Living and thriving through regenerative practices and a sustainable worldview.

Archive for September, 2011


The Medicinal, Toilet, Culinary and other Uses of 130 of the most Commonly Used Herbs
The Southwest School of Botanical Medicine


Wanna keep bees?

How To Build A Top Bar Hive

REVISED MARCH 2011. Fully illustrated, step-by-step guide to building a top bar hive, using simple tools and only basic woodworking skills. Top bar beekeeping is becoming popular with gardeners, homesteaders, smallholders and backyarders due to its simplicity and ease of management. Very little is needed except a hive and this guide will help you build one. Support and further information about sustainable beekeeping on the author’s web site . This free download is intended to be used in conjunction with The Barefoot Beekeeper – see

Facebook "going down" on Nov. 5th?

Apparently, the hacktivist group “Anonymous” has issued a press release stating that Facebook will be taken down on Nov. 5th, to protect people’s privacy. My concern is that folks will conveniently just migrate to Google Plus, which launched publicly this week. Is the timing just coincidence, or is there something bigger playing out between rival companies behind the scenes? Hmmm…


Anonymous Wants To Destroy Facebook

By Rosie Gray Tue., Aug. 9 2011 at 11:44 AM
Anonymous, the shady-yet-principled hacktivist group that has previously hacked into Iran’s government emails, the Pentagon, possibly the IMF, News Corp, Anders Breivik’s Twitter account, and much more, has a new target in its crosshairs: Facebook. The hackers have set the date for Facebook’s demise as November 5, 2011. The reason? Ironically, they’re worried about privacy. Full text of their press release after the jump.

DATE: November 5, 2011.TARGET:

Twitter :
Irc.Anonops.Li #OpFaceBook

Attention citizens of the world,

We wish to get your attention, hoping you heed the warnings as follows:
Your medium of communication you all so dearly adore will be destroyed. If you are a willing hacktivist or a guy who just wants to protect the freedom of information then join the cause and kill facebook for the sake of your own privacy.

Facebook has been selling information to government agencies and giving clandestine access to information security firms so that they can spy on people from all around the world. Some of these so-called whitehat infosec firms are working for authoritarian governments, such as those of Egypt and Syria.

Everything you do on Facebook stays on Facebook regardless of your “privacy” settings, and deleting your account is impossible, even if you “delete” your account, all your personal info stays on Facebook and can be recovered at any time. Changing the privacy settings to make your Facebook account more “private” is also a delusion. Facebook knows more about you than your family.….

You cannot hide from the reality in which you, the people of the internet, live in. Facebook is the opposite of the Antisec cause. You are not safe from them nor from any government. One day you will look back on this and realise what we have done here is right, you will thank the rulers of the internet, we are not harming you but saving you.

The riots are underway. It is not a battle over the future of privacy and publicity. It is a battle for choice and informed consent. It’s unfolding because people are being raped, tickled, molested, and confused into doing things where they don’t understand the consequences. Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is completely false. It gives users the illusion of and hides the details away from them “for their own good” while they then make millions off of you. When a service is “free,” it really means they’re making money off of you and your information.

Think for a while and prepare for a day that will go down in history. November 5 2011, #opfacebook . Engaged.

This is our world now. We exist without nationality, without religious bias. We have the right to not be surveilled, not be stalked, and not be used for profit. We have the right to not live as slaves.

We are anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us

“Kill Facebook for the sake of your own privacy” — doesn’t that sound strange, coming from people who routinely steal private information as they please? But this echoes the manifesto of a related group, LulzSec, whose nihilistic perspective on the state of the Internet kind of made sense. An excerpt:

Do you think every hacker announces everything they’ve hacked? We certainly haven’t, and we’re damn sure others are playing the silent game. Do you feel safe with your Facebook accounts, your Google Mail accounts, your Skype accounts? What makes you think a hacker isn’t silently sitting inside all of these right now, sniping out individual people, or perhaps selling them off? You are a peon to these people. A toy. A string of characters with a value.This is what you should be fearful of, not us releasing things publicly, but the fact that someone hasn’t released something publicly.

