Do Americans REALLY Want Big Government? If So, Are They Willing To Pay With Higher Taxes?

In the last week three WSJ pieces commanded my attention, motivating me to combine them in a blog post. The first ('Government Spending Discourages Work')was an op-ed column (Feb. 27, p. A15)  by Edward Lazear - a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business - and more importantly, a "Hoover Institution Fellow". To remind readers - one and all - it was under the illustrious  President Herbert Hoover that the infamous stock market crash of 1929 occurred - in large part because of Hoover's policies vis-a-vis Wall Street. That crash incepted the Great Depression.

No surprise that Lazear as a fellow of the Hoover Institution recycles much of their claptrap. Among which we see (ibid.):

"..Over time high spending necessitates high taxes and high taxes reduce work and restrains growth. Economic trends in developed nations show that low taxes and hard work are linked to robust growth.."

And:

"Tax and spending rates correlate highly across the 35 OECD countries. Higher spending goes hand in hand with higher taxes, higher deficits, fewer worked hours and less growth."

But then there is another piece that pretty well refutes that bollocks.  'Germany, Awash In Money, Shies Away From Tax Cut'' (WSJ,  Feb. 21, p. A11) . focused on Germany posting a projected, consolidated budget surplus of 50 million euro ($62 billion) between now and 2021, The writer adding in typical sardonic WSJ fashion:

"The German government never had so much money or so many ideas of how to spend it,  The one thing that isn't discussed is giving it back to the taxpayers".

Which, of course, is a flat out incorrect interpretation, but let's admit the earlier cited Edward Lazear would be content with that take,. But let me clarify that for Germans that money   IS given back, but as extended unemployment insurance, paid family leave and free child care, higher education (free) and medical care. Not to mention generous pensions.

This was again made clear to us when we saw our German friends Reinhardt and Elli in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, in May 2013, e.g.

At the time we discussed with Reinhardt -in one of many conversations -  the relative merits of the German and American work forces. I mentioned promotion specifically and he'd been emphatic that the idea that promotions were "worth more" in the USA was nonsense. "Workers have just as great an incentive here in Germany", he said, because seniority is based on the quality of one's work and "that same seniority determines one's pension."  When I pressed him further he agreed that Germans aren't ruled 'by the buck' (or euro), "Jawohl, it is true that we do not consider the money to be the main determinant of our lives. We treasure time to be with family also to travel and see the world later on."

He did agree also that higher taxes are part of it and enable benefits like higher pensions, more widely distributed social insurance and child care provisions  as well as a less profit oriented healthcare system. He acknowledged that taxes in the U.S. are substantially lower than in Europe but made it clear that translated into more social benefits for Europeans. 

"You will not see a European go bankrupt or become homeless from a medical problem." he averred.

This is where the WSJ piece on Germany's  surplus is misleading because it interprets and frames that surplus in terms of individualistic American nonsense that it must be  "given back" as tax cuts. Yeah, right, and WHO gets most of those cuts? Three guesses but the first two don't count.  This is also something Lazear glosses over in his claims that "government spending discourages work." I defy you to blab that to any red-blooded German, who are amongst the hardest working and most productive citizens in the world. And who - because of that hard work - expect and demand their government use any extra money for taxes on social services. 

As Green Party member Sven Giegold, quoted in the piece put it:

"You need high taxes in order to be civilized. We are very far away from the government having too much money."

And Reinhardt would totally concur because without that gov't support he'd not have been able to retire at age 55 from his auto engineering job and spend the last twenty years  touring various places, including the U.S. and Canada (Whistler, B.C.)  As he put it when we spoke on these issues:

"It is interesting" he said, "but if Americans were willing to pay higher taxes they might have more time for family and travel as well as paying less in healthcare costs because they could have a system more like ours, less based on profits!"

Of course, he is correct, but to the typical  shortsighted, American tax cut money grubber this is somehow  twisted and unnatural. This despite the fact Germany has rarely been in deficit mode because it firmly believes in husbanding resources rather than trickle down BS that gives tax cuts to the rich. As the article notes:

"Germany has among the highest taxes in the world and a habit of heavy state spending."

This prompted former U.S. ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum, to opine in the piece:

"It's sort of a through the looking glass world. Traditionally Germans have been in favor of hoarding resources rather than lowering government expenditures."

