commented on Science News: The Left and Bernie Sanders Are Unscientific on GMOs, Seattle Is Wet and the Rest of the Country Is on Fire
I am a scientist (oceanography). Personally I think GMO foods are safe to eat. But there are a lot of perfectly good reasons to avoid GMO foods. Maybe you don't like the politics of Monsanto et al. Maybe you think there is environmental downsides to GMO foods. Maybe you just don't like the sound of it.
Unlike vaccination, making a personal choice to avoid GMO foods harms no one. People deserve to be able to make that choice, for good reasons and for bad, and we need labeling to do so. I would not support banning GMO foods. But I do support labeling GMO food so people can make their own choices. If GMO foods are so much better, healthier, and cheaper, let them succeed in the marketplace.
commented on Savage Love
2nd or 3rd time with a girl, I have her bent face down over the arm of the couch. It's kinda dark, and I'm just starting to try to get my cock into her pussy.
She: "A little higher"
Me, pushing in a bit: "Here"?
She: "I don't want to do butt stuff!"
Me: "Whaaa? I was aiming for your pussy! Why were you saying 'higher'?"
She: "I meant relative to me!"
The evening ended up lovely from there, I aimed a bit lower, and found her pussy to the satisfaction of all. But I still maintain that toward the ceiling/sky is "higher" and blame our incident on the air traffic controller giving faulty direction.
commented on Rare Ferrari Enzo on Capitol Hill
I'm all for taxing the rich more, even a lot more. But once a person's money makes it past the tax filter, they should be able to spend it however they want. No seizing property because it annoys Ansel. Plus luxury goods like this keep an enormous number of blue-collar, well salaried workers employed. Better than that million dollars going into a Swiss Bank account and earning 2%.
commented on Support the Real Progressive
Booo. Not that I think Hillary is a bad choice, or a bad candidate, or even that you shouldn't have endorsed her. But why the divisive and dismissive portrayal of Bernie? I'll happily vote for Hillary in the general, but I'm supporting Bernie in the primary. But why trash Bernie on the way to endorsing Hillary?
I guess I'm just disappointed that once the Election Control Board gets through it's sausage making and settles on Hillary (which I'm sure was contentious and far from a consensus decision), that the anonymous author felt the need to frame the decision as clear-cut and obvious, vilify the "loser" and create an endorsement without very much nuance.
Instead, why couldn't you have talked about reality; this is a close call, Hillary is smart, a grinder, pragmatic, and willing to compromise, often to a fault. Bernie is the idealistic, more radical, more principled (for better AND worse) candidate. Hillary is more likely to achieve incremental gains, but unlikely to shake things up in a fundamental way. Sanders is more likely to massive change, but is a lot more likely to fail utterly and crash and bern (sorry!). She is the safe choice. He is the high-risk/high-reward choice.
Then the Election Control Board could tell us that in their view the Hillary approach is smarter, and more likely to pay off. See?! No trashing Bernie necessary! Yes, Bernie is compromised (particularly on guns), as all politicians are, but no honest assessment of the two could conclude that Bernie is more compromised that Hillary, who too often follows her constituents rather than leads them (see gay marriage), has proven not to be politically brave (see Iraq invasion) and has taken some downright sketchy positions such as the TPP trade deal, and OMG, Wall Street and her various secret paid speeches.
I like them both, and I'd support them both in the general. But I'll caucus for Bernie. Now, was that so hard Election Control Board?