Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
HuckleB
HuckleB's Journal
HuckleB's Journal
January 21, 2016
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/18/the-stacks-john-coltrane-s-mighty-musical-quest.html
"Coltrane, a man of almost unbelievable gentleness made human to us lesser mortals by his very occasional rages. Coltrane, an authentically spiritual man, but not innocent of carnal imperatives. Or perhaps more accurately, a man, in his last years, especially but not exclusively consumed by affairs of the spirit. That is, having constructed a personal world view (or view of the cosmos) on a residue of Christianity and an infusion of Eastern meditative practices and concerns, Coltrane became a theosophist of jazz. The music was a way of self-purgation so that he could learn more about himself to the end of making himself and his music part of the unity of all being. He truly believed this, and in this respect, as well as musically, he has been a powerful influence on many musicians since. He considered music to be a healing art, an “uplifting” art.
Yet through most of his most relatively short career (he died at forty), Coltrane divided jazz listeners, creating furiously negative reactions to his work among some. (“Antijazz” was one of the epithets frequently cast at him in print.) He was hurt and somewhat bewildered by this reaction, but with monumental stubbornness went on exploring and creating what to many seemed at first to be chaos--self-indulgent, long-winded noise. Some still think that's what it was.
Others believed Coltrane to be a prophet, a musical prophet, heralding an enormous expansion of what it might now be possible to say on an instrument. Consider Art Davis. He is a startlingly brilliant bassist, as accomplished in classical music as in jazz. (Because Davis is black, he has been denied employment by those symphony orchestras to which he has applied, and so he has challenged them to pit him against any classical bassist of their choice. The challenge has gone unanswered.) Anyway, Davis, whom I've known for years, is a rationalist, a keen analyzer of music and of life. He is not given, so far as I have ever known, to giant or even small leaps into faith. Davis requires a sound scaffolding of fact and proof for his enthusiasms.
But here is Art Davis, who played for a time with Coltrane, as quoted in the Fall 1972 issue of the periodical Black Creation [Institute of Afro-American Affairs at New York University]: “John Coltrane would play for hours a set. One tune would be like an hour or two hours, and he would not repeat himself, and it would not be boring…. People would just be shouting, like you go to church, a holy roller church or something like that. This would get into their brains, would penetrate. John had that spirit--he was after the spiritual thing…. You could hear people screaming … despite the critics who tried to put him down. Black people made him because they stuck together and they saw--look what's going down--let's get some of this. You know all the hard times that John had at the beginning, even when he was with Miles. And when he left Miles, starting out, everybody tried to discourage him. But I'd be there and the brothers and sisters would be there and they supported him…. John had this power of communication, that power so rare it was like genius--I'll call him a prophet because he did this.”
..."
--------------------------------------------------------
A good read, indeed.
The Stacks: John Coltrane’s Mighty Musical Quest by Nat Hentoff
The tenor saxophonist was one of the most imaginatively restless artists to ever work a bandstand. Nat Hentoff explains why we're still playing catch up with this musical genius.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/18/the-stacks-john-coltrane-s-mighty-musical-quest.html
"Coltrane, a man of almost unbelievable gentleness made human to us lesser mortals by his very occasional rages. Coltrane, an authentically spiritual man, but not innocent of carnal imperatives. Or perhaps more accurately, a man, in his last years, especially but not exclusively consumed by affairs of the spirit. That is, having constructed a personal world view (or view of the cosmos) on a residue of Christianity and an infusion of Eastern meditative practices and concerns, Coltrane became a theosophist of jazz. The music was a way of self-purgation so that he could learn more about himself to the end of making himself and his music part of the unity of all being. He truly believed this, and in this respect, as well as musically, he has been a powerful influence on many musicians since. He considered music to be a healing art, an “uplifting” art.
Yet through most of his most relatively short career (he died at forty), Coltrane divided jazz listeners, creating furiously negative reactions to his work among some. (“Antijazz” was one of the epithets frequently cast at him in print.) He was hurt and somewhat bewildered by this reaction, but with monumental stubbornness went on exploring and creating what to many seemed at first to be chaos--self-indulgent, long-winded noise. Some still think that's what it was.