Will Anonymous be able to successfully lay waste to Mark Zuckerberg’s fortress? This is set to be the Internet showdown of the year.

Resilience is not only physical…

but also mental and metaphysical. Here’s an interesting article to wrap your noodle around, and possibly exercise your Trivium skills on.

Free Will and Quantum Clones: How Your Choices Today Affect the Universe at its Origin

By George Musser | September 19, 2011 |

The late philosopher Robert Nozick, talking about the deep question of why there is something rather than nothing, quipped: “Someone who proposes a non-strange answer shows he didn’t understand the question.” So, when Scott Aaronson began a talk three weeks ago by saying it would be “the looniest talk I’ve ever given,” it was a good start. At a conference on the nature of time—a question so deep it’s hard even to formulate as a question—“loony” is high praise indeed. And indeed his talk was rich in ambition and vision. It left physics überblogger Sabine Hossenfelder uncharacteristically lost for words.

As part of his general push to apply theoretical computer science to philosophy, Aaronson has been giving thought to that old favorite of college metaphysics classes and late-night dorm-room bull sessions: free will. Do we have autonomy, or are our choices preordained? Is that a false choice? What does it mean to be free, anyway? For some of Aaronson’s earlier thoughts, see his lecture and blog post. Though hard to summarize, his talk (slides here) can be broken down into two parts.

First, he sought to translate fuzzy notions of free will into a concrete operational definition. He proposed a variation on the Turing Test which he calls the Envelope Argument or Prediction Game: someone poses questions to you and to a computer model of your brain, trying to figure out who’s the human. If a computer, operating deterministically, can reproduce your answers, then you, too, must be operating deterministically and are therefore not truly free. (Here, I use the word “deterministically” in a physicist’s or philosopher’s sense; computer scientists have their own, narrower meaning.) Although the test can never be definitive, the unpredictability of your responses can be quantified by the size of the smallest computer program needed to reproduce those responses. Zeeya Merali gave a nice summary of Aaronson’s proposal at the Foundation Questions Institute blog.

The output of this game, as Aaronson portrayed it, would be a level of confidence for whether your will is free or not. But I think it might be better interpreted as a measure of the amount of free will you have. Last year, quantum physicists Jonathan Barrett and Nicolas Gisin argued that free will is not a binary choice, live free or die, but a power that admits of degree. They proposed to quantify free will using quantum entanglement experiments. Freedom of will enters into these experiments because physicists make a choice about which property of a particle to measure, and the choice affects the outcome. Such experiments are commonly taken as evidence for spooky action at a distance, because your choice can affect the outcome of a measurement made at a distant location. But they can also be interpreted as a probe of free will.

If there are, say, 1000 possible measurements, then complete freedom means you could choose any of the 1000; if your choice were constrained to 500, you would have lost one bit of free will. Interestingly, Barrett and Gisin showed that the loss of even a single bit would explain away spooky action. You wouldn’t need to suppose that your decision somehow leaps across space to influence the particle. Instead, both your choice and the outcome could be prearranged to match. What is surprising is how little advance setup would do the trick. The more you think about this, the more disturbed you should get. Science experiments always presume complete freedom of will; without it, how would we know that some grand conspiracy isn’t manipulating our choices to hide the truth from us?

Back to Aaronson’s talk. After describing his experiment, he posed the question of whether a computer could ever convincingly win the Prediction Game. The trouble is that a crucial step—doing a brain scan to set up the computer model—cannot be done with fidelity. Quantum mechanics forbids you from making a perfect copy of a quantum state—a principle known as the no-cloning theorem. The significance of this depends on how strongly quantum effects operate in the brain. If the mind is mostly classical, then the computer could predict most of your decisions.

