Print

Print


Dear SftP list- What worried me about this exchange was the hierarchical expectations. I saw nothing nasty at all in what David Barouh said, and yet there was an edge to Carol and Chandler’s responses that suggested he had less of a right to have an opinion because he wasn’t known, wan’t one of the original members. 

As I understand it, we are all equal partners here.

Kathy Barker

> On Jul 7, 2019, at 9:00 PM, SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> There are 7 messages totaling 4992 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
>  1. Force Multiplier is officially off this week but.. (3)
>  2. The "Impossible Burger" (4)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 10:47:12 -0400
> From:    David Barouh <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Force Multiplier is officially off this week but..
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote: 
>> ...Seeing you're among friends, you may want to sound friendlier. Even among the old-timers there are wide differences of opinion.
> 
> I will be so advised. To my mind I was being critical rather than "nasty," which implies personal attacks. But we're not always the best judges of how we're perceived. 
> 
> In any case, I hope this doesn't preclude analysis if that analysis does not look good for the presenters of the text being analyzed. For example, consider this sentence from Carol's original email:
>> We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
> 
> Certain terms are loaded. The term "purity" is often used electorally in the USA as a pejorative directed at those who refuse to succumb to the corporate duopoly stranglehold on power, and who vote for alternatives, which in the 2016 presidential election was about 6% of voters. It would have been much higher had not the perception of futility inhibited many from going that route, although untold numbers would likely have preferred to.
> 
> The subtext is that the only logical or practical behavior is to vote for what you know is corrupt and self-dealing -- to capitulate to it. It's a monstrous self-fulfilling prophecy (if you don't vote for alternatives, then yeah, they can't win!) and that the 6% of the population that won't go along with it are the ones criticized with overused phrases like "wasting your vote," "above the fray," whatever. Another subtext is that "we all know" how others are going to vote, so what's the point of not following along. The message is that the choice is not really yours to make.
> 
> We may know probabilities, but we don't "know" how others will behave. Few predicted that Trump could beat out all those mainstream Repugs to win the nomination (let alone the election itself)? What that showed me is how sick of mainstream politicians most Americans are. Bernie Sanders was also perceived as not one of "them." Many of those who voted for Trump had voted (or so it's reported) for the back-stabbing hypocrite Obama -- who had also been perceived as something different. (I use "back-stabbing" advisedly; the stunt he pulled on the people of Flint is a good example; they were filled with hope when he showed up. He spent his time chiding them for being afraid of the water. Then he asked for a drink of water, refused a bottled water, and took a glass of tap water to his lips. That water *barely touched* his lips, he was so afraid to have even a drop of it get into his mouth!) 
> 
> And of course there's the *decisive* influence of media attention, which has always bought into the two-party status quo. But thanks to the near unanimous vote of the two corporate parties (and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton) for the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all the many independent media companies got bought up and merged into six giant media conglomerates, and now by design give no attention to alternatives. Even Ralph Nader, in 2000 when he still had his iconic status, got almost no attention. And that's because the duopoly parties serve the corporate media's interests. It's a closed loop, and they've got (as of now) about 94% of the electorate under their control, with no choice outside the range decided for them.
> 
> So it's always the same story. "We must vote for the Democrats this time. This time it's too important not to." It was the same story in 2000 with Bush and Gore. But one can imagine how different it all could have been if Ralph Nader had become president. And contrary to what Carol has said, these times *are* typical of at least the last 40 or so years, characterized by ever-increasing American official cruelty and military aggression, through both Democratic and Republican administrations and congressional majorities.
> 
> David Barouh
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:
>> Thanks again Chandler.
>> Oh boy.
>> I have recently found that engaging with my Republican brother-in-law has been more encouraging than a lot of what I'm hearing from you folks at SftP. And I generally do not engage with people who are far from me politically, but maybe it's nostalgia, or maybe it's that I stubbornly want so badly to touch the rest of the members of this list, many of whom I deeply believe agree with me but are not speaking up. 
>> 
>> I even know for sure that some of them agree. And I wonder about some of the folks from the old days - where are you on this Jonathan King, Al Weinrub, Sara Miller, Frank Mirer, Bob Park, Mina Otmishi, Ross Feldberg, Milt Kotelchuck, Ginny Pierce, Mike Teel and others whose names I can't dredge up from old hard drive between my ears. And what about all the others on this listserve who have not weighed in on this conversation. I bet there are many who are just as furious, terrified, desperate as I am, and many who have no idea how to best support candidates and causes that have a good chance of defeating that monster in the White House. And who may understand that now is not the time to hold out for making revolution. 
>> 
>> Do those of you that I have heard from know for sure that you represent the rest of the group?
>> 
>> Force Multiplier <http://www.forcemultiplierma.org/> does not get involved with the issues at all. All we care about is identifying the elected representatives who are most vulnerable but who can really use financial support to hold onto their seats in the House. And soon we'll probably identify some Senate candidates who our research tells us would have a chance to flip their seat to Blue.
>> 
>> We do the work so that people who understand the necessity of electing Democrats THIS TIME can know where to donate most effectively. Additionally, we list grassroots organizations in swing states that are working effectively against voter suppression because we know that the Republicans' primary strategy is to make sure that the disenfranchised stay that way.
