Plastic Bag Bans

This has got to be one of the most horrid trends contributing to the combined laziness and incompetent nature of our current legal system: a ban on plastic bags. That's right, ever since Hippie Central (AKA San Francisco) decided in 2007 to place a ban on the use of plastic bags by supermarkets and chain pharmacies, other locations have been balancing their brains between the notion that it might be an environmentally-friendly idea and the warnings of sane people that it's a moronic idea and following suit would be sheer lunacy.

This week, the Los Angeles City Council teetered over the precipice of lunacy and has voted to ban all plastic bags in the city's supermarkets and stores by 2010.

I'll start this off by actually agreeing that some of the bleeding-heart liberals almost have a valid point when they talk about the evils of the plastic bags. They normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade. (More on that later.) And yes, they tend to get caught in trees because of their lightweight nature and they wind up in streams and such and marine animals can eat them and die. While it's easy to say that "the kid who swallows too many marbles shouldn't grow up to have kids of his own" - I'll agree that it's a stretch to apply that logic to the turtles. I don't know how easy it is for a turtle to tell the difference between a fish and a freakin' plastic bag, but let's just pretend that somehow they look the same and it's not very nice to be killing off those poor confused sea creatures. And perhaps we use too many of them - we produce an estimated 500 billion of them a year, worldwide.

Okay, back to calling San Francisco and Los Angeles a bunch of idiots for imposing such ridiculous laws.

First of all, plastic bags were what we'd like to call a scientific and technological breakthrough. The ability to mass-produce a strong yet lightweight product that allows consumers to carry their items while also letting producers/manufacturers package their items was a proud day, in my opinion. Paper bags are often ineffective and unreliable, not to mention bulky and THEY CUT DOWN TREES. That was like one of the best reasons to make an alternative to paper bags in the first place! Doesn't anyone recall that little tree-hugging mantra? I mean there's no reason in arguing over the plastic bags that don't decompose fast enough to create mulch so new trees can grow and prosper is the alternative is just destroying the trees in the first place, right? The only alternative alternative is reusable material bags, which are costly, even bulkier, and require too much forethought to be effective. The likelihood of someone saying "it's time to make a grocery run - I'd better collect up my reusable bags so that I may use them once more at the grocery store" is minimal when compared to "oh dang I need milk right now and I'm passing by a store with milk so let me go and get milk and oh darn I don't have my reusable bag with me so just gimme something for free to carry it in so I'm not paying for another reusable bag that I'll never remember to use."

Secondly, we need to stop creating laws to claim things as obsolete. Remember when cassette tapes were popular and it was the most advanced way to listen to your favorite songs before this new-fangled "compact disc" came into existence? Well once we created the CD, it's not like we decided to ban the use/production of cassette tapes because we have better things now and cassettes are flooding the landfills and don't biodegrade and we need to pass laws to hold the recording industry responsible for this garbage and ban their production of cassettes! If you want to really call the plastic bag obsolete, you need to create something BETTER to REPLACE it. Once we came out with the CD and they were priced competitively and made available in mass amounts - we stopped using cassettes (for the most part). Just like the creation of cheap and effective plastic bags made the paper ones practically obsolete (there were very few paper-bag-choosers during the heyday of plastic baggery), if you want the plastic bag to be gone - a better choice has to come out. It has to fill the SAME NICHE (lightweight, strong, disposable, cheap) though. Reusable bags aren't meant to be cheap or disposable, so it's not a replacement. It's merely an alternative.

Thirdly, this is a freakin' non-issue! Remember how we mentioned that plastic bags normally take between 100 and 1,000 years to biodegrade? Well the point is that they DO BIODEGRADE. There must exist living organisms that can biodegrade plastic bags into compost. Ergo, there must be a way to identify those living organisms and culture them and use them to speed up the process by increasing the amount of those organisms and figuring out optimum conditions necessary to speed the process up exponentially. Oh wait, some 16-year-old kid in Canada already figured that out!