Invoking the no-cloning theorem is a clever twist. The theorem derives from the determinism—technically, unitarity—of quantum mechanics. So here we have determinism acting not as the slayer of free will, but as its savior. Quantum mechanics is a theory with a keen sense of irony. In the process of quantum decoherence, to give another example, entanglement is destroyed by… more entanglement.

As fun as Aaronson’s game is, I don’t see it as a test of free will per se. As he admitted, predictable does not mean unfree. Predictability is just one aspect of the problem. In the spirit of inventing variations on the Turing Test, consider the Toddler Test. Ask a toddler something, anything. He or she will say “no.” It is a test that parents will wearily recognize. The answers, by Aaronson’s complexity measure, are completely predictable. But that hardly reflects on the toddler’s freedom; indeed, toddlers play the game precisely to exercise their free will. The Toddler Test shows the limits of predictability, too. Who knows when the toddler will stop playing? If there is anybody in the world who is unpredictable, it is a toddler. What parents would give for a window in their skulls!

Yet no one denies that toddlers are composed of particles that behave according to deterministic laws. So how do you square their free will with those laws? Like cosmologist Sean Carroll, I lean toward what philosophers call compatibilism: I see no contradiction whatsoever between determinism and free will, because they operate at two different levels of reality. Determinism describes the basic laws of physics. Free will describes the behavior of conscious beings. It is an emergent property. Individual particles aren’t free. Nor are they hot, or wet, or alive. Those properties arise from particles’ collective behavior.

To put it differently, we can’t talk about whether you have free will until we can talk about you. The behavior of particles could be completely preordained by the initial conditions of the universe, but that is irrelevant to your decisions. You still need to make them.

What you are is the confluence of countless chains of events that stretch back to the dawn of time. Every decision you make depends on everything you have ever learned and experienced, coming together in your head for the first and only time in the history of the universe. The decision you make is implicit in those influences, but they have never all intersected before. Thus your decision is a unique creative act.

This is why even the slightest violation of free will in a quantum entanglement experiment beggars belief. “Free will” in such an experiment means simply that your choice of what to measure is such a distant cousin of the particle’s behavior that the two have never interacted until now.

This is where we get into the second big point that Aaronson made in his talk, about just how creative an act it was. Even if the influences producing a free choice have never interacted before, they can all be traced to the initial state of the universe. There is always some uncertainty about what that state was; a huge range of possibilities would have led to the universe we see today. But the decision you make resolves some of that uncertainty. It acts as a measurement of those countless influences.

Yet in a deterministic universe, those is no justification for saying that the initial state caused the decision; it is equally valid to say that the decision caused the initial state. After all, physics is reversible. What determinism means is that the state at one time implies the state at all other times. It does not privilege one state over another. Thus your decision, in a very real sense, creates the initial conditions of the universe.

This backward causation, or retrocausality, was the “loony” aspect of Aaronson’s talk. Except there’s nothing loony about it. It is a concept that Einstein’s special theory of relativity made a live possibility. Relativity convinced most physicists that we live in a “block universe” in which past, present, and future are equally real. In that case, there’s no reason to suppose the past influences the future, but not vice-versa. Although their theories shout retrocausality, physicists haven’t fully grappled with the implications yet. It might, for one thing, explain many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

In a follow-up email, Aaronson told me that the connection between free will and cosmic initial state was also explored by philosopher Carl Hoefer in a 2002 paper. What Aaronson has done is apply the insights of quantum mechanics. If you can’t clone a quantum state perfectly, you can’t clone yourself perfectly, and if you can’t clone yourself perfectly, you can’t ever be fully simulated on a computer. Each decision you take is yours and yours alone. It is the unique record of some far-flung collection of particles in the early universe. Aaronson wrote, “What quantum mechanics lets you do here, basically, is ensure that the aspects of the initial microstate that are getting resolved with each decision are ‘fresh’ aspects, which haven’t been measured or recorded by anyone else.”