>> 
>> I have never been involved in electoral politics. I have never campaigned for a Democrat and that includes Barak Obama (who was far from what his worshippers think he was), or Hillary. And if, dog willing, Trump is defeated I don't think I'll ever get involved with the Democrats again. 
>> 
>> But these are NOT normal times. This time is different, can't you see that? If you anti-Democrats join with Republican anti-Trumpers and all of you refuse to vote, that would be a sure fire way of keeping the monster in the White House. But it takes more than just voting, which I do believe most of you will do. It takes MONEY. And regardless of which party ends up in the White House it is ESSENTIAL that we have a Democratically controlled Congress. That's why this small group of 12 core members + our "multipliers" are using our networks to raise money for Democrats in the House and Senate.
>> 
>> Ok. I don't have time for any more of this. I'm not asking SftP to become a forum for party politics. All I'm asking is that you allow me to continue to inform your group about what we're doing at Force Multiplier in case there are some members who would welcome that information. FM gives people a way to separate the wheat from the chaff so they can just donate through us and ignore all those appeals they keep getting from the other Democrats. 
>> 
>> Thanks for listening. I hope there's room for this sort of dialogue in Science for the People because if not, where is there?
>> 
>> Carol
>> forcemultiplierma.org
>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Carol has earned our respect, and this is no whit diminished if it saddens her to see some of the rest of us going (in her view) haywire. I don't know you and have no background leading me to trust you as I do Carol and Kamran and Claudia, but if you consider yourself a member of our group YOU DESERVE MY RESPECT TOO and have a right to demand it. It might be diminished if you lay on the nastiness; but I am not a moderator of the list. For you to point out bellicose positions of Hillary Clinton's, or murderous drone tactics by Barack Obama, is appropriate and welcome, also relevant to the question of big-party electoral politics. Seeing you're among friends, you may want to sound friendlier. Even among the old-timers there are wide differences of opinion.
>>> 
>>> Chandler
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2019-07-05 2:12 p.m., David Barouh wrote:
>>>> I should point out that my "bad-mouthing," as you call it, was directed at HRC -- and not even at HRC so much as at her, IMO, unhinged promise to institute a no-fly zone over Syrian air space. Secondly, I suspect you missed the sub-text of Carol's comments about how "sad" my HRC comment made her (but nothing about HRC's Syria position). And the one about my possibly voting for Trump (I'd thought I'd suggested just the opposite) "breaking her heart." It seems ironic that on "Science for the People," instead of some rational discourse and exchange of positions we get little more than emotional blackmail justified based on veteran status.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, does my relative newcomer status make me suspect? Is more than my name required to be a member of this list? I don't know anything about any of you all other than your names. And I'm still shaky on the list's protocols. 
>>>> 
>>>> David Barouh
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:
>>>>> Kamran is right, and your point is also valid, Claudia: we're not about electoral politics in any one country, even in quite a large one. But Carol Axelrod is a long-time staunch activist in SftP, and if I find myself disagreeing with her about Hillary Clinton, as it seems I may, I will make it the occasion for comradely debate, not scornful bad-mouthing such as she is getting from Barouh (whoever he may be).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Chandler
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2019-07-05 2:23 a.m., Claudia Pine wrote:
>>>>>> Carol: As Kamran says, SftP list is not a place for political party postings. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In addition, you may not realize that the SftP list is international, and as such USian politics are not what many non-USian members want or expect. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Suggesting that people can just delete is inappropriate: it is for posters to consider the appropriateness of what they post, before they post. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I appreciate your sincerity and sense of urgency, Carol - in many ways I share it! - but I would strongly urge you not post "Force Mutiplier" or other partisan political material to the Science for the People list-serv.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Claudia Pine
>>>>>> a list moderator 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:47 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Carol:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Have you joined this list recently? How has the Force Multiplier <https://actionnetwork.org/groups/force-multiplier> been allowed to post to this list? 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> May be an officer of SftP can address this question. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At any rate, in my half doze years of being on this list it is the first time I see a political party brings its campaign to this list. If this be accepted how would SftP limit other political parties to join in--including Republicans without being drawn into partisan politics. If that happens, it would be the end of SftP because so far it has been an anti-capitalist, socialist voice with various tendencies reflected in its deliberation but never a partisan group especially in the electoral arena.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:59 PM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Trump is a lot worse than obnoxious. If most people on this list don't want to hear from Force Multiplier any more I'd hope they'd let me know. It sounds like you two don't. 
>>>>>>>> It's very easy to delete my emails if you'd prefer.