Others believed Coltrane to be a prophet, a musical prophet, heralding an enormous expansion of what it might now be possible to say on an instrument. Consider Art Davis. He is a startlingly brilliant bassist, as accomplished in classical music as in jazz. (Because Davis is black, he has been denied employment by those symphony orchestras to which he has applied, and so he has challenged them to pit him against any classical bassist of their choice. The challenge has gone unanswered.) Anyway, Davis, whom I've known for years, is a rationalist, a keen analyzer of music and of life. He is not given, so far as I have ever known, to giant or even small leaps into faith. Davis requires a sound scaffolding of fact and proof for his enthusiasms.
But here is Art Davis, who played for a time with Coltrane, as quoted in the Fall 1972 issue of the periodical Black Creation [Institute of Afro-American Affairs at New York University]: “John Coltrane would play for hours a set. One tune would be like an hour or two hours, and he would not repeat himself, and it would not be boring…. People would just be shouting, like you go to church, a holy roller church or something like that. This would get into their brains, would penetrate. John had that spirit--he was after the spiritual thing…. You could hear people screaming … despite the critics who tried to put him down. Black people made him because they stuck together and they saw--look what's going down--let's get some of this. You know all the hard times that John had at the beginning, even when he was with Miles. And when he left Miles, starting out, everybody tried to discourage him. But I'd be there and the brothers and sisters would be there and they supported him…. John had this power of communication, that power so rare it was like genius--I'll call him a prophet because he did this.”
..."
--------------------------------------------------------
A good read, indeed.
January 21, 2016
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/
"As the new year begins, millions of people are vowing to shape up their eating habits. This usually involves dividing foods into moralistic categories: good/bad, healthy/unhealthy, nutritious/indulgent, slimming/fattening — but which foods belong where depends on whom you ask.
The U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently released its latest guidelines, which define a healthy diet as one that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or nonfat dairy products, seafood, legumes and nuts while reducing red and processed meat, refined grains, and sugary foods and beverages.1 Some cardiologists recommend a Mediterranean diet rich in olive oil, the American Diabetes Association gives the nod to both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine promotes a vegetarian diet. Ask a hard-bodied CrossFit aficionado, and she may champion a “Paleo” diet based on foods our Paleolithic ancestors (supposedly) ate. My colleague Walt Hickey swears by the keto diet.
Who’s right? It’s hard to say. When it comes to nutrition, everyone has an opinion. What no one has is an airtight case. The problem begins with a lack of consensus on what makes a diet healthy. Is the aim to make you slender? To build muscles? To keep your bones strong? Or to prevent heart attacks or cancer or keep dementia at bay? Whatever you’re worried about, there’s no shortage of diets or foods purported to help you. Linking dietary habits and individual foods to health factors is easy — ridiculously so — as you’ll soon see from the little experiment we conducted.
Our foray into nutrition science demonstrated that studies examining how foods influence health are inherently fraught. To show you why, we’re going to take you behind the scenes to see how these studies are done. The first thing you need to know is that nutrition researchers are studying an incredibly difficult problem, because, short of locking people in a room and carefully measuring out all their meals, it’s hard to know exactly what people eat. So nearly all nutrition studies rely on measures of food consumption that require people to remember and report what they ate. The most common of these are food diaries, recall surveys and the food frequency questionnaire, or FFQ.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
A very good read, IMO.
You Can’t Trust What You Read About Nutrition
We found a link between cabbage and innie bellybuttons, but that doesn’t mean it’s real.http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/
"As the new year begins, millions of people are vowing to shape up their eating habits. This usually involves dividing foods into moralistic categories: good/bad, healthy/unhealthy, nutritious/indulgent, slimming/fattening — but which foods belong where depends on whom you ask.
The U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently released its latest guidelines, which define a healthy diet as one that emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or nonfat dairy products, seafood, legumes and nuts while reducing red and processed meat, refined grains, and sugary foods and beverages.1 Some cardiologists recommend a Mediterranean diet rich in olive oil, the American Diabetes Association gives the nod to both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine promotes a vegetarian diet. Ask a hard-bodied CrossFit aficionado, and she may champion a “Paleo” diet based on foods our Paleolithic ancestors (supposedly) ate. My colleague Walt Hickey swears by the keto diet.