If nothing else, let this reconcile parents to their willful toddlers. Carroll once wrote that every time you break an egg, you are doing observational cosmology. A toddler playing the “no” game goes you one better. Every time the toddler says no, he or she is doing cosmological engineering, helping to shape the initial state of the universe.

Quantum art courtesy of garlandcannon. Slide courtesy of Scott Aaronson.
About the Author: George Musser is an editor at Scientific American. His primary focus is space science, ranging from planets to cosmology. Musser completed his undergraduate studies in electrical engineering and mathematics at Brown University and his graduate studies in planetary science at Cornell University, where he was a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. Prior to joining Scientific American, Musser served as editor of Mercury magazine and of The Universe in the Classroom tutorial series at the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, a science and science-education nonprofit based in San Francisco. He is also the author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to String Theory. Musser has won numerous awards in his career including the 2010 American Astronomical Society’s Jonathan Eberhart Planetary Sciences Journalism Award. Follow on Twitter @gmusser.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

My note: This article is from last year, but it demonstrates how Interstate Commerce law is being used (abused), as noted in a recently published article on this blog about the fracking industry using it against a whole town in PA.

Feds order farmer to destroy his own wheat crops: The shocking revelations of Wickard vs Filburn

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Editor of

(NaturalNews) In arguing for S.501, the “Food Safety Modernization Act,” there are all sorts of attorneys, legislators and internet commentators who keep claiming, “The government won’t try to control the food production of small farms.” They say, “Your backyard garden is safe” and that the feds won’t come knocking on your door to control your seeds or foods.

As usual, these pushers of Big Government are utterly ignorant of the history in their own country. Because as you’ll learn right here, not only CAN the U.S. government control and dictate to single-family farms what they can grow in their own backyards; the government has already blatantly done so!

In this article, I’ll share with you the full and true story of how Big Government has already run rampant over the rights of individuals to grow their own food — I’ll even cite the US Supreme Court decision that “legalized” this tyranny.

How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn

It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government’s “infinite wisdom” of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it’s going to “solve problems” for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn’t selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn’t growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That’s not commerce. That’s just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It’s now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.

The US Supreme Court sided with government tyranny

The US Supreme Court, you see, ruled that Roscoe Filburn’s wheat could be regulated and destroyed by the federal government simply because Roscoe’s wheat production might reduce the amount of wheat he bought from other wheat producers and therefore could impact interstate trade.

Now stay with me on this, because this is a really, really important point to understand.

The federal government claimed authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), even though the Commerce Clause was originally written primarily to prevent states from erecting tariffs, not to allow the federal government to control interstate trade. But thanks to the twisted interpretation of the government — and believe me, the government will twist every interpretation it can in an effort to assert more power over the population — the feds claimed that Filburn’s growing of his own wheat effectively reduced interstate commerce in wheat. Therefore, they reasoned, they could regulate his backyard wheat production (and order him to destroy his wheat).

Because of this US Supreme Court decision in 1942, it now means the federal government can order you to halt food production in your own back yard by arguing that when you grow your own food, the amount of food you purchase from other food providers is reduced, meaning that your food production impacts interstate trade and therefore can be fully controlled by the federal government.

In other words, the federal government claims the authority right now — even without the Food Safety Modernization Act — to knock on your door and order you at gunpoint to destroy all the food in your garden, your greenhouse or your farm. They can order you to destroy all seeds in your possession and all food harvested from your own garden. And they can do all this with the full protection of U.S. law by simply citing the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 as ruled by the US Supreme Court.

Why the naysayers will probably starve

Still think you have the right to grow your own food? I’ve heard all sorts of naysayers claiming that S.510 — the Food Safety Modernization Act — is no threat to small growers and family farms. They say the fears about S.510 are overblown and that the government can’t possibly shut down your backyard gardens or small, local vegetable farms. They say this with the kind of smug certainty you might typically hear from a doctor who thinks he knows everything about human health (but who actually knows nothing about nutrition).