>>>>>>>> But it makes me sad that you really believe HRC would have been as bad as Trump. You almost sound like you'd vote for him which breaks my heart.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> forcemultiplierma.org
>>>>>>>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:28 PM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It's always the same BS. One candidate is always better than the other. Trouble is sometimes the "better" choice surprises you. Clinton spent his entire eight years bombing and starving Iraq. Obama bombed and invaded how many countries? And it was the same with Bush Jr. People now say that if Gore had been president, "there wouldn't have been Iraq!" Yet more bullshit. This article makes a definitive case that Gore indeed would have invaded Iraq: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/liberal-myths-would-al-gore-have-invaded-iraq/
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Had HRC won the election instead of Trump, we may already have had American jets trying to enforce her insane "no fly zone" over Syria and confronting Russian planes, and maybe even have had a nuclear war.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The Dimwit Democrats are the ones currently talking up war. Trump is obnoxious, but we're not currently in a full-fledged war. We're refueling Saudi planes in their bombing runs, but that started under Obama, not Trump. This is what voting for the two-party system *always* brings us.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You're dreaming if you think there's a significant change to be had with one or the other of the two corporate parties. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I'm hoping that those that are that disillusioned may understand that this time if we don't understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats we're all toast. I think there are many thoughtful folks who agree that our system is not working but who know that we are not in a position to change it now and our very lives depend on turning Washington blue. And that applies not only to those of us educated, privileged types, but mainly the rest of the country and the world. We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> forcemultiplierma.org
>>>>>>>>>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> But what if some of us think the problem with the U.S. politics is the two-party system and that the Democratic Party is as much an imperialist party as the Republican party? Should this list be turned into one supporting Democrats in the coming elections? 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:22 AM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...the maniac in Washington is spending our money to display the size of his weapons. And he's plotting to circumvent the SUPREME COURT so that the census questionnaire can be another instrument of voter suppression. And the immigrants at the border are jammed into what amounts to stationary cattle cars. And, and, and... 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I'm not taking this week off. Trump and his gang must be removed from office in November 2020. The best way we can do that is to *empower voters* of color, young people, women, LBGTQ communities, and the rest of us who are most vulnerable.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Force Multiplier <https://www.forcemultiplierma.org/fm-get-out-the-vote> is identifying grassroots organizations that are working to fight voter suppression in
>>>>>>>>>>>> key states. As usual, _w__e've done the research so you don't have to. _
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> When turnout is high, Democrats win!
>>>>>>>>>>>> No one knows that as well as the Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Click here <https://www.forcemultiplierma.org/fm-get-out-the-vote> for lots of information about the seven organizations on our slate -- in North Carolina, Florida and Michigan -- all key states in the 2020 elections. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> So please, in honor of the 4th of July, donate  <https://secure.actblue.com/donate/veslate?refcode=CA4thJuly>to save our country and the rest of the world.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Donate, and then go out and enjoy your 4th. My chicken wings are marinating as we speak.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> With love,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> forcemultiplierma.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Kamran Nayeri
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 10:51:00 -0400
> From:    David Barouh <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: The "Impossible Burger"
> 
> Does anybody buy this argument?
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 15:16:16 +0000
> From:    Sam Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Force Multiplier is officially off this week but..
> 
> I am a member of a local group that has maintained the rule that no partisan posts should be made on its list serve for about 15 years.  This has helped us ho;d together.  I am sure that everyone on the list has received uncountable requests to send money to various candidates, and that the rule on its list serve has neither increased nor decreased what they have contributed.
> It is clear that there are many disagreements on the left about how much if any involvement to have with the Democratic Party, and about the extent and ways in which the Democratic Party or aspects of it are our friend or our enemy.  Anyone who is serious about having a left understands that these various groups need to work together, particularly on projects like SftP.
> I thus strongly support a rule banning partisan discussion from this list serve.
> bestsam friedman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]>
> To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 9:00 pm
> Subject: Re: Force Multiplier is officially off this week but..
> 
> Thanks again Chandler.
> Oh boy.I have recently found that engaging with my Republican brother-in-law has been more encouraging than a lot of what I'm hearing from you folks at SftP. And I generally do not engage with people who are far from me politically, but maybe it's nostalgia, or maybe it's that I stubbornly want so badly to touch the rest of the members of this list, many of whom I deeply believe agree with me but are not speaking up. 
> I even know for sure that some of them agree. And I wonder about some of the folks from the old days - where are you on this Jonathan King, Al Weinrub, Sara Miller, Frank Mirer, Bob Park, Mina Otmishi, Ross Feldberg, Milt Kotelchuck, Ginny Pierce, Mike Teel and others whose names I can't dredge up from old hard drive between my ears. And what about all the others on this listserve who have not weighed in on this conversation. I bet there are many who are just as furious, terrified, desperate as I am, and many who have no idea how to best support candidates and causes that have a good chance of defeating that monster in the White House. And who may understand that now is not the time to hold out for making revolution. 
> Do those of you that I have heard from know for sure that you represent the rest of the group?
> Force Multiplier does not get involved with the issues at all. All we care about is identifying the elected representatives who are most vulnerable but who can really use financial support to hold onto their seats in the House. And soon we'll probably identify some Senate candidates who our research tells us would have a chance to flip their seat to Blue.
> We do the work so that people who understand the necessity of electing Democrats THIS TIME can know where to donate most effectively. Additionally, we list grassroots organizations in swing states that are working effectively against voter suppression because we know that the Republicans' primary strategy is to make sure that the disenfranchised stay that way.
> I have never been involved in electoral politics. I have never campaigned for a Democrat and that includes Barak Obama (who was far from what his worshippers think he was), or Hillary. And if, dog willing, Trump is defeated I don't think I'll ever get involved with the Democrats again. 
> But these are NOT normal times. This time is different, can't you see that? If you anti-Democrats join with Republican anti-Trumpers and all of you refuse to vote, that would be a sure fire way of keeping the monster in the White House. But it takes more than just voting, which I do believe most of you will do. It takes MONEY. And regardless of which party ends up in the White House it is ESSENTIAL that we have a Democratically controlled Congress. That's why this small group of 12 core members + our "multipliers" are using our networks to raise money for Democrats in the House and Senate.