Do you understand how messed up this is now? That instead of pumping a minimal amount of money into a research grant to allow REAL scientists to build upon what some Canadian kid managed to accomplish, thereby creating efficient ways to completely biodegrade TONS of plastic bag material in LITTLE TIME - California cities are working to abolish plastic bags? That doesn't solve the PROBLEM, morons! The PROBLEM is millions of tons of plastic bags that we'd like to biodegrade, not the flow of the plastic bags!

That's as ridiculous as people becoming vegetarians because cows producing methane are causing global warming. The problem is the COWS and the METHANE, not people EATING the cows! If you convince everyone to stop eating cows, then the cows get ignored and continue to screw up the planet with global warming flatulence and WE ALL DIE.

Eat a Steak - Save the World! Remember?

In conclusion, it's just plain and simple stupidity to ban something that's completely legal to purchase or sell. It was insane when Chicago banned foie gras and luckily that's over now. If the following scenario is true, then something has gone horribly wrong and needs to be fixed:

In 2010, you can walk into a Los Angeles supermarket and purchase a container of plastic bags, but you can't have that container of plastic bags put into a plastic bag because that would be against the law.

This is horribly wrong and it needs to be fixed.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree that scientists and entrepreneurs should be investing in the process that we know exists to speed up the biodegrading process of plastic bags? Or would you rather ban a legal product in an effort to ignore the real problem and boast that "at least WE'RE not making the problem worse" rather than work to solve the problem?

(Again, the article about the Canadian teenager who's apparently smarter than the Los Angeles City Council)
(The article about San Francisco being the first in the idiot-city parade)
(The article about Los Angeles joining the idiot-city parade)

Please Digg this article and spread the word that we need science and not insane laws!

Read more!

Correlation and Causation

Sweet Jesus, I am so incredibly pissed off over seeing yet another failure of a researcher producing yet another failure of an article based on some half-assed finding! Okay, so the person writing the article isn't exactly a "researcher" - more likely a journalist who was abysmal at every subject in school other than lying to the bullies to avoid getting beaten up or forging doctor's notes to get out of gym throughout high school.

Either way, a complete dipshit.

The article is about a study that showed a correlation between people who said they drink diet sodas and the subjects being overweight. That's seriously it. 41% of respondents who said they consume diet soda were overweight.

And the journalist immediately blurts out things like: "One recent study has shown that people who drink diet soda still have a 41 percent chance of being overweight."

Right off the fucking bat, with the ONE piece of real actual honest-to-goodness fucking SCIENTIFIC DATA and it's just slathered in make-up and given a skimpy bikini and made into whatever fashion of whore the journalist cares to make it out to be. They're actually implying causation IN THE CORRELATION!

It's not that those who consume diet soda have "a chance" to be overweight - it's simply that this percentage WERE overweight. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, unless you feel like conducting THAT experiment to test THAT hypothesis!

Sure, they then go into some blather about "halo effect" and how you think you're being better to your body with certain consumables and it leads to overcompensation down the road for daily calories as a result. Again, nothing to do with the 41%. You can't just staple a fact to a scientific result and expect the resulting blood pool to be a testament to how the fact is represented by the lies you've made up about the data.

Not once did they ponder the notion that the obesity came first. Not once did they randomly speculate that instead of the consumption of diet sodas causing overweight participants that it MIGHT be the case of the participants being overweight causing them to consume diet sodas! I'm not saying that's the case - because I know better than to assume that correlation is grounds for causation - but I'm throwing out a tat for their tit in the grand scheme of Devil's Advocacy.

I happen to be overweight. And I happen to try and consume more diet soda as a result of being overweight. To hopefully see the result of being LESS overweight.

No matter what some bogus idiot decides to claim about the mangled remains of a once-adequately-scientific study.

(Judge the article for yourself!)


Read more!

Advancing to a Cure for Cancer, HIV/AIDS

What a week it has certainly been for the medical field! While most were still blankly staring into the continued aftermath of the inanity of Paris Hilton finishing her jail sentence and claiming that it not only make a difference in her life, but that she wants it to make a difference in the lives of others and other Miss America contestant-like statements - scientists were working to actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

Mid-week, there were reports of the workings of a current possible cure for cancer.