Who’s right? It’s hard to say. When it comes to nutrition, everyone has an opinion. What no one has is an airtight case. The problem begins with a lack of consensus on what makes a diet healthy. Is the aim to make you slender? To build muscles? To keep your bones strong? Or to prevent heart attacks or cancer or keep dementia at bay? Whatever you’re worried about, there’s no shortage of diets or foods purported to help you. Linking dietary habits and individual foods to health factors is easy — ridiculously so — as you’ll soon see from the little experiment we conducted.
Our foray into nutrition science demonstrated that studies examining how foods influence health are inherently fraught. To show you why, we’re going to take you behind the scenes to see how these studies are done. The first thing you need to know is that nutrition researchers are studying an incredibly difficult problem, because, short of locking people in a room and carefully measuring out all their meals, it’s hard to know exactly what people eat. So nearly all nutrition studies rely on measures of food consumption that require people to remember and report what they ate. The most common of these are food diaries, recall surveys and the food frequency questionnaire, or FFQ.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
A very good read, IMO.
January 20, 2016
"You've probably heard by now that the Beatles' full discography is finally available on streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music. You may also be aware — because Beatles trivia is basically oxygen — that the Fab Four were nearly as fond of classical music as they were of skiffle and rockabilly. But, when you dive into the specifics of the Beatles' intersections with classical music, there are some actual surprises to be had.
So, if you're planning on a Beatles binge in the near future, by way of streaming or otherwise, here's a bit of suggested additional listening. We'll start with a few classical works that are directly quoted or used in Beatles tracks. Then, we'll move on to some slightly less direct inspirations, including some wildly speculative connections on my part — because wild speculation is just part of being a Beatles fan. Then, after a bit of miscellany, we'll sample a tiny selection of the works where the influence went in the other direction: where the composer used the Beatles' music as a starting point.
N.B. There are no specific references to or quotes of classical pieces in “Roll Over Beethoven.” Because of course there aren’t. That would defeat the whole purpose of the song. I’m looking at you, Electric Light Orchestra.
Ready? One, two, three, FAH!
..."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inspired by the mild debate of the Beatles on that other thread, or something like that. Well, I found this piece to be fun.
25 classical pieces with surprising Beatles connections
http://music.cbc.ca/#!/blogs/2016/1/25-classical-pieces-with-surprising-Beatles-connections"You've probably heard by now that the Beatles' full discography is finally available on streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music. You may also be aware — because Beatles trivia is basically oxygen — that the Fab Four were nearly as fond of classical music as they were of skiffle and rockabilly. But, when you dive into the specifics of the Beatles' intersections with classical music, there are some actual surprises to be had.
So, if you're planning on a Beatles binge in the near future, by way of streaming or otherwise, here's a bit of suggested additional listening. We'll start with a few classical works that are directly quoted or used in Beatles tracks. Then, we'll move on to some slightly less direct inspirations, including some wildly speculative connections on my part — because wild speculation is just part of being a Beatles fan. Then, after a bit of miscellany, we'll sample a tiny selection of the works where the influence went in the other direction: where the composer used the Beatles' music as a starting point.
N.B. There are no specific references to or quotes of classical pieces in “Roll Over Beethoven.” Because of course there aren’t. That would defeat the whole purpose of the song. I’m looking at you, Electric Light Orchestra.
Ready? One, two, three, FAH!
..."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inspired by the mild debate of the Beatles on that other thread, or something like that. Well, I found this piece to be fun.
January 19, 2016
I used to think that, too.
There was some really good music, too. Off the top of my head: Marley/Wailers, Bowie, Stevie Wonder, The Clash, Sly Stone, Joy Division, Gang of Four, Nick Drake, The Stones' "Exile," The Ramones, Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, The Specials, John Lennon, Big Star, Herbie Hancock, Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life," Randy Newman, Fela Kuti, Leonard Cohen, Brian Eno, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, ...
January 19, 2016
"...