> Ok. I don't have time for any more of this. I'm not asking SftP to become a forum for party politics. All I'm asking is that you allow me to continue to inform your group about what we're doing at Force Multiplier in case there are some members who would welcome that information. FM gives people a way to separate the wheat from the chaff so they can just donate through us and ignore all those appeals they keep getting from the other Democrats. 
> Thanks for listening. I hope there's room for this sort of dialogue in Science for the People because if not, where is there?
> Carol
> 
> forcemultiplierma.org
> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  Carol has earned our respect, and this is no whit diminished if it saddens her to see some of the rest of us going (in her view) haywire.  I don't know you and have no background leading me to trust you as I do Carol and Kamran and Claudia, but if you consider yourself a member of our group YOU DESERVE MY RESPECT TOO and have a right to demand it.  It might be diminished if you lay on the nastiness; but I am not a moderator of the list.  For you to point out bellicose positions of Hillary Clinton's, or murderous drone tactics by Barack Obama, is appropriate and welcome, also relevant to the question of big-party electoral politics.  Seeing you're among friends, you may want to sound friendlier.  Even among the old-timers there are wide differences of opinion. 
>  Chandler
> 
> 
>  On 2019-07-05 2:12 p.m., David Barouh wrote:
> 
> I should point out that my "bad-mouthing," as you call it, was directed at HRC -- and not even at HRC so much as at her, IMO, unhinged promise to institute a no-fly zone over Syrian air space. Secondly, I suspect you missed the sub-text of Carol's comments about how "sad" my HRC comment made her (but nothing about HRC's Syria position). And the one about my possibly voting for Trump (I'd thought I'd suggested just the opposite) "breaking her heart." It seems ironic that on "Science for the People," instead of some rational discourse and exchange of positions we get little more than emotional blackmail justified based on veteran status.
> 
>  BTW, does my relative newcomer status make me suspect? Is more than my name required to be a member of this list? I don't know anything about any of you all  other than your names. And I'm still shaky on the list's protocols. 
> 
>  David Barouh 
>  On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:
> 
> Kamran is right, and your point is also valid, Claudia: we're not about electoral politics in any one country, even in quite a large one.  But Carol Axelrod is a long-time staunch activist in SftP, and if I find myself disagreeing with her about Hillary Clinton, as it seems I may, I will make it the occasion for comradely debate, not scornful bad-mouthing such as she  is getting from Barouh (whoever he may be).
> 
>  Chandler
> 
> 
>  On 2019-07-05 2:23 a.m., Claudia Pine wrote:
> 
>  Carol:  As Kamran says, SftP list is not a place for political party postings.   
> 
>  In addition, you may not realize that the SftP list is international, and as such USian politics are not what many non-USian members want or expect. 
> 
>  Suggesting that people can just delete is inappropriate: it is for posters to consider the appropriateness of what they post, before they post. 
> 
>  I appreciate your sincerity and sense of urgency, Carol - in many ways I share it! - but I would strongly urge you not post "Force Mutiplier" or other partisan political material to the Science for the People list-serv.
> 
>  Thank you,
>  Claudia Pine
>  a list moderator 
> 
>   On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:47 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  Carol:
> 
>  Have you joined this list recently? How has the Force Multiplier been allowed to post to this list? 
> 
>  May be an officer of SftP can address this question.  
> 
>  At any rate, in my half doze years of being on this list it is the first time I see a political party brings its campaign to this list.  If this be accepted how would SftP limit other political parties to join in--including Republicans without being drawn into partisan politics. If that happens, it would be the end of SftP because so far it has been an anti-capitalist, socialist voice with various  tendencies reflected in its deliberation but never a partisan group especially in the electoral arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:59 PM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  Trump is a lot worse than obnoxious. If most people on this list don't want to hear from Force Multiplier any more I'd hope they'd let me know. It sounds like you two don't. 
>  It's very easy to delete my emails if you'd prefer.
>  But it makes me sad that you really believe HRC would have been as bad as Trump. You almost sound like you'd vote for him which breaks my heart.
> 
> 
>  forcemultiplierma.org
>   YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:28 PM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  It's always the same BS. One candidate is always better than the other. Trouble is sometimes the "better" choice  surprises you. Clinton spent his entire eight years bombing and starving Iraq. Obama bombed and invaded how many countries? And it was the same with Bush Jr. People now say that if Gore had been president, "there wouldn't have been  Iraq!" Yet more bullshit. This article makes a definitive case that Gore indeed would have invaded Iraq: https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/liberal-myths-would-al-gore-have-invaded-iraq/
> 
>  Had HRC won the election instead of Trump, we may already have had American jets trying to enforce her insane "no fly  zone" over Syria and confronting Russian planes, and maybe even have had a nuclear war.
>   
>  The Dimwit Democrats are the ones currently talking up war. Trump is obnoxious, but we're not currently in a full-fledged war.  We're refueling Saudi planes in their bombing runs, but that started under Obama, not Trump. This is what voting for the two-party system always brings us.
> 
>  You're dreaming if you think there's a significant change to be had with one or the other of the two corporate  parties. 
> 
> 
>  On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:
> 
>  I'm hoping that those that are that disillusioned may understand that this time if we don't understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats we're all toast. I think there are many  thoughtful folks who agree that our system is not working but who know that we are not in a position to change it now and our very lives depend on turning Washington blue. And that applies not only to those  of us educated, privileged types, but mainly the rest of the country and the world. We don't have the luxury of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
> 
>  forcemultiplierma.org
>  YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
> 
> 
> 
>   On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> But what if some of us think the problem with the U.S. politics is the two-party system and that the  Democratic Party is as much an imperialist party as the Republican party? Should this list be turned into one supporting Democrats in the coming elections? 