Yet the proof is in the pudding! Despite those expenditures it's not running a deficit like the U.S. - a hard fact that Edward Lazear totally ignores in his specious brief for "aggressive cuts in federal spending."  Seems to me (and it would Reinhardt) Germany has some lessons to teach the U.S.- not that a hack like Lazear would take note.

Finally,  we come to:   'Americans Want Big Government',  by William Galston - one of a handful of center left columnists at the Journal.   Galston cited a Pew research poll from last April that showed - for the first time in eight years- "Americans favored a larger government offering more services over a smaller government providing fewer services."   This was bolstered by an NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll last month which showed 58 percent of Americans ("the highest share ever recorded") agreed that "the government should do more to solve problems and help meet the needs of people"-this compared to only 38 percent who felt "the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

Moreover, "Americans favoring a more active government included majorities of all age groups, ethnicities, and education levels"  (Those favoring less gov't included 63 % of Republicans, 65 % of Trump voters and 51 % of white men. In other words, the usual suspects.)

How does this demand for government help break down?

- 50 percent of Americans want the gov't to increase spending for Social Security

- This is vs. 5 percent who want cuts

 - For Medicare the comparable figures were 45 percent and 7 percent.

- For Medicaid, 38 percent vs. 12 percent

In a separate Kaiser survey, 40 % want more defense spending, 19 percent want less.

Similarly, 70 percent want more spent on education and 7 percent want less.

Based on these polls, Galston concluded "Americans want Big Government"

Americans, for their part, may want a big government a la German style but ARE they willing to pay for it?  Let's make it clear you can't have both tax cuts and government extension of services and programs. The way so many grabbed at that fake GOP -Trump tax cut just passed, I doubt it. So I guess they'd rather continue with no paid family leave, no sick days to speak of from work, no government supported pensions like Reinhardt enjoys, and excessively expensive health care with too many dubious outcomes.

When I see Americans vote in their millions against tax cut pols then I might believe the zeitgeist and supply side brainwashing has given way to a new "German" normal. But not until.

See also:

• Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman on their social welfare state 

'Climate Change Isn't The End Of The World' - Total, Absolute Bollocks!

In a WSJ article yesterday (p. A17) by David R. Henderson and John M. Cochrane ('Climate Change Isn't the End of the World') it is claimed that climate change is really no biggie.  After all the "costs of moving and adapting are not as imposing as they seem", and besides "carbon dioxide hurts nobody's health" and it's "good for plants"..   In fact, it is incredible that such recycled rubbish could even appear in a serious newspaper, but there it is.  Climate codswallop is indeed fertile soil for the denizens of the Hoover Institution. They earn their living hawking it.

The formidable problems of trying to adapt I've already dealt with here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/climate-change-adaptation-will-be.html

Really choice is the authors' remark:

"It follows that if the future of civilization is really at stake adaptation or geo-engineering should not be unmentionable"

True, which is why I did discuss them in the post associated with the preceding link, especially the latter.  I also showed why the various geo-engineering solutions are totally impractical!

None of the problems I examined are in the distant future as the authors seem to believe, but basically right around the corner. For example, the projection by the U.S. Geological Survey for the loss of Florida land owing to sea rise by 2035 - or barely 18 years from now. (This is depicted below.)Estimated economic cost to Florida's economy? Well over $10 billion, and factoring in inflation  - probably closer to $20 billion.

As for the claim CO2 "hurts nobody" I wonder where these two Hoover Institution bozos who wrote the piece got that idea or if they ever lived in a dense urban center with thousands of vehicles outgassing CO2 (as well a CO) for hours on the day.    But more important and deadly is the cumulative indirect effect of CO2 being added by the gigatons each year to our atmosphere.   To put it into quantitative terms, the temperature of the planet is currently out of balance by 0.6W/ m²  and this is almost entirely due to the annual rate of CO2 concentrations increasing. Further,  every increase in CO2 concentration by 2 ppm increases the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m².

Prof. Gunter Weller (formerly of the Univ. of Alaska Geophysical Institute)  estimated the runaway greenhouse effect would kick in when the CO2 concentration level of 600 ppm is surpassed-  which seems reasonable. If it is just over 400 ppm now - by many conservative measures -  then doing the math (adding 2 ppm  per year and 2 W/ m²     puts us in jeopardy by 2100.