Not surprisingly, I was very much saddened by David Bowie’s death a little more than a week ago, particularly given how it was such a surprise. No one knew that Bowie had cancer, and I was increasingly in awe at how he had managed to hide his illness for the 18 months since he was first diagnosed. We still don’t know for sure what kind of cancer Bowie died of. Bowie’s friend Ivo van Hove, the director of his musical Lazarus, has been quoted in an interview as saying that Bowie died of liver cancer, but I have been unable to find corroboration of this from other sources elsewhere. (My first guess would have been lung cancer, given Bowie’s longtime smoking habit.) Given that I’ve been in the biz long enough to know that lay people often refer to metastases of cancers from other organs to the liver as “liver cancer,” I wonder if Bowie had a different kind of cancer that had spread to his liver. I have no way of knowing that; so for now it is best to accept that he died of liver cancer. It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that something’s happened that I hoped wouldn’t.
Regular readers know that I really, really detest Mike Adams, the quack apologist who has built a woo empire around his NaturalNews.com website. One thing that I detest about him in particular is something I first noticed him doing a long time ago. Basically, whenever a celebrity dies of cancer (and sometimes of other things), Adams manages to find a way to paint it as the evil oncology “industry” pushing that evil chemotherapy to kill the celebrity. His most recent target was Beau Biden, whose fatal brain cancer Adams blamed on GMOs (specifically glyphosate pesticides) and whose death Adams blamed on chemotherapy. At other times, he’s pulled variations of the same stunt, in essence spitting on the graves of Tony Snow, Patrick Swayze, Elizabeth Edwards, and Farrah Fawcett.
Every time, Adams’ MO is the same. He claims that it wasn’t the cancer that killed, but rather the chemotherapy, to which he often adds a faux-plaintive, regretful, “If only [insert name of dead celebrity] had used ‘natural treatments’ she would still be alive today.” Whenever he can, Adams likes to find a photo of the celebrity who died taken not long before death, when inevitably that celebrity, ravaged by cancer, appears shockingly emaciated (as Patrick Swayze did) and use for shock value to blame the celebrity’s condition on the chemotherapy, rather than the real cause, the cancer. I suppose that’s one good thing about how David Bowie kept his disease from the prying eyes of the press; there are no such photos of him near the end, as there are for Patrick Swayze and Steve Jobs, where Bowie looks extremely emaciated. True, there are fairly recent photos of Bowie out there. The most recent include photos taken at the opening of Bowie’s play in early December and photos from a photo shoot from an unknown time but presumably within a few weeks of his death. Although in both sets of photos, there were hints that the educated eye can pick up to suggest that Bowie’s health was not very good (one hint: look at his legs, particularly knees and ankles), those signs were relatively subtle and easily missed. Overall Bowie still looked amazingly good for someone with terminal cancer. No wonder Adams chose an old picture of him!
...
In any case, this sort of vile gloating from this vulture is one reason why I so despise Mike Adams, and, in light of his ghoulish gloating over one of my all time favorite artists, I have just one thing to say to him:
..."
--------------------------------------------------------
What is it with people like Adams? They are trying to convince people to submit to worthless treatments. They have to know that reality after all this time, but they don't stop. It's utterly incredible.
You stay away from Ziggy Stardust and Severus Snape, Mike Adams!
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/19/you-stay-away-from-ziggy-stardust-and-severus-snape-mike-adams/"...
Not surprisingly, I was very much saddened by David Bowie’s death a little more than a week ago, particularly given how it was such a surprise. No one knew that Bowie had cancer, and I was increasingly in awe at how he had managed to hide his illness for the 18 months since he was first diagnosed. We still don’t know for sure what kind of cancer Bowie died of. Bowie’s friend Ivo van Hove, the director of his musical Lazarus, has been quoted in an interview as saying that Bowie died of liver cancer, but I have been unable to find corroboration of this from other sources elsewhere. (My first guess would have been lung cancer, given Bowie’s longtime smoking habit.) Given that I’ve been in the biz long enough to know that lay people often refer to metastases of cancers from other organs to the liver as “liver cancer,” I wonder if Bowie had a different kind of cancer that had spread to his liver. I have no way of knowing that; so for now it is best to accept that he died of liver cancer. It doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that something’s happened that I hoped wouldn’t.