> 
>   On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:22 AM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>     ...the maniac in Washington is spending our money to display the  size of his weapons. And he's plotting to circumvent the SUPREME  COURT so that the census questionnaire can be  another instrument of voter suppression. And the immigrants at the border  are jammed into what amounts to stationary cattle cars. And, and, and... 
> 
>  So I'm not taking this week off. Trump and his gang must be removed from office in  November 2020.  The best way we can do that is to empower voters of color, young people, women, LBGTQ communities, and  the rest of us who are most vulnerable.
> 
>    Force Multiplier is identifying grassroots organizations that are working to fight voter suppression in
>   key states. As usual, we've done the research so you don't have to. 
> 
>   When turnout is high, Democrats win!
>  No one knows that as well as the Republicans.
> 
> 
>  Click here for lots of information about the seven organizations on our slate -- in North Carolina, Florida and Michigan  -- all key states in the 2020 elections. 
> 
> 
> 
>  So please, in honor of the 4th of July, donate to save our country and the rest of the world.
> 
> 
>  Donate, and then go out and enjoy your 4th. My  chicken wings are marinating as we speak.
> 
> 
>  With love,
>  Carol
> 
>            forcemultiplierma.org
>   YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  -- 
>   Kamran Nayeri
> 
> 
> 
>   Liberty without socialism is privileged and unjust; socialism without liberty is brutal and tyrannical. Opinion without study is ignorant and destructive; study without opinion is empty and mercenary.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  --
> 
>   Kamran Nayeri
> 
> 
> 
>  --
> 
>          Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. ― Benjamin Franklin
> 
>  The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution.  -- Paul Cezanne
> 
>  Nihil de nobis, sine nobis:  Nothing about us, without us! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Liberty without socialism is privileged and unjust; socialism without liberty is brutal and tyrannical. Opinion without study is ignorant and destructive; study without opinion is empty and mercenary. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 09:59:00 -0600
> From:    Claudia Pine <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Force Multiplier is officially off this week but..
> 
> Thank you, Sam.  There are many reasons we have long discouraged partisan
> political posts on the SftP list-serve:
> 
> 1. As you say, it sends us down a rabbit-hole of ideological and
> acrimonious (Godwin's Law approaching) side arguments that never end, but
> which drive many good people from the list.  Those of us who've been on the
> list for decades now have seen this over, and over, and over, and it does
> not end until SftP regulars step forward and reaffirm:  No Partisan Posts!
> 1a.  The corollary argument that "people who can't handle it because
> [insults follow] can just delete the posts" is at best, impolite as it
> imposes the burden on readers, whereas the burden of "Is this appropriate?"
> should properly be on the poster.  The poster who wishes to open
> conversation on side topics is always welcome to post something that
> invites people *to another list-serve, blog, or the poster's own email to
> do that.*  At worst, posting things that are unrelated to SftP's purpose is
> a form of spamming that can, depending on the poster's intent, be described
> as trolling.  The bottom line here is that it's incumbent on posters not to
> abuse the many others on the list.  Posting things that draw a lot of
> comments about irrelevance is best followed by an apology and an
> alternative location for the discussion for those who might be interested
> -- not allegations that the SftP members are insufficiently woke, left, or
> whatever the term du jour is.
> 
> 2. SftP is an international list-serve.  As part of our goals of
> inclusivity we do try not to turn it into a USian forum.  US political
> posts do this.  Let's not.
> 
> 3. The vast majority of SftP members are highly political, by definition,
> but there are many possible approaches to the partisan politics of any
> country, as David notes.  Again, this is a good reason for our members to
> carry on those primarily political discussions in other venues that exist
> for that purpose - not SftP.  And again, there is no reason a member cannot
> post *ONCE* inviting StfP members to join an urgent partisan political
> discussion or movement somewhere else ... taking the time, of course, to
> present a cogent argument as to how this partisan political issue involves
> the perspectives on *science* that are the central focus of SftP.
> 
> Thank you all for your understanding and cooperation on this.
> 
> Claudia Pine
> reluctant moderator
> PS: please accept my apologies for rough wording and potentially missing
> words; I just came home from the hospital a few days ago after major
> surgery, and the medications (and general experience) have left me pretty
> groggy still.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 9:16 AM Sam Friedman <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> I am a member of a local group that has maintained the rule that no
>> partisan posts should be made on its list serve for about 15 years.  This
>> has helped us ho;d together.  I am sure that everyone on the list has
>> received uncountable requests to send money to various candidates, and that
>> the rule on its list serve has neither increased nor decreased what they
>> have contributed.
>> 
>> It is clear that there are many disagreements on the left about how much
>> if any involvement to have with the Democratic Party, and about the extent
>> and ways in which the Democratic Party or aspects of it are our friend or
>> our enemy.  Anyone who is serious about having a left understands that
>> these various groups need to work together, particularly on projects like
>> SftP.
>> 
>> I thus strongly support a rule banning partisan discussion from this list
>> serve.
>> 
>> best
>> sam friedman
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 9:00 pm
>> Subject: Re: Force Multiplier is officially off this week but..
>> 
>> Thanks again Chandler.
