Perverting science for politics

[Happy Monkey]

Nutrition.

[tw]

cited by Happy Monkey Federal government classifies french fries as fresh veggies
The USDA quietly changed the regulations last year at the behest of the french fry industry, which has spent the past five decades pushing for a revision to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA).

After five decades, they finally got a president that could be bought. Any of you George Jr lovers want to defend the mental midget president on this one? How does Rush Limbaugh deal with this? Or does he simply do what George Jr also does best - ignore facts he does not like.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by tw
After five decades, they finally got a president that could be bought. Any of you George Jr lovers want to defend the mental midget president on this one? How does Rush Limbaugh deal with this? Or does he simply do what George Jr also does best - ignore facts he does not like.

I got the impression that it wasn't a health endorsement but one for legal and contractual purposes. Since french fries need to be frozen, they are asserting that the freezing does not mean they are not fresh. This is the same as how a 'fresh' turkey can be rock hard, just not frozen to a certain point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). The law was passed by Congress in 1930 to protect fruit and vegetable farmers in the event that their customers went out of business without paying for their produce.

I suppose "We The People" pay if they do, and the frozen food people want a piece of the action.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by richlevy
Since french fries need to be frozen, they are asserting that the freezing does not mean they are not fresh.

French fries do not need to be frozen. Things only need to be frozen if you are not going to use them fresh (ice cream notwithstanding).

Here's their argument:

The Frozen Potato Products Institute appealed to the USDA in 2000 to change its definition of fresh produce under PACA to include batter-coated, frozen french fries, arguing that rolling potato slices in a starch coating, frying them and freezing them is the equivalent of waxing a cucumber or sweetening a strawberry.

[bluesdave]

As an outsider (Aussie), I am confused as to how and why John Kerry seems to be so ineffective against Bush. Many of you have cited cases of the Bush administration corrupting information, and looking after corporate interests rather than the nation's, and if one believes even just some of the arguments against Bush, it seems difficult to imagine that Kerry would not win in a landslide in November.

Kerry's argument in favour of stem cell research http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/r...004_0612a.html seems very wishy-washy to me. Surely he could be making a stronger point. From what I have heard in the media, Kerry has not been hurting Bush's credibility at all.

I have been getting the impression that Bush is likely to hold on in November because many potential anti Bush voters won't bother to vote, and that he has strong support in the mid-west. Is this true?

[jaguar]

bluesdave, I'm an aussie expat, just wondering, do you think Latham is going to win? I haven't had time to check the news for a fair while now.

[bluesdave]

Originally posted by jaguar
bluesdave, I'm an aussie expat, just wondering, do you think Latham is going to win? I haven't had time to check the news for a fair while now.

The word is that he doesn't have a chance (much like John Kerry over there). While most people now believe that Iraq was a mistake, and believe that John Howard lied to us, they still see Howard as a strong leader, and while the Aussie economy continues to hum along, it will be nearly impossible to dislodge him.

The only hope that Mark Latham has is if there is some sort of huge controversy that entangles Howard. The die hard Labor supporters all believe that Latham can win, but I can't see it happening without some external influence assisting him. Latham has also made a few faux pas over recent months which haven't helped his image.

[jaguar]

=(

I liked latham, any politician that feels it's ok to call the prime minister an arse licker is worth his weight in gold in my book. I don't think I have to but I'll post in my vote, it'll make me feel better.

[Happy Monkey]

Howard Dean on the subject.

[OnyxCougar]

LOL this cracks me up....

When a right-wing theory is contradicted by an inconvenient scientific fact, the science is not refuted; it is simply discarded or ignored.

Will it be long before a prominent panel of fundamentalist theologians, conservative columnists, and a few token scientists take up the question of whether the theory of evolution should be banned from the nation's classrooms? Stay tuned. In George Bush's America, ignorance is strength.

Ya'll know my stance on evolution, and that most of the "proofs" provided in science textbooks have been disproven scientifically, and that the age of the earth gets older my millions of years at a rate of 2.1 million years a year...

...and all these evidences are ignored, including by Mr. Dean.

oh, the irony....

Open minded people go to....

http://www.answersingenesis.org

[Happy Monkey]

And yet, the age of the earth doesn't change a bit for the creationists, no matter what scientific evidence is available.

Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that science recognizes and corrects its errors is a weakness?

[Beestie]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar

Ya'll know my stance on evolution, and that most of the "proofs" provided in science textbooks have been disproven scientifically, and that the age of the earth gets older my millions of years at a rate of 2.1 million years a year...

Hmmm.

If science itself is flawed then science can't be used to disprove it, no? That's having it both ways.

Sometimes I consider the irony of Bush's efforts to smash theocracies abroad while seemingly trying to build one at home. The big problem with the White House implementing Christian doctrine is that they have police power to back it up. Isn't that contrary to the notion of religious freedom? What if Bush were a Muslim? A Jew? A Scientologist? A zealous athiest? Nothing against any of those religions/belief systems but I don't want their rituals imposed upon me. When is it ok versus not ok? The founding fathers already put that question to bed.

I have two small children. I tell them that God created the world, them and Mommy and Daddy. When they get older, I will attempt to explain the method God employed to do so. I find no inconsistency between faith and science and struggle with the assertion that there is one. Science does not venture into the realm of faith. If faith had the discipline to do likewise (e.g., know its boundaries) , we'd all be a lot better off.

[Troubleshooter]

"The Bible—the ‘history book of the universe’—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the ‘evidence’ confirms the biblical account."

They can't be serious...

[xoxoxoBruce]

They can't be serious...

That my friend, is wishful thinking.