Regular readers know that I really, really detest Mike Adams, the quack apologist who has built a woo empire around his NaturalNews.com website. One thing that I detest about him in particular is something I first noticed him doing a long time ago. Basically, whenever a celebrity dies of cancer (and sometimes of other things), Adams manages to find a way to paint it as the evil oncology “industry” pushing that evil chemotherapy to kill the celebrity. His most recent target was Beau Biden, whose fatal brain cancer Adams blamed on GMOs (specifically glyphosate pesticides) and whose death Adams blamed on chemotherapy. At other times, he’s pulled variations of the same stunt, in essence spitting on the graves of Tony Snow, Patrick Swayze, Elizabeth Edwards, and Farrah Fawcett.
Every time, Adams’ MO is the same. He claims that it wasn’t the cancer that killed, but rather the chemotherapy, to which he often adds a faux-plaintive, regretful, “If only [insert name of dead celebrity] had used ‘natural treatments’ she would still be alive today.” Whenever he can, Adams likes to find a photo of the celebrity who died taken not long before death, when inevitably that celebrity, ravaged by cancer, appears shockingly emaciated (as Patrick Swayze did) and use for shock value to blame the celebrity’s condition on the chemotherapy, rather than the real cause, the cancer. I suppose that’s one good thing about how David Bowie kept his disease from the prying eyes of the press; there are no such photos of him near the end, as there are for Patrick Swayze and Steve Jobs, where Bowie looks extremely emaciated. True, there are fairly recent photos of Bowie out there. The most recent include photos taken at the opening of Bowie’s play in early December and photos from a photo shoot from an unknown time but presumably within a few weeks of his death. Although in both sets of photos, there were hints that the educated eye can pick up to suggest that Bowie’s health was not very good (one hint: look at his legs, particularly knees and ankles), those signs were relatively subtle and easily missed. Overall Bowie still looked amazingly good for someone with terminal cancer. No wonder Adams chose an old picture of him!
...
In any case, this sort of vile gloating from this vulture is one reason why I so despise Mike Adams, and, in light of his ghoulish gloating over one of my all time favorite artists, I have just one thing to say to him:
..."
--------------------------------------------------------
What is it with people like Adams? They are trying to convince people to submit to worthless treatments. They have to know that reality after all this time, but they don't stop. It's utterly incredible.
January 19, 2016
"...
With current anti-HIV treatment someone who is HIV positive can expect to live an almost normal life expectancy free of any major complications of the disease and will not go on to develop AIDS from the virus. The big challenge now is to get this modern medicine to those who are HIV positive in the third world, or to those who cannot afford it.
Interestingly, Charlie Sheen, who has all of the advantages of wealth in a Western industrialized country, opted for third-world treatment of his HIV. He recently went off of his anti-HIV medications and instead decided to rely on the ministrations of an unknown doctor in Mexico making bold claims.
This prompted an on-air intervention by Dr. Oz and Sheen’s own doctor (which was ethically dubious but good television, I guess), after which Sheen reported he would go back on his medications.
Of course, most HIV patients who are lured to Mexico with the promise of a miracle cure will not benefit from a personal intervention by Dr. Oz. Hopefully they will benefit from watching that episode, but if history is any guide (unfortunately) the exposure is likely to lead more people to the Mexico charlatan than warn them away.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
So now Sheen, Oz, and Sheen's doc have made the quacks in Mexico better known. Ugh.
Charlie Sheen’s HIV Quack
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/charlie-sheens-hiv-quack/#more-8758"...
With current anti-HIV treatment someone who is HIV positive can expect to live an almost normal life expectancy free of any major complications of the disease and will not go on to develop AIDS from the virus. The big challenge now is to get this modern medicine to those who are HIV positive in the third world, or to those who cannot afford it.
Interestingly, Charlie Sheen, who has all of the advantages of wealth in a Western industrialized country, opted for third-world treatment of his HIV. He recently went off of his anti-HIV medications and instead decided to rely on the ministrations of an unknown doctor in Mexico making bold claims.