>> 
>> Oh boy.
>> I have recently found that engaging with my Republican brother-in-law has
>> been more encouraging than a lot of what I'm hearing from you folks at
>> SftP. And I generally do not engage with people who are far from me
>> politically, but maybe it's nostalgia, or maybe it's that I stubbornly want
>> so badly to touch the rest of the members of this list, many of whom I
>> deeply believe agree with me but are not speaking up.
>> 
>> I even know for sure that some of them agree. And I wonder about some of
>> the folks from the old days - where are you on this Jonathan King, Al
>> Weinrub, Sara Miller, Frank Mirer, Bob Park, Mina Otmishi, Ross Feldberg,
>> Milt Kotelchuck, Ginny Pierce, Mike Teel and others whose names I can't
>> dredge up from old hard drive between my ears. And what about all the
>> others on this listserve who have not weighed in on this conversation. I
>> bet there are many who are just as furious, terrified, desperate as I am,
>> and many who have no idea how to best support candidates and causes that
>> have a good chance of defeating that monster in the White House. And who
>> may understand that now is not the time to hold out for making revolution.
>> 
>> Do those of you that I have heard from know for sure that you represent
>> the rest of the group?
>> 
>> Force Multiplier <http://www.forcemultiplierma.org> does not get involved
>> with the issues at all. All we care about is identifying the elected
>> representatives who are most vulnerable but who can really use financial
>> support to hold onto their seats in the House. And soon we'll probably
>> identify some Senate candidates who our research tells us would have a
>> chance to flip their seat to Blue.
>> 
>> We do the work so that people who understand the necessity of electing
>> Democrats THIS TIME can know where to donate most effectively.
>> Additionally, we list grassroots organizations in swing states that are
>> working effectively against voter suppression because we know that the
>> Republicans' primary strategy is to make sure that the disenfranchised stay
>> that way.
>> 
>> I have never been involved in electoral politics. I have never campaigned
>> for a Democrat and that includes Barak Obama (who was far from what his
>> worshippers think he was), or Hillary. And if, dog willing, Trump is
>> defeated I don't think I'll ever get involved with the Democrats again.
>> 
>> But these are NOT normal times. This time is different, can't you see
>> that? If you anti-Democrats join with Republican anti-Trumpers and all of
>> you refuse to vote, that would be a sure fire way of keeping the monster in
>> the White House. But it takes more than just voting, which I do believe
>> most of you will do. It takes MONEY. And regardless of which party ends up
>> in the White House it is ESSENTIAL that we have a Democratically controlled
>> Congress. That's why this small group of 12 core members + our
>> "multipliers" are using our networks to raise money for Democrats in the
>> House and Senate.
>> 
>> Ok. I don't have time for any more of this. I'm not asking SftP to become
>> a forum for party politics. All I'm asking is that you allow me to continue
>> to inform your group about what we're doing at Force Multiplier in case
>> there are some members who would welcome that information. FM gives people
>> a way to separate the wheat from the chaff so they can just donate through
>> us and ignore all those appeals they keep getting from the other Democrats.
>> 
>> Thanks for listening. I hope there's room for this sort of dialogue in
>> Science for the People because if not, where is there?
>> 
>> Carol
>> 
>> 
>> forcemultiplierma.org
>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:36 PM Chandler Davis <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Carol has earned our respect, and this is no whit diminished if it saddens
>> her to see some of the rest of us going (in her view) haywire.  I don't
>> know you and have no background leading me to trust you as I do Carol and
>> Kamran and Claudia, but if you consider yourself a member of our group YOU
>> DESERVE MY RESPECT TOO and have a right to demand it.  It might be
>> diminished if you lay on the nastiness; but I am not a moderator of the
>> list.  For you to point out bellicose positions of Hillary Clinton's, or
>> murderous drone tactics by Barack Obama, is appropriate and welcome, also
>> relevant to the question of big-party electoral politics.  Seeing you're
>> among friends, you may want to sound friendlier.  Even among the old-timers
>> there are wide differences of opinion.
>> 
>> Chandler
>> 
>> 
>> On 2019-07-05 2:12 p.m., David Barouh wrote:
>> 
>> I should point out that my "bad-mouthing," as you call it, was directed at
>> HRC -- and not even at HRC so much as at her, IMO, unhinged promise to
>> institute a no-fly zone over Syrian air space. Secondly, I suspect you
>> missed the sub-text of Carol's comments about how "sad" my HRC comment made
>> her (but nothing about HRC's Syria position). And the one about my possibly
>> voting for Trump (I'd thought I'd suggested just the opposite) "breaking
>> her heart." It seems ironic that on "Science for the People," instead of
>> some rational discourse and exchange of positions we get little more than
>> emotional blackmail justified based on veteran status.
>> 
>> BTW, does my relative newcomer status make me suspect? Is more than my
>> name required to be a member of this list? I don't know anything about any
>> of you all other than your names. And I'm still shaky on the list's
>> protocols.
>> 
>> David Barouh
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, at 12:36 PM, Chandler Davis wrote:
>> 
>> Kamran is right, and your point is also valid, Claudia: we're not about
>> electoral politics in any one country, even in quite a large one.  But
>> Carol Axelrod is a long-time staunch activist in SftP, and if I find myself
>> disagreeing with her about Hillary Clinton, as it seems I may, I will make
>> it the occasion for comradely debate, not scornful bad-mouthing such as
>> she  is getting from Barouh (whoever he may be).