These naysayers tend to operate out of an assumption that Big Government will never take away their rights and freedoms and that expanding the reach of agencies such as the TSA, FDA, DEA and FTC with even more power and more armed agents is a good thing because the government always takes care of the people. We need more protection from e.coli, they argue, so let’s unleash 4,000 armed FDA agents instead to protect us from bacteria. But who will protect us from the FDA?

What these ignorant naysayers don’t understand is that government is constantly trying to expand its power to the point of tyranny. As a current example of this, look at what just happened with Chavez in Venezuela. He has now been granted what are essentially dictatorial powers over the country (…). Chavez is now the King of Venezuela, and whatever he says is now law. Venezuelan citizens are now slaves to his tyranny, and they must follow his orders or be executed.

The United States is moving in precisely the same direction. First, power gets stripped away from the People little by little. Then it gets concentrated in the hands of a few regulatory agencies who write their own laws and who stay in power year after year because none of their officials are elected. (Think the FDA commissioner is elected by the people? Think again…) And then, over time, a few powerful individuals concentrate power from those agencies into their own hands. Before long, the country is run by a handful of power-crazed tyrants who disregard all freedoms and rights of the People.

This is precisely what the FDA is doing with the Food Safety Modernization Act. Backed by yet more funding and a new army of agents, plus the Supreme Court ruling that says the federal government can order you to destroy the food you’re growing in your own back yard, the FDA can now pillage the countryside, going from farm to farm and house to house, burning fields and ordering the citizenry to destroy their plants, seeds and crops. This is exactly what they’ve been doing to raw milk producers and food coops, by the way (…).

That is no exaggeration. It is a documented “legal” precedent established in Wickard vs Filburn, and it can be used at any moment to destroy the ability of people to grow their own food, thereby making these people totally dependent on dead processed food (which is always FDA approved if it’s dead, of course) made in food factories that churn out nutritional deficiencies and death.

What will you eat when the government destroys your local food supply?

You see, under the argument that your backyard garden “impacts interstate commerce,” the federal government can order you to simply spray Roundup on your entire garden in order to kill it.

What will you eat then? When the GMO crops suffer a mass catastrophic failure, and the monocultured wheat dies from a global viral infection called ug99 “rust” (…), what will you eat?

If the government has its way, you won’t eat at all. You’ll starve to death under the “protection” of the food safety thugs at the FDA who don’t believe any “live” food is safe in the first place (hence their war against raw milk).

Those people who have the foresight to grow their own gardens and protect their food sources from the tyranny of the federal government may actually have a chance at surviving. The rest will simply starve while waiting in government food lines where the feds hand out nutritionally worthless cheese and other depleted processed foods that Sesame Street absurdly thinks are “superfoods” (…).

Big Government declares war on the local food movement

Make no mistake, folks: the government is attempting to destroy the local food movement. They are trying to wipe out small, organic farms that compete with corporate agribiz in the same way the FDA has long plotted to destroy natural health supplement companies who compete with Big Pharma.

It’s all about wiping out the little guys and protecting the monopoly markets of the largest and most influential corporations that are poisoning the earth and destroying your health. As Wickard vs Filburn clearly demonstrated, the government does not believe you have any natural right or Constitutional right to grow your own food. In fact, the government believes it has the right to order you to destroy your food at the time of its choosing.

Don’t think this could happen to you? Filburn didn’t either. The idea that his own government would show up at his door and order him to burn his field of wheat was simply unimaginable. Similarly, the idea that the FDA would tear across the countryside wiping out small family farms is unimaginable to many Americans today. But that’s only because they don’t know their own history and they put far too much faith in the flimsy idea that the government somehow, in some way, respects the rights and freedoms of the People.

