Video Player
00:00
00:00
Segment 1
Ana joins Cenk for SCS stories. She brags about her Reddit “Ask Me Anything” series. A video of people using sign language to relay the dangers of masturbation played to a 50 Cent song. Ana gives a rundown of the ballot initiatives from last night. Talk about the failure to eliminate the death penalty and labeling genetically modified foods. Good news on ballot initiatives regarding Citizens United. Video of Peggy Noonan calling the Democratic strategy of going after women’s vote is ‘micro targeting.’
Segment 2
Victoria Jackson took to Twitter last night to lament the losses for the Republicans. Donald Trump’s tweets after the results included one to take to the streets. Diane Sawyer’s drunken comments during last night’s results. The man that was paid $15,000 to have Romney’s logo tattooed on his face says he doesn’t regret it.
Comments
Hehe…I could tell on election day this was a major thing Ana disagreed with our “science correspondent”…the tension was pretty palpable. And here she is: digging! You did win me over, though, Ana: I can’t understand how I ever though NOT labeling something was the right way to go. It doesn’t matter if it’s safe or not: people have a right to know. And if it hurts sales for GMOs so what? That just means the industries that use those products need to inform people of the risks (or lack thereof). Transparency is always the way to go: I don’t see how just having a label that says “This food has been genetically modified for quality” would hurt sales anyhow…did the opposition really think that Monsanto would allow the labels to be “menacing”? Of course they’ll make sure people learn to LOVE GMOs…
Indeed
Re: GMO’s: False dichotomies ! What is the problem with a simple label? You label an apple an apple, an orange an orange, a genetically fake organism a GMO…its so simple!!
First, I’d like to say that I really like Ana’s shirt. I’m a woman and not a pervy wanker so I can say that, right?
Second, that masturbation video was frickin hilarious. I was also impressed by the fact that there seemed to be a sign for both male and female masturbation! Go Deaf community! Not for the video, but for the signs.
I hope so! I always adore Ana’s clothing/accesories (LOVE her green dress!), and wonder what shoes she wears.
/girly
Can I just say how much Cara Santa Maria dropped the ball on GMO during election coverage? What, because “natural” is not a legally protected term, we shouldn’t legally protect any terms? Or inform the public?
It’s very hard to prove that small amounts of contaminants cause health damage, as she should know, as a “scientist.” She gave absolutely no evidence for why people shouldn’t be informed other than vague fears it could cause confusion, and every point she made only worked against her.
Oh yeah, and she said how targeted GMO is, where they can isolate one strand, so it’s safer. So, combining one strand with a disease genetically is safer? Have we studied it long enough to KNOW ITS SAFE? Total lack of intellectual authenticity.
Has labelling the food led to massive problems in other countries? What problems? Explain. If you have no good reasons why not to, then give it up.
Right now we have a situation where we AREN’T ALLOWED TO KNOW. Does anyone thinks that’s alright, or that a flawed labelling system is better than keeping the public in the dark?
(sorry for all the comments, I get passionate about this stuff)
How is it not ok to let the organic foods aggressively label themselves as non-GMO?
Your argument appears to be “It’s really hard to prove that there ISN’T a health risk to GMOs, so we should just label them to be safe” but it’s also really hard to prove that there isn’t a health risk to getting a flu shot or anything else because when you try to prove the lack of something your results are, by design, inconclusive. As long as there aren’t any negative effects, we will continue to get results that are “no statistically significant link between GMO x and effect y.”
While Monsanto really is terrible, the fact that Monsanto is on one side doe not imply that the other side is good.
See know evil, hear know evil, say know evil.
In response to the GM labeling, I think you’re miss-characterizing the people on the left’s position against it. Carpet blanketing food as GMO vs non-GMO is the wrong way to label it. In fact, your argument is identical to the religious pushing charter schools and their claim for ‘educational freedom’ in the classroom. “How can these people be against more choice, more INFORMATION? That’s all it is.” I am not against that, but if you look below the surface there is a specific agenda with terrible motivation behind it. For charter schools they want to drop evolution and push religion (unfortunately they are winning in my state of Georgia). For GMO, the naturalists want to create false sense of concern with GMO by pushing their naturalistic fallacy (incredibly annoying) and false dichotomy.
I haven’t been bombarded with advertisers about the issue and it is probably the case that Monsanto dropping cash is influencing your opinion. I probably don’t agree with Monsanto’s reasons to be against it (the extra cents it adds per can you mentioned). But if you are going to label it, put some real information on it. Not this false dichotomy/naturalistic-fallacy scare-tactic. The public is already incredibly miss-informed about genetics and GMO as is, make the information relevant.
There were several exemption to the labeling of food, it was not a blanket of GMO vs non-GMO. I personally didn’t think the labeling went far enough. For instance GMO feed was exempted for farm animals. I am not sure if you know what the labels allowed or exempted, but I thought it was fairly reasonable.
Your argument that labeling is identical to religious charter schools is weird. I don’t see the correlation at all between the two. Know one is putting up a fight agains science. The pro labeling folks want choice, not blind faith, superstition, or indoctrination.
Natural genetic manipulation (i.e. selective breeding or cultivation of plants or animals over a period of time) and genetically engineered or modified organism (i.e. taking a gene from on species related or totally unrelated and implementing it into another species or same species to ward off insects, survive pesticides, crossbreeding, to resist disease, or to fortify for nutrition, ) are not the same thing. The first happens over time adapting to surrounding environment while the later forces the environment to adapt to it in the present moment. Creating heirloom tomatoes and GMO tomatoes are not the same. There is one big ethical side problem with all of this, and that is food source should not be subjected to intellectual property laws.
I am not sure about the false dichotomy or fallacy of “naturalists”, but I do know that we as Americans knew that smoking was bad for your health 50 years ago, and didn’t really do much about it till the late 80’s early 90’s. This country lies to its populace; all the time, one should always have a good dose of skepticism.
60 countries around the world are GMO free (All of the EU for example) and their scientist are just as smart as ours. On the contrary, we are the ones that are being “miss-informed”.
I was sadden to not hear Cara Santa Maria mention any reasoning why the EU is GMO free, or the TYT crew have some sort of science review over 53 million dollar total labeling feud .
I’ve only taken one course in sign language, but facial expressions are almost always overly-dramatic to make up for the lack of emotion in hand signs. I wouldn’t say that is the part to make fun of, but definitely the whole thing combined is pretty funny.
Kasper dropping the elbow on Sink lololol