The authors claim "typical costs are well blow 10 percent if gross domestic product  in the year 2100 and beyond".   But they are basing this on way too conservative models that have already been shown not to have reckoned in the expected much more rapid increases. In fact, by 2100,  if nothing is done much earlier, economic costs could well exceed 50 percent of GDP for most nations of the planet.  These costs will be engendered by:

- Collapse of power grids and energy infrastructure, i.e. from being unable to meet demand in a climate where 130- 140 F is hit in most cities around the world daily.

- Associated collapse of utility electrical pumping stations, i.e. to provide enough water for a much larger population. (because electric power is needed to pump water for use)

- Spread of tropical diseases including cholera, dengue fever and worm parasite infestations, e.g.

Millions more tapeworm cyst infections of human brains in affected areas - perhaps four fifths of our planet's land surface.

Also filiarisis worm infections - as shown on the left. Estimated cost to treat victims, including in North America: over $100 billion per year.

Adapting to worm infestations may be the most straightforward process for some kind of adaptation but require enormous supplies of anti-worm serums, meds such as Ketrax. I recall here my own worm infestation while in Peace Corps - noticed only after being awakened one night by intense itching of my skin, mainly on the inner thighs. As I switched the night light on and spotted definite wriggling movement of the skin, I realized the worms would spread if I didn't act. The cure? Ketrax, prescribed by the spoonful (by a dermatologist) three times a day. After a few bouts of vomiting the vermin out (visible wriggling in the vomit), all had been eliminated. I don't know that people will even be properly diagnosed as multiple worm infestations spread on approaching the cusp of the runaway greenhouse.

We will also have to expect long before the runaway greenhouse kicks in, the spread of antibiotic resistant diseases which will add even more enormous medical costs - and indeed, there may be no way to stem such infections once temperature averages are beyond a certain limit.

Left unsaid, is how increasing CO2 is also altering the composition of our oceans to render them less supportive of life.   As recently as 2012 scientists from Columbia University, which led  much of the research,  have found surging levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that forced down the pH of the ocean by overall 0.1 mean unit in the last century. This is 10 times faster than the closest historical comparison from 56 million years ago. It's deadly serious because - like the margins for ushering in a runaway greenhouse effect, the margins of safety for acidic oceans are extremely low. Hence, one can't tell by the small magnitude of numerical pH that the increment change is nothing to fret over.

As noted in earlier blog posts: the seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid. The particular chemical reaction is:

H2O + CO2 -> H2 CO3

The lower the pH level of the seawater ('7' is neutral pH), the more acidic. This is also worrisome because mass extinctions of marine creatures in the past have been linked to instances of increased ocean acidification. Thus,  the current incremental change could also threaten important species. This according to Baerbel Hoenisch, the paleoceanographer at Columbia who was lead author of a  2012  paper that appeared in the journal Science. As he noted:

“If industrial carbon emissions continue at the current pace, we may lose organisms we care about — coral reefs, oysters, salmon,”

By one estimate, at the rate of acidification, the only marine life that will still survive by 2050 will be jellyfish.

As for the authors' claim that "CO2 is good for plants", the response is yes, but WHAT kind? Seven years earlier we learned in The Wall Street Journal (June 4, p A16, 'Superweeds Trigger New Arms Race'; June 21, 2010, p. D1 that at least 40% of U.S. corn and soybean crops will "harbor Roundup resistant super weeds."  Indeed, CO2 spiking concentrations have already led to "super weeds" such as a pig weed variant capable of releasing an irritant chemical known as  urushiol and resistant to the most toxic weedicides, excepting perhaps the highly  carcinogenic agents known as: 2, 4- D, dicamba and paraquat.

Yes, the plants just love the CO2, but not the kind of plants we want!

The two Hoover -based morons who wrote the piece also insist on the ease of moving, but how will they reckon such climate change flight (say away from an area laden with brain -infesting worms) when it is set against similar migrations occurring simultaneously worldwide?

They ought to consult the 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' , held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium,  Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century.  Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflicts that climate change triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.  Supporting the national defense position, nearly all the reinsurance companies (like Munich Re) have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans.

