the army. It is noteworthy that President Perez Molina, accused in open court of complicity in war crimes, was a field commander in the Ixil region in 1982. The trial's completion was uncertain until the very end. On Friday, Judge Flores reaffirmed her April decision annulling the trial, claiming that the Constitutional Court ruling required her to simply reissue her decision, an order that defied logic. Judge Barrios refused to be intimidated or outmaneuvered and insisted that the tribunal would continue, scheduling the announcement of a verdict at 4 PM. Defense attorneys declared that any ruling from the court would be invalid, the last in a long series of obstructionist machinations designed to circumvent justice. Before the verdict was read, tension in the courtroom was palpable. As Judge Barrios began to speak, the court's findings seemed to lead inexorably to a guilty verdict. Clearly moved by the dignity of the survivors, the panel of judges found that the military employed a calculated strategy to destroy the Ixil for their historical recalcitrance and perceived ideological and logistical support for the guerrillas, through extrajudicial assassination, rape, forced displacement, intentional starvation and severing sacred ties to ancestral land. Judge Barrios summarized the irrefutable incrimination of the military's own documents, including Plan Sofia, which classified the Ixil as the internal enemy. Judge Barrios lamented the irreparable and intergenerational harm to these communities. The court found that intelligence evidence indicated constant communication between the field and the military command and that Rios Montt had the knowledge and authority to stop the atrocities. Rios Montt's house arrest was revoked, and he was ordered to jail. Chaos erupted after the verdict, and Judge Barrios for the first time raised her voice, appealing for calm and demanding that Rios Montt not be removed from the courtroom by anyone other than the police. As the tension eased, elated survivors who waged the long battle for historical justice and their supporters applauded the judges, before breaking out into song and cheers of "Justice, Justice." Despite this victory, the grief and incalculable loss will endure forever. Although the Peace Accords included a commitment to unearth historical memory, many were determined to ensure the truth in Guatemala remain buried with the remains of tens of thousands of the disappeared. The trial cracked wide open a festering schism in Guatemalan society about truth, memory and justice. Courageous survivors, judges, witnesses and lawyers proceeded in the face of threats and accusations. Many fear that the verdict will unleash violent reprisals, as the trial has inflamed the already polarized climate. In the past week, a man reportedly from the Foundation Against Terrorism was escorted from the courtroom for taking photos and videos of courtroom observers. Further heightening the tension, someone composed and circulated an ominous "faces of impunity" brochure, with names and color photographs of protagonists in the fight for justice, which many feared was a thinly veiled hit list. All the reasons that transitional justice is difficult to pursue in national courts plagued this trial. Though the conflict ended in 1996, Rios Montt enjoyed immunity from prosecution as a member of Congress until 2012. Yet survivors began their long, exhausting and improbable trek toward justice in 2000, a year after the UN-sponsored Truth Commission gave victims their voice, punctured the silence surrounding the conflict's unspeakable brutality and attributed blame for 93 percent of the deaths to the military. The survivors' efforts to bring the intellectual authors of the state-sponsored terror to justice were consistently impeded by interference in the judiciary and a lack of political will, compounding the structural inequality that gave rise to the conflict in the first place: endemic racism, desperate poverty, stratified socio-economics and political exclusion. Those aligned with the military and economic elites still retain much of their historical power, though components of the judiciary exhibited remarkable independence and integrity. Even in the spotlight of the international community, threats and intimidation have been intense and unrelenting. We cannot turn away now, content that justice has been done: We must continue to walk in solidarity with the survivors, lawyers, judges and experts who have displayed extraordinary courage and exceptional dedication to truth, memory and justice and are still at risk. This verdict is not the end of this sordid tale for Rios Montt, and subsequent legal maneuvering and its attendant rhetoric is all but certain to cast doubt on the proceedings and further inflame already simmering societal divisions. But the trial and the verdict represent an undeniable victory for the Ixil, for Guatemala and for our common humanity. This remarkable triumph of the human spirit confirms that the arc of Guatemalan history does indeed bend toward justic http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c2_1368472062 omniradar Guatemala Illuminates its Dark History With a Stunning Guilty Verdict for Rios Montt US Supported Guatemalan dictator Jose Efrain Rios Montt on trial for genocide and crimes against humanity !! Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:17:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db1_1366769708 BobWhiteAtNight The entire "roasting" of Joan: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db1_1366769708 BobWhiteAtNight Comedy Central - Roast of Joan <span class="highlight">Rivers</span> [Uncensored] joan rivers, comedy, roast, dried out hag, vagina Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:23:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49e_1366762846 Bunky bunk http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49e_1366762846 Bunky bunk Gilbert Does Joan <span class="highlight">Rivers</span>...Literally...LOL WTF, Comedy, Joan Rivers, Gilbert, roast, vagina, hilarious Thu, 02 May 2013 17:31:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8d_1367529503 HabsForever In 1992, Tim Wakefield beat Tom Glavine and the Atlanta Braves twice during the National League Championship Series. But this was not how Wakefield expected his career to end up. In 1988, the Pittsburgh Pirates drafted Wakfield as a first baseman. He had no experience as a pitcher. With Wakfield facing release, his coach observed him throwing knucklers during practice, then watched him pitch in the bullpen. So impressed was the coach, he made Wakefield a full time pitcher. In the middle of 1992, Wakefield made his MLB debut with the Pirates as a knuckleball pitcher. He started 13 games, and finished the season with an 8 - 1 record, a 2.15 era, 4 complete games and 1 shut-out. He placed third in the National League Rookie of the Year voting, garnering two first place votes. Most astounding about his success as a rookie was that Wakefield's knuckleballs rarely topped 60 mph, some clocking in at the 40 mph range, and he relied on the knuckler 90% of the time. After that season, Wakefield began to struggle with control, and batters began hitting his trademark pitch consistently. However, in 1995, after being released by the Pirates, the Boston Red Sox signed Wakefield as a free agent. Wakefield started throwing his knuckler between 60 and 70 mph consistently, and had the best season of his career in 1995, placing third in American League Cy Young votes. The rest, of course, is history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_National_League_Championship_Series http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8d_1367529503 HabsForever Rookie Tim Wakefield tossing knuckleball during 1992 MLB NLCS Tim Wakefield, Knuckle, Pittsburgh Pirates, Major League Baseball, Atlanta Braves, NLCS, 1992, Jim Leyland, Bobby Cox, Three Rivers Stadium Thu, 02 May 2013 13:14:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d85_1367513433 Baysangur Published on Apr 29, 2013 For downloads and more information visit: http://www.journey.webbler.co.uk/6509... It's open season for hotel developers in Cancun, Mexico. But as they look to cash in on the tourist trade, are they destroying the unique ecological environment that draws people there in the first place? On a stunning stretch of Mexico's Caribbean coast is Cancun; an all-inclusive, all-you-can-eat, all-you-can-do, package-holiday wonderland featuring gargantuan resorts and golf courses as far as the eye can see. It's loud and brash and party-central. But under all those stomping feet is the spectacular silence and epic grandeur of the pristine Yucatan Aquifer. "The very first dive of my life was in one of these places and in 45 minutes it completely changed my life", Luis Leal, a local cave diver tells us. But the Aquifer is also a vital resource for thirsty Mexico, nourishing vast tracts of rainforest and home to unique flora and fauna. As resort development continues unabated above, environmentalists are deeply concerned about its future."This area is so rich in biodiversity that it has become - literally - the beachhead for the fight on sustainability", Michael Halle, a Canadian Ecotourism manager, explains. "They are going to destroy this place and we are not going to have anything unique anymore. It's going to be lost." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d85_1367513433 Baysangur Veins of the Earth - Mexico - Part 2 mexico caribbean aquifer yucatan tourism business eco rivers Fri, 10 May 2013 20:12:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9c_1368220523 10fold Salmon Confidential is a new film on the government cover up of what is killing BC's wild salmon. When biologist Alexandra Morton discovers BC's wild salmon are testing positive for dangerous European salmon viruses associated with salmon farming worldwide, a chain of events is set off by government to suppress the findings. Tracking viruses, Morton moves from courtrooms, into British Columbia's most remote rivers, Vancouver grocery stores and sushi restaurants. The film documents Morton's journey as she attempts to overcome government and industry roadblocks thrown in her path and works to bring critical information to the public in time to save BC's wild salmon. The film provides surprising insight into the inner workings of government agencies, as well as rare footage of the bureaucrats tasked with managing our fish and the safety of our food supply. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e9c_1368220523 10fold Canadian government cover up of what is killing BC's wild salmon canadian government cover up of what is killing BC's wild salmon Thu, 09 May 2013 02:41:39 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ee_1368081586 travisjhake http://grist.org/cities/how-cities-can-finally-get-smart-about-water-use/ That's the conclusion from a new study in the journal Water Policy, whose authors compared the water supply histories of four cities - San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Adelaide, Australia. Among the lessons learned? Urban water conservation, recycling, and desalination aren't silver bullets. In fact, the best solution may lie upstream with farmers - saving just 5-10 percent of agricultural irrigation in upstream watersheds could satisfy a city's entire water needs. But the time to act is now, argues Brian Richter, a senior freshwater