We have not curbed world hunger in how many decades, after spending how many billions?

Folks, another boondoggle awaits:

The funding the Lugar-Casey bill mandates is essentially a subsidy to private research and development goals: it has nothing to do with reducing hunger. Public money will go to U.S. corporations to produce patented products, essentially subsidizing risky projects and privatizing gain in the name of charity.

One thing is clear: The Global Food Security Act isn't just about feeding the hungry — it's about advancing the interests of U.S. agribusiness. The IAASTD found that agroecological techniques, stricter regulation of multinational agribusiness, and increased democratic control of the global food system can address the root causes of hunger in a way that a biotechnology never will. Lugar-Casey's renewed focus on agricultural development is welcome but that focus must come with a commitment to put the interests of small farmers before that of industry.

Read the whole article here:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6050

Another costly, all about control bill we have to stop!

Keep posting Suzie!

Hanna, RT means re-tweet, so Glenn tweeted the first, JetAngel1 sent it again as a Glennbeck re-tweet. Same with the second one, DameYankee te-tweeted what Glenn originally said

I may wear a Marine Corps shirt, not sure yet.....lol

I am planning on that one too. We will have to have some way to identify each other!

Great story. The kind we should all hear at least once a day. Thanks!

Well, thanks, heron. I never could resist jumping in when ignorance attempts to silence reasoned thinking!

Gee, happy news....a lot of uneducated replies here, trying to sound educated. First, on the Social Darwinism of the Victorian Era, about a minute of research finds:

"Not all Social Darwinists were quite so extreme, and Social Darwinism was not the only justification of colonialism, imperialism, and other intrusive exploits (the "white man's burden" was another, almost completely opposite, justification). In fact, the early Social Darwinists, who regarded the theory as a logical extension of laissez-faire capitalism, would have been appalled at the use of the concept to promote state-run eugenics programs.
Though its moral basis is now generally opposed, Social Darwinism did have some favorable effects. Belief in Social Darwinism tended to discourage wanton handouts to the poor, favoring instead providing resources for the fittest of all walks of life to use, or choosing specific, genuinely deserving people as recipients of help and support. Some major capitalists, such as Andrew Carnegie, combined philanthropy with Social Darwinism; he used his vast fortune to set up hundreds of libraries and other public institutions, including a university, for the benefit of those who would choose to avail themselves of such resources. He opposed direct and indiscriminate handouts to the poor because he felt that this favored the undeserving and the deserving person equally."
AND:
Many negative reactions to Darwinism come from the confusion of Darwinism as a scientific theory with Social Darwinism as an ethical theory. In reality, the two have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. Unfortunately, much of today's opposition to the application of Darwinian thinking to human behavior comes from a fear of Social Darwinism and its implications for many of today's moral codes. However, Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way.

Now, I thank you for putting out some serious tidbits for thought. I also thank you for pointing out, albeit inadvertently, that jumping to conclusions can certainly make some look quite foolish.

All those who saw this as a negative, apparently failed to go to the link you first posted, and read that. Nor did they bother to investigate Social Darwinism before jumping to conclusions! Makes one wonder if those folks always have trouble following instructions.............

Hey, stang, great to see the bamster hit double digit negatives again! All indications are he will stay there, or get lower! Thanks for the update!

Veteran76, I looked for you on the members' list. If you signed in under your real name, you may change it so folks from here will recognize you there. If you came here without signing up as a communique member, please consider joining:

http://912communique.ning.com/