A vastly more serious voice than the two Hoover Institution  clowns is economics and psychology expert George Loewenstein.  His take was typical of the risk assessment experts consulted in a recent AP study. He called climate change "a problem that threatens the very existence of the human race and is already having devastating consequences around the world".

Indeed, extreme weather events derived from climate change have killed more than twice as many people in the U.S. as terror attacks in the past 15 years - including the carnage on September 11, 2001.   In fact, the slow rolling disaster of ever intensifying climate change can be thought of as a mode of natural terror which we dismiss or diminish at our peril.   New research also discloses that the runaway greenhouse isn't as far off or unlikely as some might wish to believe. See, e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130730163146.htm

But a word of caution: the astronomers who did the research show again why they also need to communicate with climate scientists  That is, an increasing solar constant is not required to trigger the runaway, only increasing radiative heating of the atmosphere via added CO2.  For every 2 ppm higher CO2 concentration we are registering increases in the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m².


Here's a timely heads up when one might encounter articles such as the one from the WSJ yesterday: If it's written by authors based at the Hoover Institution don't trust a word of what is put forward. (And look at the end of such op-ed pieces to see where the tract originated. As we know the Hoover Institution is one of the primary enclaves for climate deniers and skeptics.)

"The Right Stuff"? How About Conservative Fairy Tales?

On a full, two-pages appearing in the WSJ 'Review (July 25-26, pp. C1- C2) one found the manifesto entitled 'The Right Stuff',  by Peter Berkowitz, a "senior fellow at the Hoover Institution". Since Herbert Hoover's policies were almost single-handedly responsible for starting the Great Depression, it behooves us to look at what one of his disciples has on offer - so that we might consider this balderdash for the nation's future.

Fortunately, much of the lengthy article is essential bollocks, basically a response to the recent Supreme Court decisions (on Obamacare and same sex marriage)  that "have Democrats celebrating and conservatives in a funk". So basically, two thirds of Berkowitz' extensive piece is a serving of conservo history, i.e.

"the conservative movement in the U.S. arose in the years after World War II  in response to the New Deal's enormous enlargement of the welfare state  and the Cold War threat of expansionist communism"

Of course, like most conservative takes, truth is the first casualty - and history ends up being highly selective - with no mention of the fact that the truly "expansionist" drive was motivated by the U.S.  Most of it can be traced to the document known as NSC-68 prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior. The putative basis? To enable U.S. agitation, overthrow (or assassination) of democratically-elected leaders, e.g. Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

 

 and large and small occupations (ranging from the few thousand troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, to more than 200,000 in Iraq by 2006.)  

The motivating force of the document was clear in this regard:

“a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere”

In other words, any place for which the U.S. even remotely construes a “defeat of free institutions” gives it license to intervene at will. This critical aspect is described thusly by Morris Berman[1]:

“Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”.

In effect, it provided the formula for unending war, and expansion of the capitalist system by force. Fortunately, not all of those brazen efforts panned out- as in the 1961 CIA bid to invade Cuba and Johnson's  Vietnam War - a barefaced effort to dominate Southeast Asia.

Most of the rest of Berkowitz article is an effort to offer palliatives to conservatives in the wake of their recent setbacks.  Thus they are reminded they are the special ones, the "upholders of individual freedom, equality under the law " and other bullshit. To those of us on the left, FDR's words ring most clear: "Necessitous men cannot be free men".  Thus, anyone in a condition of need is not free and any conservo that tells him to go pull himself up by his bootstraps is an idiot.

Yet there are packs of such idiots running freely around in the media spewing garbage in their columns, such as Conservatrix Kimberly Strassel (WSJ, 'The Compassion of John Kasich', Aug. 21, p. A13, who informs us that Kasich's Medicaid expansion in Ohio is misplaced and a case of "surrendering to the entitlement state". Jeebus, if she didn't actually say that, you couldn't make it up!  She also insists the better solution, is to "devolve power to the States" i.e. so they can use their own resources to assist the neediest, rather than the federal gov't. But this only shows how she, like most conservatives, is totally disconnected to reality. Because there is no assurance - not one bit or scintilla- that any state, especially a conservative Red one will do that (Kasich's being he obvious exception).