scientist at The Nature Conservancy and the study's lead author - he says a global urban water crisis is already here. Below, Richter tells us more about what cities need to do to say on the right side of dry. Q. Many cities take a similar pattern of water development, according to your research - going from exhausting local surface and groundwater supplies to importing water to implementing water conservation to finally recycling water or desalination. Why is this pattern unsustainable? A. When we overuse a freshwater source, we set ourselves up for disaster. Each of the cities we reviewed in our study has contributed to the drying of a major river or important groundwater spring. That has obvious ecological impacts and social consequences - it affects livelihoods and human health by compromising fish production, concentrating pollution, or curtailing recreational activities. Our research is revealing that water scarcity also causes severe economic losses by limiting or disrupting agricultural, industrial, and energy production. Texas lost nearly $8 billion in agriculture last year due to water shortages; electricity generation from hydropower dams on the Colorado River in 2010 dropped by 20 percent due to water shortages. Some estimates suggest that China may be losing $39 billion each year due to crop damage and lessened industrial production, and hundreds of thousands of people around the globe are being forced to move due to water shortages. Because these impacts are so pervasive and damaging, we need to begin investing in water supply approaches that don't just minimize these adverse impacts but instead begin to reverse them. Q. Are we looking at a crisis in securing urban water supplies in the near future, either for U.S. cities or globally? A. That crisis is already upon us. Our study revealed that half of all cities - both in the United States and globally - are located in watersheds where more than 50 percent of the renewable supply of water to our rivers and aquifers is being consumed, at least seasonally. Now, that's not a problem as long as we're receiving plentiful precipitation. But if you're using that much water on an average, ongoing basis and you go into a severe drought, there isn't enough water to meet all needs. Q. Phoenix, another one of your case studies, has lowered its per capita water use by 25 percent since 1990 through various water conservation measures - and yet Phoenix is water scarce. Why? A. Water scarcity results when we heavily deplete a freshwater source. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're experiencing regular water shortages in your home or business. But it does mean that you're at considerable risk if the water supplies continue to be increasingly depleted by other users, or you get into a drought situation. Phoenix's water conservation efforts are admirable, but they need to do much more. They are heavily dependent on the Colorado River, which is so thoroughly overused that it dries up before reaching its delta in the Gulf of California. During a severe, prolonged drought, the reliability of that water source will be in jeopardy. Q. So storm- and wastewater recycling aren't enough? A. Contrary to popular belief, water conservation and recycling may not result in a net improvement in the affected water source. If the water that's conserved is simply used to supply additional urban growth, then the water source is no better off. The vast majority (80-90 percent) of water used in cities is returned to the freshwater source after use. So only 10-20 percent of the water is "lost" or "depleted" - most of that goes to outdoor landscaping or golf courses. Water recycling shuts off the return of water to the freshwater source - instead of discharging the used water back to a river, the water is used for domestic, commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes. So water recycling will "save" water - and reduce water scarcity in the freshwater source - only if it reduces the fraction of water that was previously being lost from the freshwater system. Q. What about desalination if you're a city on the coast? It's expensive - but Adelaide's desal plant is supposed to provide more than 25 percent of that city's water supply by 2013. A. Desalination could be a wonderful solution to our water challenges - more than one in every two people on Earth lives near a coast. But removing salts from ocean water requires a tremendous amount of energy, and the expense of that energy makes desalination the most costly way by far to supply fresh water to cities. And there's a wicked climate change feedback loop for desalination: using it to create fresh water produces carbon emissions that change our climate, which in turn affects the precipitation that supplies fresh water. Without a radical breakthrough in energy production, desalination will continue to supply only a tiny fraction of the world's freshwater needs. (Note that Adelaide is using 100 percent renewable energy to power its desalination plant.) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ee_1368081586 travisjhake Will cities ever get smart about water use? Will cities ever get smart about water use Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:39:20 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44f_1367361269 hhhhhaaaaa Representative &quot;Christian Science&quot; Creationist Lamar Smith from Texas has introduced a bill that would remove the peer-review requirement from National Science Foundation grants. This bill is called the "High Quality Research Act of 2013" and it is incredibly inappropriately named. Peer-review is one of the most critical aspects of scientific research. It ensures that good science continues to progress, and weeds out that which is less effective, or just plain wrong. Removing that stipulation undermines the entire scientific process. This absolutely cannot stand.If crap like this prevails suddenly, pregnancy is impossible with rape. Suddenly evolution no longer exists. Suddenly the world is only 6,000 years old. Suddenly the Dominionists create the new reality. I hope this is defeated because if it's not, you might as well just hang the scientists as they did in a Handmaid's Tale because it would no longer exist. Suddenly smoking is really good for you, toxic air has no affect on health and not only does global warming not exist and no longer does climate change exist but neither does oil pollution spills in the rivers. In fact, if it is there, it does no harm and the dead fish are safe to eat. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/29/sopa-creators-latest-bill-proposes-stripping-peer-review-from-science-funding/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44f_1367361269 hhhhhaaaaa The Next Creationist Attack on Science Science, Creationism, WTF Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:03:31 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1367197196 mngardens I wanted to write about the march and encourage all of you to get involved with the march in anyway you can, but I realized after looking at the weeds coming up in my garden that I wanted to explain Monsanto's Roundup and my dealings with it. I remembered using it years ago in so many ways, from driveway cracks, spot spraying in my vegetable garden and my flower beds. I can say over the past 30 years I myself have used about 10,000 gallons of it in one way or another. I used it in our park systems for weed control with a backpack sprayer, using it on fields with 500 gallon tanks with booms spraying weeds along the farm roads, spraying along 5 acre fields that were planted with the intention of selling those vegetables to the public. It did not really hit me until a few years back when I saw the real damage that Roundup does to the environment. I sprayed along a 5 mile fence line to control the weeds that were growing up into it. I came back the next day to do some spot spraying and was having my lunch at the halfway point. I looked down to see how the spray was taking when I noticed the other things I was killing. I noticed the Milkweed, Goldenrod, Joe Pye Weed, Phlox, Dogbane, and Asters just to name a few, they were dying right in front of my eyes. I could see their leaves starting to droop and welt, and I was the one who killed them. Oh some might say that its just a small amount, but if you look at the land that we have torn up to farm and what is left for the native plants, well that was not right. I looked at the bees and the Monarchs that were all around me and I was the one who just killed their food source. That night I started to look into the effects of Roundup on the environment and the damage that it does, it blew my mind how much more Roundup does than just kill the weeds. Monsanto's Roundup is killing off parts of the food chain, that DOES affect us! It kills the plants that feed the insects, it kills the insects that feed the birds and other animals, it kills our environment, Monsanto's Roundup kills us! Being in the nursery business I see Roundup being used in so many applications and I have talked to homeowners that use illegally along their shoreline, homeowners that over spray it to kill shrubs, homeowners that don't dilute it so they can kill the plant faster. I have seen people use it not diluted to kill Buckthorn with a hand pump sprayer not realizing the drift of the spray and what it does. Now here is more about Monsanto and why they have Farmers use Roundup on their crops which we eat. Monsanto has genetically engineered certain crop seeds, such as soybeans, beets, cotton and corn, to be resistant to Roundup and suffer no ill effects from the herbicide. This allows the crops to be doused with the herbicide for weed control without killing the crop itself. Can you imagine the amount of Roundup Monsanto sells to cover all those millions of acres of farmland alone? Almost half of Roundup --- 41 percent --- is glyphosate, a broad-spectrum, non selective herbicide. It can kill all kinds of plants, including perennials and grass, by being absorbed through the leaves and stalk tissue. Once in the plant, it inhibits amino acid metabolism throughout the entire system, causing the plant to slowly die. It should be kept away from ponds, lakes, rivers and all water systems, as it is highly toxic to aquatic animals. I'll translate this, Roundup will kill any plant up to 1/4 inch in diameter and if not diluted will kill a plaint up to a half inch in diameter. France's highest court has ruled that U.S. agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean." Roundup is the world's best-selling herbicide. Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union. If you must kill weeds on those cracks and in your flower beds consider using Vinegar, and put a cone over it to spot spray. The rate would be 1/4 cup of Vinegar to one gallon of water, but mulch your flower and vegetable beds to suppress weeds, that alone will take care of your weed problem. So there you go, the reason I stand and march against Monsanto, you might have yours and I would love to hear why you are marching. Please send me an email, mark@mngardens.com and I would like to post those stories here on this blog so you can see all the reasons people are marching. Thanks, Mark http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1367197196 mngardens MONSANTO, BEES AND ROUNDUP twin cities march against monsanto, minnesota, minnesota gardens, march against monsanto