Yes, I said "cure for cancer"! Still thinking about Paris Hilton now?? It's a freakin' CURE FOR CANCER we're talking about now - you know, actual NEWS about something IMPORTANT! While "cure for cancer" may technically be jumping the gun, when this blogger sees an article saying that scientists have been working on a vaccine to cure cancer in dogs AND it's actually working AND it has the potential to help cure it in humans as well...

That's what I'd call a step in the right direction and it warrants the use of the phrase "cure for cancer" - dog, human or otherwise!

Coco is a 13-year-old Pomeranian with malignant melanoma and Callie, a seven-year-old golden retriever, has the same cancer. Tucson Veterinary Oncologist Mary Kay Klein has been treating both dogs with an experimental Canine Melanoma Vaccine. Dr. Klein says tests have gone so well that recently the vaccine was conditionally approved for commercial use in dogs.

"Dogs are very much like people. They tend to be the same age proportionately as you and I are when they get these diseases. The diseases look the same underneath the microscope," said Klein.

Right now only cancer vets are approved to use the dog vaccine. The next step is to make it available to all vets and work on a similar human treatment is in process.

If you think THAT is a reason to jump up on a table and sing the cheers for humankind and its prosperity - there's MORE.

I just read an article today that says that scientists have a potential cure for HIV. That's right - scientists have discovered a way to remove the virus from infected cells! While it's no cure for AIDS, which is a later stage of the HIV infection, if you can cure the HIV virus, you can cure AIDS before it even happens! Just think of the implecations if this potential cure makes it that last step to an ACTUAL cure that eventually gets approved by the FDA!

Never mind the potential capitalistic nature of drug companies and how they'll poorly handle the manufacturing and marketing and sales of the drug - we could freakin' CURE HIV AND AIDS!!

The scientists engineered an enzyme which attacks the DNA of the HIV virus and cuts it out of the infected cell. The enzyme is still far from being ready to use as a treatment, but it offers a glimmer of hope for the more than 40 million people infected worldwide.

"A customized enzyme that effectively excises integrated HIV-1 from infected cells in vitro might one day help to eradicate (the) virus from AIDS patients," wrote Alan Engelman, of Harvard University's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

Current treatments focus on suppressing the HIV virus in order to delay the onset of AIDS and dramatically extend the life of infected patients. What makes HIV so deadly, however, is its ability to insert itself into the body's cells and force those cells to produce new infection. That enzyme was able to eliminate the HIV virus from infected human cells in about three months in the laboratory.

Okay, so the side effects are unknown thus far, and the method of using the enzyme needs to be further worked on before it can really be called a cure - but isn't this the biggest step forward we've had on the front against HIV and AIDS? Isn't this our largest push in a direction towards a cure? I say it's something to celebrate.

So earlier this week, a possible cure for cancer.

In today's news, a possible cure for HIV/AIDS.

Maybe this weekend we can finally get to work on cryogenics and subsequent immortality! Read more!

Chicago vs. PETA: The Foie Gras Debate!

In the last installment of this debate, it sure as heck seemed like we were seeing the end of the story. If you read my post back then, Chicago Bans Food and PETA is to Blame, you'd remember that PETA used some dirty underhanded tricks to scare the politicians into signing the bill that effectively bans the sale/production/consumption of foie gras in Chicago.

You might have also noticed the tactics they DIDN'T use in their argument - THE FACTS.

Well, Chicago restaurants, business owners, and citizens who remember that this is still AMERICA and that PETA and that law do NOT have the power to take away our rights - they've made a petition to repeal the ban and the debate is underway in the weeks before the ban takes place.

So since I obviously side on the anti-PETA and pro-America end of the debate, I'm going to present you with the FACTS that those tree-hugging tofu-fartin' hippies were just going to hide under the hemp carpet and pray nobody ever found. Their main argument is that the foie gras method is cruel and painful. Their only evidence is that video showing a farmer forcefully over-feeding a duck, possibly playing some sappy or bone-chilling music for added effect.