Back to Berkowtiz and his conservative ideations:

Incredibly, other setbacks - such as the removal of the Confederate flag from the SC State house grounds is revised and portrayed as "a sign of maturity" if you can believe it.  And besides, conservatives who treasure the Stars n' Bars and all it stands for can still fly the flags on private property.

But what really sticks in my craw (and I'm sure every other red-blooded leftist) is when Berkowitz insists with a straight face (p. C2) that:

"limited government allows individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their families and communities".

Yes, in an ideal world of limited corporate influence, that might be so. But not when corporate power and money can purchase political influence that undermines democracy and inveighs against the will  of the people as well as the general welfare. Then, "limited government" becomes exactly what the corporatocracy wants, a government too weak to protect the interests of its citizens against the array of private power. As FDR once put it:

"A democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: .”

Even conservative WSJ columnist William Gaston - in a WSJ column 6 weeks ago-  was  at least honest enough to acknowledge "equal opportunity in the U.S. is an aspiration not a fact". And that, in a nutshell, is what skewers Berkowitz' palsied thinking, as well as Kimberly Strassel's.  Thus, the problem with all conservative solutions is that they're based on an exaggerated assumption that ascribes more power to the majority of people than they actually possess.  Because if private power or corporations can buy off legislators and laws - by specious resort to money as "speech" - then the people become no better than invalids.  THIS is what the Left recognizes which the Right refuses to accept.

 The Right then is blinded by optimistic fairy tales that have no grounding in political or social  reality.  It proffers "limited government" but when that government is too limited to support its own citizens,  fascism prevails. Of course, this is exactly the outcome the Righties and their lot want!

 To see more intricate details of why limited government is the worst idea, certainly in respect of social support of the citizenry, see my recent book, The Elements of the Corporatocracy,

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/philip-a-stahl/the-elements-of-the-corporatocracy/paperback/product-18649133.html

The Physician Whores Going After Mehmet Oz - WHY Are They Doing It?

Last week a group of "doctors" (maybe whores is more like it, as I will show) dispatched a letter to Columbia University, asking them to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff. What had their panties in a twist? According to the news segment this morning, shown on CBS, the statement says in part:

"Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence -based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops."

Pay special attention to the very last part because that is really what this asinine complaint is all about (and to a lesser extent likely Oz' maintaining that eliminating all vitamin supplements is not a good idea, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/believe-anti-vitamin-scolds-and-you-may.html

And WHO is the top physician -"researcher" whore trying to get rid of Oz?  None other than Henry Miller - a pro-corporate worm ensconced at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank which has also harbored a bunch of lamebrains who've done numerous anti-global warming screeds. In other words, some of the biggest anti-scientific assholes on the planet.  One of these turds actually - according to an ABC News report - served 22 months in prison for Medicaid fraud. Four of the other smearing degenerates have been linked to the "American Council on Science and Health" (ACSH) and received money from companies that sell GMOs. In other words, craven sellout whores.

Oz obviously came into the target sights of Miller and his clique of knuckle dragger "physician" henchmen because of highlighting the dangers of GMO foods, which - of course -  would  mean less money for the likes of Monsanto. In one of his shows, in fact, Dr Oz noted the dangers of glyphosate used in these damned foods and the havoc it can wreak on human health.

For example, on his Sept. 19, 2014 show we beheld a "health calamity" to use Oz's expression, as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and other conditions spread as the horrific weedicide Enlist entered our food supply via GMO foods.

Oz began by putting up on the screen a section of a letter put out by dozens of worried scientists, physicians. The letter began by stating:

"We the undersigned scientists, medical professionals, and researchers are writing to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not to register a double herbicide mix of 2,4- D and glyphosate - the 'Enlist DUO weed killer"

In the letter all the probable health risks were detailed, as noted in the first paragraph. In terms of the horrors of glyphosate and how it wreaks havoc on foods, I already discussed this in a previous post, e.g.   http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/03/alzheimers-epidemic-fro-eating-gmo.html

In that post I quoted Barbadian biogenetic researcher John Phillips:

"Among other toxins and other health-disrupting contaminants, GMO foods contain glyphosate, a horrifically destructive chemical that saps nutrients from foods and quite literally makes them toxic to consume."