The obvious falsehood of that idea is evident in the way we are all being treated by the TSA. Who would have thought, just two years ago, that we’d be subjected to government-enforced molestation at the hands of airport security screeners? That idea seems unthinkable at the time, much like the idea that the FDA could seize your garden seeds or order you to destroy your greenhouse crops. Yet such actions are already within the claimed power of the federal government… merely waiting to be invoked at the time of their choosing.

Traitors to freedom

All those who voted for S.510 — which includes the entire U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike — are traitors to the freedoms upon which America was founded. They have thrust our food supply into the hands of tyrants who are just waiting to exercise their control and “authority” over as many people as possible.

Five years ago, I joked that people might one day be arrested for smuggling broccoli across state lines. Today, that joke has become a sad reality. The mere act of growing food and selling it to your neighbor without government permission is about to become a criminal act. And no, small farms are not “exempt” from S.510. They must provide financial information and apply to the FDA to be granted exemption status. That sounds a lot like slaves begging for mercy from the king, doesn’t it?

Keep the big picture in mind as you consider all this: When teens are poisoned by the aspartame in diet soda, the FDA does nothing. When children are given cancer by the sodium nitrite in hot dogs, the FDA does nothing. When countless thousands of Americans suffer heart attacks and cardiovascular disease each year from the partially-hydrogenated oils used throughout the food supply, the FDA does nothing. But when you grow fresh produce in your own back yard and carry it to your local farmer’s market to sell it without government permission, you will be arrested by the FDA as a criminal.

Shame on all those who supported this bill. May history have mercy on their souls for the suffering and injustices they have unleashed upon us all.

Sources for this story include:…

Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Judge Andrew Napolitano…

(This is an amazing book. Highly recommended reading that will educate you on the history of government abuses of power. All Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and Independents need to read this book.)

8 Ways to Take Responsibility for Yourself

on May 22, 2010

8 Ways to Take Responsibility for Yourself.

8 Ways to Take Responsibility for Yourself

Taking true responsibility for yourself gives you back the power to create exactly what you want in your life.

This means that you must take responsibility for your thoughts, words, and actions. 

Taking responsibility for yourself gives you true freedom. By taking responsibility for yourself, and only yourself, you become aware of the true connection between your inner and outer world.  You are the one and only creator of your life. There is no one else to blame for what your life is.  When we take responsibility, we take back control of our experience.  Taking responsible control means that you understand the basic truths of the Universe, and use your understanding of your inner world to create consciously and respectfully through your actions.

The Gift of Responsibility gives you freedom, because it grants you true awareness of your power as a creator.

“A man sooner or later discovers that he is the master-gardener of his soul, the director of his life.”

~ James Allen

  1. Awareness is the first step to understanding that you create everything in your experience.  Every part of your life, good or bad, has a root somewhere within your mind.
  2. The truth can hurt sometimes, but by taking charge of the fact that you are creating your own experience, you can finally take control of what you are inviting into your experience.  Without the Gift of Responsibility, people do not realize that they are the creators of their own experience, and live their lives reacting to the things around them.
  3. To consciously create your life with responsibility, act, don’t react.  You may have heard that one of the definitions of insanity is performing the same action over and over yet expecting different results.  When someone reacts to what is happening around them without realizing that their attention to these things are just drawing more of the same to them, they see the same things, good or bad, repeat themselves over and over again in their lives.
  4. Using the Gift of Responsibility means that you may have to go through a period of change where you admit that you were causing negative or painful experiences to happen to you because of your thoughts and actions.  This can be hard, because we do not want to take responsibility for our lives.  We want to blame others for what is happening to us.  But nothing “just happens” to us, we create our own lives through our thoughts, words, actions and beliefs.
  5. The fear inside of us has been in control for too long.  Freedom is given to those who are aware of what the fear makes them do.  Fear is like a parasite inside of you, and it feels very threatened by the idea of freedom and of living with conscious awareness.  This internal parasite feeds off of drama, judgments, negative emotions and off of your fear of change.  If it can’t get these things out of you, it will have you “attack” other people with your thoughts, words, body language, and even with your physical body to get the energy it needs to survive.  Be aware of this fear parasite as you learn and grow in wisdom and experience.
  6. If you can become aware of how fear uses you to feed itself, you can overcome it by simply being aware. When you become aware of the choices that fear is trying to make for you, you have taken responsibility for yourself, and are one step closer to being completely free.
  7. The cause of our problems is not outside of us. We do not need to wait for anyone or anything to happen to change our lives. The beginning of change always lies within us.  By taking full and complete responsibility for both the roots and the fruits in our lives, we will change our lives for the better. To change the fruits you must change the roots. If you want your life to change and if you want less to complain about, you are going to need to change how you think.
  8. Awareness is the first step to creating change.