>> 
>> Chandler
>> 
>> 
>> On 2019-07-05 2:23 a.m., Claudia Pine wrote:
>> 
>> Carol:  As Kamran says, SftP list is not a place for political party
>> postings.
>> 
>> In addition, you may not realize that the SftP list is international, and
>> as such USian politics are not what many non-USian members want or expect.
>> 
>> Suggesting that people can just delete is inappropriate: it is for posters
>> to consider the appropriateness of what they post, before they post.
>> 
>> I appreciate your sincerity and sense of urgency, Carol - in many ways I
>> share it! - but I would strongly urge you not post "Force Mutiplier" or
>> other partisan political material to the Science for the People list-serv.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Claudia Pine
>> a list moderator
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 8:47 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Carol:
>> 
>> Have you joined this list recently? How has the Force Multiplier
>> <https://actionnetwork.org/groups/force-multiplier> been allowed to post
>> to this list?
>> 
>> May be an officer of SftP can address this question.
>> 
>> At any rate, in my half doze years of being on this list it is the first
>> time I see a political party brings its campaign to this list.  If this be
>> accepted how would SftP limit other political parties to join in--including
>> Republicans without being drawn into partisan politics. If that happens, it
>> would be the end of SftP because so far it has been an anti-capitalist,
>> socialist voice with various tendencies reflected in its deliberation but
>> never a partisan group especially in the electoral arena.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 5:59 PM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Trump is a lot worse than obnoxious. If most people on this list don't
>> want to hear from Force Multiplier any more I'd hope they'd let me know. It
>> sounds like you two don't.
>> It's very easy to delete my emails if you'd prefer.
>> But it makes me sad that you really believe HRC would have been as bad as
>> Trump. You almost sound like you'd vote for him which breaks my heart.
>> 
>> 
>> forcemultiplierma.org
>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:28 PM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> It's always the same BS. One candidate is always better than the other.
>> Trouble is sometimes the "better" choice surprises you. Clinton spent his
>> entire eight years bombing and starving Iraq. Obama bombed and invaded how
>> many countries? And it was the same with Bush Jr. People now say that if
>> Gore had been president, "there wouldn't have been Iraq!" Yet more
>> bullshit. This article makes a definitive case that Gore indeed would have
>> invaded Iraq:
>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/liberal-myths-would-al-gore-have-invaded-iraq/
>> 
>> Had HRC won the election instead of Trump, we may already have had
>> American jets trying to enforce her insane "no fly zone" over Syria and
>> confronting Russian planes, and maybe even have had a nuclear war.
>> 
>> The Dimwit Democrats are the ones currently talking up war. Trump is
>> obnoxious, but we're not currently in a full-fledged war. We're refueling
>> Saudi planes in their bombing runs, but that started under Obama, not
>> Trump. This is what voting for the two-party system *always* brings us.
>> 
>> You're dreaming if you think there's a significant change to be had with
>> one or the other of the two corporate parties.
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Carol Axelrod wrote:
>> 
>> I'm hoping that those that are that disillusioned may understand that this
>> time if we don't understand the difference between Republicans and
>> Democrats we're all toast. I think there are many thoughtful folks who
>> agree that our system is not working but who know that we are not in a
>> position to change it now and our very lives depend on turning Washington
>> blue. And that applies not only to those of us educated, privileged types,
>> but mainly the rest of the country and the world. We don't have the luxury
>> of being politically pure at this moment. IMHO.
>> 
>> forcemultiplierma.org
>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:42 PM Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> But what if some of us think the problem with the U.S. politics is the
>> two-party system and that the Democratic Party is as much an imperialist
>> party as the Republican party? Should this list be turned into one
>> supporting Democrats in the coming elections?
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:22 AM Carol Axelrod <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> ...the maniac in Washington is spending our money to display the size of
>> his weapons. And he's plotting to circumvent the SUPREME COURT so that the
>> census questionnaire can be another instrument of voter suppression. And
>> the immigrants at the border are jammed into what amounts to stationary
>> cattle cars. And, and, and...
>> 
>> So I'm not taking this week off. Trump and his gang must be removed from
>> office in November 2020.  The best way we can do that is to *empower
>> voters* of color, young people, women, LBGTQ communities, and the rest of
>> us who are most vulnerable.
>> 
>> Force Multiplier <https://www.forcemultiplierma.org/fm-get-out-the-vote>
>> is identifying grassroots organizations that are working to fight voter
>> suppression in
>> key states. As usual, *w**e've done the research so you don't have to. *
>> 
>> When turnout is high, Democrats win!
>> No one knows that as well as the Republicans.
>> 
>> 
>> Click here <https://www.forcemultiplierma.org/fm-get-out-the-vote> for
>> lots of information about the seven organizations on our slate -- in North
>> Carolina, Florida and Michigan -- all key states in the 2020 elections.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So please, in honor of the 4th of July, donate
>> <https://secure.actblue.com/donate/veslate?refcode=CA4thJuly>to save our
>> country and the rest of the world.
>> 
>> 
>> Donate, and then go out and enjoy your 4th. My chicken wings are
>> marinating as we speak.