This prompted an on-air intervention by Dr. Oz and Sheen’s own doctor (which was ethically dubious but good television, I guess), after which Sheen reported he would go back on his medications.
Of course, most HIV patients who are lured to Mexico with the promise of a miracle cure will not benefit from a personal intervention by Dr. Oz. Hopefully they will benefit from watching that episode, but if history is any guide (unfortunately) the exposure is likely to lead more people to the Mexico charlatan than warn them away.
..."
-----------------------------------------------------
So now Sheen, Oz, and Sheen's doc have made the quacks in Mexico better known. Ugh.
January 19, 2016
"I am not sure how the plastic honey bear got into my apartment. It’s unlikely that it is the kind of honey bear that is possessed by an evil spirit and moves into cupboards all on its own. Probably, a houseguest left it here.
What I do know is that, every time I open the cupboard door and find myself staring into its little black plastic eyes, I wonder: “Are you a fraud, little bear?”
I’ve known for years that, like a pile of Louis Vuitton handbags for sale on the sidewalk, a cheap jar of honey is probably a fake jar of honey. Maybe not all fake. But honey is expensive, and the supply chains are long and obtuse enough that people could add a little corn syrup here and there along the way with little chance of repercussions. And so they do.
...
But there never was a more simple, trustworthy time.
..."
--------------------------
The author has some fantastic stuff showing some of the chicanery of the past and the now. It's a good read, with interesting links.
There have always been shady people cutting your food with garbage
http://grist.org/food/garden-of-eatin-2/"I am not sure how the plastic honey bear got into my apartment. It’s unlikely that it is the kind of honey bear that is possessed by an evil spirit and moves into cupboards all on its own. Probably, a houseguest left it here.
What I do know is that, every time I open the cupboard door and find myself staring into its little black plastic eyes, I wonder: “Are you a fraud, little bear?”
I’ve known for years that, like a pile of Louis Vuitton handbags for sale on the sidewalk, a cheap jar of honey is probably a fake jar of honey. Maybe not all fake. But honey is expensive, and the supply chains are long and obtuse enough that people could add a little corn syrup here and there along the way with little chance of repercussions. And so they do.
...
But there never was a more simple, trustworthy time.
..."
--------------------------
The author has some fantastic stuff showing some of the chicanery of the past and the now. It's a good read, with interesting links.
January 19, 2016
It sucks to see kids in public schools being taught nonsense. Ugh.
Kids' Miseducation Underway In Nation's First All-Organic, Non-GMO School District
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2016/01/19/miseducation-underway-in-nations-first-all-organic-non-gmo-school-district/#2715e4857a0b56ab685354e4It sucks to see kids in public schools being taught nonsense. Ugh.
January 19, 2016
Cherry picking bad studies doesn't change reality.
Organic Milk Offers No Nutritional Boost Over Regular Milk
http://www.science20.com/inside_science/organic_milk_offers_no_nutritional_boost_over_regular_milk-153291
Organic milk 'is less healthy than regular milk and could harm child IQ'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11566395/Organic-milk-is-less-healthy-than-regular-milk-and-could-harm-child-IQ.html
Evaluating milk and its substitutes
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/evaluating-milk-and-its-substitutes/
No Health Benefits from Organic Food
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-from-organic-food/
Is organic food actually better? Here’s what the science says
http://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/organic-food-science02092015/
New Organic Farming Meta-analysis – What Does it Really Show?
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/new-organic-farming-meta-analysis-what-does-it-really-show/
The Ecological Case Against Organic Farming
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/10/is-organic-food-worth-the-expense/the-ecological-case-against-organic-farming
Six Reasons Organic Is NOT The Most Environmentally Friendly Way To Farm
http://www.science20.com/agricultural_realism/six_reasons_organic_not_most_environmentally_friendly_way_farm-110209
January 16, 2016
How many DUers read the content of posters' links before responding?
I know some OPs are very long, with multiple links, but I'm starting to think most responders to posts with even a single, concise link haven't taken the time to read the link. I hope I'm wrong, but ...
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