When you allow others to be responsible for themselves, you free yourself to work on you.  No need to worry about controlling others, their choices will always be theirs, no matter how much you try to scheme about how to make them do what you want.  There is more than one way to be on this Earth, and who are you to tell other people how to live their lives?

They are responsible, so let them live their own adventure, and you will become more free to live yours.

“I will not surrender responsibility for my life and my actions.”

~ John Enoch Powell

Gas driling industry group sues Pa. community

Gas industry group sues Warren County township over anti-dumping ordinance

Monday, September 19, 2011
A Warren County community`s attempt to keep Marcellus shale drillers from dumping their wastes within its borders has drawn a federal legal challenge by a gas industry group.

The Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, based in Marshall, claims in an Erie federal court filing that Columbus Township`s ordinance prohibiting the dumping of toxic liquids that were not generated inside the township violates the Constitution`s interstate commerce clause.

The township passed the ordinance in August and amended it on Sept. 13. The ordinances are a response to the Environmental Protection Agency approving permits for two underground injection wells that Bear Lake Properties LLC of Pine wants to use to dispose of brine and other fluids from Marcellus shale well drilling and fracking.

“The distinction made by the ordinances between liquid waste generated within the township and such waste generated outside of the township is arbitrary and does not serve any legitimate relationship to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the township,” the association says in its lawsuit.

David Goodwill, chairman of the township`s board of supervisors, said Columbus has a lot of 20- to 30-year-old wells that the gas industry wants to use for disposal even though there`s very little Marcellus shale drilling near the township. The industry should be required to dispose of the waste where it creates it, he said.

“We don`t want our township to be a dumping site for the whole state of Pennsylvania,” he said.

'Superbugs' possible from genetically modified food
‘Superbugs’ possible from genetically modified food

Some maize fed to cattle contains antibiotic resistance genes

Fears that genetically-modified foods might promote drug-resistant “superbugs” have been fuelled by new research.

Dutch scientists used a computer-controlled artificial gut to show that DNA remains intact for several minutes in the large intestine.

Hub Noteborn, of the State Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products in Wageningen, said in New Scientist magazine: “It was a surprise to see that DNA persisted so long in the colon.”

[ image: DNA survived in the artificial gut]
DNA survived in the artificial gut

This persistence means it might be possible for genes to jump from genetically-modified (GM) food into bacteria in the gut of farm animals. Previously some scientists have said there was no risk as the modified DNA breaks down too quickly.

If the transferred genes were the antibiotic-resistance genes used as markers in some GM crops fed to livestock, then serious health risks might result. The danger would be that antibiotic-resistant microbes would spread from animals to humans.

The experiments used bacteria genetically modified to contain antibiotic-resistant genes. As these were digested in the artificial gut, half the DNA survived for six minutes.

“This makes it available to transform cells,” said Robert Havenaar, of the TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute in Zeist. His team designed the artificial gut which provides a mechanical model of the stomach and intestines and contains the normal microbes and enzymes.