The worst part is that GMO foods are everywhere…if something is not explicitly labeled as organic and GMO-free, you should assume that it contains glyphosate. The most damnable shame is that our own Neoliberal government refuses to justify labeling these foods - so consumers have no way of knowing.






















John Phillips: Bio-geneticist and nutrition specialist, has found new links between GMO foods and Alzheimer's

Experts like Mr. Phillips now believe that glyphosate is even worse than DDT. It decimates beneficial bacteria in the gut, disrupts immune function, and has been correlated with shocking precision to the rise in autism and other cognitive diseases and conditions.  The moral of the story is that you should stop eating GMO foods at all costs. Do not consume anything (especially soy and corn) that isn’t specifically labeled as non-GMO.  Wonder why Alzheimer's keeps ramping up - blame the GMO foods, and now - with Entry DUO - the potential to add on other diseases like Parkinson's.

In his opening segment  on 9/19/14  Dr. Oz set out the facts as we know them:

1- Seventy to Eighty percent of the foods we eat today contain GMOs.

2- There are 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides used per year, used on GMO crops - because those crops are designed to survive the poisons.

3- 70 - 170 million pounds of additional highly toxic pesticides will be used if the FDA approves Enlist.

One of the worst scourges is how glyphosate is now in the blood of many kids, and triggering outbreaks of autism (which too many blame on vaccines). As one mom featured on Oz's show observed, her son showed all the symptoms and when she had his blood tested she found inordinate levels of glyphosate. She then went totally organic and the symptoms subsided.

One claim made by the GMO makers (like Monsanto) and promoters is GMOs are crucial to feed a hungry world - by offering higher yields. But as Oz's other guest, Mark Bittman (Food columnist for the NY Times) noted, "Yields are not up and pesticide use is not down. So when you talk about feeding a hungry world, GMOs have not moved us in that direction."

Indeed, it is precisely because of the widespread pesticide-herbicide use connected with GMO foods, that a more powerful toxin has been demanded - by agri-business, and farmers in the maw of the GMO giants. This is because the herbicide overuse has led to the invasive weeds becoming adapted to the toxins and being more difficult to put down. The bottom line: glyphosate alone isn't enough to do the job.

2,4 - D, let us bear in mind, was also used in Agent Orange - the dastardly chemical used to devastate millions of acres of crops in South Vietnam and which left thousands of U.S. military personnel with debilitating conditions,  and tens of thousands of Vietnamese infants with hideous birth defects the country is still dealing with today.

One of the other worrisome effects Oz presented was the dispersive and diffusive potential from GMO crops - say in the proximity of schools, other public places. Oz demonstrated this dispersal as when winds blow to drive it off onto bordering areas - schools, homes, towns. He stated: "It's just hard to put a fence around it. The Environmental Working Group found that over 5500 schools within 200 feet of these pesticides drift range and GMO farms, potentially putting thousands of children and their families at risk of serious health problems.."

This drift and dispersal scenario is also one with which John Phillips concurs - which is why he's vigorously argued against the use of GMO crops in Barbados.

The corporate whore kingdom often cites the FDA or other government agencies to bestow benediction on GMO foods, i.e. that they are "safe" - but of course these federal agencies have already been bought out long ago and become de facto PR- whore extensions for the corporatocracy. This is why they incessantly fight to keep labels off GMO foods.

And while anti-GMO folks are lampooned by the Neoliberal governmental -business estate and its lackeys, let's bear in mind 64 countries already require labeling of GMO foods or ban them outright. Why is the U.S. different? Or better, why is the U.S. the exceptional dumb nation here? Could it be the corporate state has our gov't by the balls, lock, stock and barrel? Maybe! As Heather White observed on Oz' s 9/19/14 show, they are only willing to "rubber stamp" what the corporations want and most of our agencies are in their maw. That makes them corporate whores!

Meanwhile, kudos to Columbia University for showing support of Dr. Mehmet Oz so he can continue his position there while also speaking out against the rampant poison of GMOs. In a statement released yesterday the university wrote:

"Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."


As for Oz complainer Henry Miller: he needs to remove his brain from the corporate propaganda axis, stop emulating tools like John McAdams, and try to learn about the real dangers of GMO foods - minus all the BS and tomfoolery.