Now then, for the defense - I've got a bunch of evidence to the CONTRARY of what PETA wants you to believe. First off, we'll tackle the easy matter of them being kept in cages as being "cruel". Well, the FACTS tell us that for the first 12-14 weeks, the ducks and geese are neither force-fed nor are they in cages at all. They roam free in lovely grassy areas. It's only the last 2-4 weeks that they are put in cages - which is ONLY done for the feedings - and then allowed to go back out and roam free. Possibly as free as the wind blows and/or the grass grows.

So now we get to the "painful" force-feeding done to fatten up those tasty livers before harvest time. I pose to YOU this question: If YOU had to undergo a painful process every day that was possibly "traumatic", what would you do? I'll answer for you, and hopefully you'll agree with at least ONE of the answers. I'm guessing that if this happened to you, you would:

1) Not like it. Sadomasochism aside, you would indeed feel pain or trauma.

2) Not want to get back in that cage where the traumatic pain happened.

3) Not want to go near the man that did this trauma to you.

4) Not do this act TO YOURSELF, since you obviously don't like it when someone else does it to you.

In exemplum, if a bully beat you up afterschool in the parking lot, you would cry because you got beaten up, avoid both the bully and that parking lot, and not beat yourself up because you obviously don't like getting beaten up.

ENTER THE EVIDENCE

Scientists did a study. You know, scientists with the numbers and data and logical reasoning that don't involve sappy videos to "make a point". REAL evidence and facts backed up with proof. The kind you'd hope to see in a real debate.

1) Not liking it; feeling pain. When the brain undergoes stress and/or pain, it shoots out corticosterone. And when they tested the corticosterone levels of these roaming-free ducks and geese during their FIRST force-feeding in the cages and two MORE force-feedings, there was NO significant increase in corticosterone. They also made sure that they were testing right and the ducks were able to make it by putting them in nets for 15 minutes, and sure enough there was corticosterone and obvious stress. Nets are bad for ducks and they get stressed by being in them. Force-feeding? Not really.

2) Avoidance of force-feeding cages. When ducks and geese were studied after the initial force-feeding, ducks only showed a little bit of avoidance and geese showed no signs of avoidance at all. And over time, the avoidance measured in the ducks became shorter with time.

3) Avoidance of feeder. When presented with a complete stranger rather than the usual caregiver, there was more aversion than with the caregiver - and both decreased greatly over time. So whether done by a stranger or familiar person, by the third feeding there was very little avoidance of the force-feedings. But we come to the final phase now, which I find to be the most damning against PETA...

4) Wouldn't do it to yourself. Guess what? Ducks and geese OVERFEED THEMSELVES! Geese spontaneously overeat grass and carrots by themselves at levels of over 3kg a day if left to their own devices. Ducks are not as large, but still undergo spontaneous hyperphagia (overeating) and can consume up to 750g when they do so. These are (shockingly) about the levels of overfeeding that the farmers force-feed them. So they're feeding them what they'd NORMALLY be eating when they overeat - they're just making SURE that they do it.

And no offense, but am I the only one who thinks of the farmer as "mommy" and the ducks/geese as "babies" and the phrase "Here comes the AIRPLANE!" coming into play with a funnel and feed instead of a spoon with mashed peas?

So ducks and geese regularly overfeed themselves. When farmers make sure they do it, they neither become afraid of the farmers, nor the cages where it happens, nor do they show significant signs of pain or stress when it happens!

The defense rests, your honor.

Time for you, the jury, to deliberate. PETA presented you with scary and mean-spirited video footage of a farmer force-feeding ducks. And while it may look painful to YOU, remember the FACT that it isn't painful to THEM. PETA plays on your emotions. Science plays on the facts. And while you may not LIKE the methods used in spite of the facts saying it's okay, you admittedly have the right to NOT eat/buy/cook foie gras. And guess what? If you have the right to NOT eat it, isn't it only natural that other people have the right TO eat it?

This is America. And if you can let PETA win and trick laws into effect that ban one kind of food, who's to say they won't get away with outlawing veal, or beef, or meat in general?

You have the right to eat meat. You have the right to eat whatever the hell you want. Fight for that right. Read more!