[ image: Greenpeace protest at GM maize in France in October 1998]
Greenpeace protest at GM maize in France in October 1998

For the first time the experiments measured the rate of transfer of DNA from GM bacteria to other bacteria normally found in the gut. Only one in 10 million passed on the DNA. But there are usually around a thousand billion gut bacteria, suggesting many would be transformed.

However, the Flavr Savr tomato, engineered by Calgene to resist rot, did not pass on antibiotic resistant genes, although up to 10% of its DNA reached the colon.

The crucial test will be whether GM foods and bacteria which have infected the gut can transfer genes. Havenaar says he will ask the European Union to fund further research.

The new findings show more research is essential, says Derek Burke, former chair of Britain’s Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. “We can only say that the risk is not zero,” he says. “Anything that would help put numbers on this, would be useful.”

A UK House of Lords select committee recently said that the potential benefits from genetically modified crops far outweigh the risks. However, they still recommended that the use of antibiotic-resistance genes in crops such as the maize fed to some US cattle should be “phased out as quickly as possible”.

New Law Could Empty Vitamins Aisle…

New Law Could Empty Vitamins Aisle…

by Jim Healthy, on Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:47pm PDT

Do you take your daily multi, or at least make it an intention? That option might become a lot more complicated in the near future.The FDA, which regulates foods and drugs in the US, has turned its focus on nutritional supplements — and its proposed criteria will leave very few supplements standing.

Here’s what could go down:

  1. Under these new guidelines, Vitamin A, B complex, C, and D, as well as CoQ 10, would be outlawed.
  2. The FDA will require that supplement manufacturers fund prohibitively expensive studies using doses multiplied by a “safety factor” of as high as 2,000 times the recommended dose. For instance, the FDA is proposing that two species of animals, rodents and young dogs, will be forced to ingest 2.4 million milligrams of fish oil per day, for 90 days. Humans take 2,400 milligrams daily — and we weigh 10 times as much as small dogs. In addition to these inhumane practices, this requirement will destroy most supplement companies (except those secretly owned by pharmaceutical manufacturers).
  3. Supplements can only include ingredients found in the “typical food supply.” And what exactly does that mean to the FDA? Does echinacea qualify as being in the typical food supply? (I doubt it, since deep fried echinacea blossoms are not on your local Applebee’s menu.)
  4. The FDA will only approve supplement ingredients that are at the same levels that it uses for synthetic food additives and preservatives, which is in violation of the 1994 law, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), which categorizes supplements as foods, not additives.
  5. The FDA is treating supplement ingredients under the same exacting scrutiny as it does with known cancer-causing chemicals like aspartame, MSG, and sodium nitrate — demanding that the supplements be reduced to “inert” levels of concentration that will render them ineffective to consumers.
  6. Each ingredient, as well as the supplement itself, will be required to undergo a New Dietary Ingredient Notification (NDIN) process — even if the same ingredient is used by other companies. This process takes 75 days at a bare minimum. And as of yet, 83% of NDINs have been rejected by the FDA. And by the way, “new” refers to products that have been in use for up to 17 years.

Are you worried yet?

After this law passes — and it will if we don’t act soon top stop it — your only options will be pharmaceutical drugs (and we know how well they work, don’t we?).

In case you don’t: Every year, 100,000 people per year die from prescription drugs — and this number only includes people who die from known side effects, not from prescription errors made by doctors and pharmacists.

Guess how many people died in 2006, 2007 and 2008, combined, from supplements? Six.

And yet who is the FDA going after? Not the pharmaceutical industry. They’re going after our supplements.

Here’s how to stop them:

Time for action is short.

The FDA has extended the period for you to protest this law until September 30. So it’s time to raise your voice while there’s still a chance. Once the law passes, it will be too late. Then, you’ll wish you had, I promise.

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) has set up an easy, quick way to protest the FDA’s action. Click here to tell Congress and the FDA to keep their hands OFF our supplements. It will only take a few short minutes.

Click here to vote for your continued safe access to vitamins.