>> 
>> 
>> With love,
>> Carol
>> 
>> forcemultiplierma.org
>> YOU X ME = DEMOCRACY
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Kamran Nayeri
>> 
>> 
>> Liberty without socialism is privileged and unjust; socialism without
>> liberty is brutal and tyrannical. Opinion without study is ignorant and
>> destructive; study without opinion is empty and mercenary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Kamran Nayeri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged
>> as those who are
>> <http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf>.
>> ― Benjamin Franklin
>> 
>> The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a
>> revolution.  -- Paul Cezanne
>> 
>> Nihil de nobis, sine nobis:  Nothing about us, without us!
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Liberty without socialism is privileged and unjust; socialism without
>> liberty is brutal and tyrannical. Opinion without study is ignorant and
>> destructive; study without opinion is empty and mercenary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged
> as those who are
> <http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf>.
> ― Benjamin Franklin
> 
> The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a
> revolution.  -- Paul Cezanne
> 
> Nihil de nobis, sine nobis:  Nothing about us, without us!
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 10:05:15 -0600
> From:    Claudia Pine <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The "Impossible Burger"
> 
> Interesting!  Haven't read the whole thing yet for the details of the
> argument, but -- I think it's great that they did take the time to produce
> a public explanation that we can all consider.  That's the kind of
> corporate transparency we want.
> 
> It also suggests that this follows a long debate inside the company over
> this, and that's good too.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:51 AM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody buy this argument?
>> 
>> 
>> https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-our-commitment-to-consumers-and-our-planet-led-us-to-use-gm-soy-23f880c93408
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged
> as those who are
> <http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf>.
> ― Benjamin Franklin
> 
> The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a
> revolution.  -- Paul Cezanne
> 
> Nihil de nobis, sine nobis:  Nothing about us, without us!
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 21:06:14 +0200
> From:    jonathan latham <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The "Impossible Burger"
> 
> Here is Vandana Shiva's assessment:
> Fake Food, Fake Meat: Big Food's Desperate Attempt to Further the
> Industrialisation of Food
> https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/fake-food-fake-meat-big-foods-desperate-attempt-to-further-industrialisation-food/
> 
> ---
> Jonathan Latham (PhD)
> 
> BioScience Resource Project
> www.bioscienceresource.org [3]
> 
> PO Box 14851-6869
> Ithaca NY
> USA
> Tel: 00 (1) 607 319 0279
> 
> [log in to unmask] 
> On 07/07/2019 18:05, Claudia Pine wrote:
> 
>> Interesting!  Haven't read the whole thing yet for the details of the argument, but -- I think it's great that they did take the time to produce a public explanation that we can all consider.  That's the kind of corporate transparency we want. 
>> 
>> It also suggests that this follows a long debate inside the company over this, and that's good too. 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:51 AM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
>> 
>>> Does anybody buy this argument? 
>>> 
>>> https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-our-commitment-to-consumers-and-our-planet-led-us-to-use-gm-soy-23f880c93408
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are [1]. ― Benjamin Franklin 
>> 
>> The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution.  -- Paul Cezanne 
>> 
>> Nihil de nobis, sine nobis:  Nothing about us, without us!  [2]
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_About_Us_Without_Us
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date:    Sun, 7 Jul 2019 15:17:21 -0700
> From:    "Michael H. Goldhaber" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: The "Impossible Burger"
> 
> I strongly agree with Carol. The American Constitution as presently interpreted essentially forces a two-party system on us. The Democrats may not be very good, but involvement with them , in local as well as national primaries, is the only way to make them any better. Getting out the vote in 2020 is likely the only way to save what shreds of democracy we have left. In my view anyone who opposes doing that is helping destroy any chance we have left for any realistically possible change for the better. The Republicans are hell-bent on turning over the country even more fully to the corporatist super rich and to harm women, the poor, the LGBTQ and minorities., as well as destroying the planet for short- term gain. They are effectively part of an international conspiracy against almost everything SftP has ever stood for.
> 
> Myopic ignoring of all that is hardly meritorious or even practical.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael via iPhone, so please ecuse misteaks.
> 
>> On Jul 7, 2019, at 12:06 PM, jonathan latham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Here is Vandana Shiva's assessment:
>> Fake Food, Fake Meat: Big Food’s Desperate Attempt to Further the Industrialisation of Food
>> https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/fake-food-fake-meat-big-foods-desperate-attempt-to-further-industrialisation-food/
>> 
>> ---
>> Jonathan Latham (PhD)
>> 
>> BioScience Resource Project
>> www.bioscienceresource.org
>> 
>> PO Box 14851-6869
>> Ithaca NY
>> USA
>> Tel: 00 (1) 607 319 0279
>> 
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>>> On 07/07/2019 18:05, Claudia Pine wrote:
>>> 
>>> Interesting!  Haven't read the whole thing yet for the details of the argument, but -- I think it's great that they did take the time to produce a public explanation that we can all consider.  That's the kind of corporate transparency we want.
>>> 
>>> It also suggests that this follows a long debate inside the company over this, and that's good too.
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:51 AM David Barouh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> Does anybody buy this argument?
>>>> 
>>>> https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-our-commitment-to-consumers-and-our-planet-led-us-to-use-gm-soy-23f880c93408
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. ― Benjamin Franklin
>>> 
>>> The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution.  -- Paul Cezanne
>>> 
>>> Nihil de nobis, sine nobis:  Nothing about us, without us! 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Digest - 6 Jul 2019 to 7 Jul 2019 (#2019-163)
> ***************************************************************************