Freddy Weller … "Games People Play" …


Watching and reading the most recent escapades of those “we” elect to represent us on city, county, state, national stages I find myself, of late, laughing at how closed their buffoon antics mimic the lyrics of the Freddy Weller song … “games people play” … which you just might choose to watch and listen to at the “youtube” referenced above …

From local City Hall to the office of the President of our Nation each one of them is busily engaged in their own version … each one contently assured theirs is the only legitimate version … decrying all others as fake, fraud, liars…

This “game” we allow them to play at our expense polarizes every vital conversation from air to water … from education to any form of social safety net … from food production to production of fossil fuels … from family to war … from birth to death …

In the process most of us has unconsciously built his/her/their own scotoma ( are now only able to “see” through very narrow window or perspective … everything else having been selectively deleted, diffused, cancelled…

It is understandable then why negotiation … communication … compromise … conciliation … is, if not impossible, then at least highly improbable …

What is most intriguing is that today, for the most part, we accept this condition as normal..?

Within a quite short period of time, we permitted an inflexibility to dictate, to set the standard, to become the norm, to close our mind to anything that does not immediately resonate in the correct political color, to accentuate the politically correct tone of the day, to jar our emotions at the proper point with the correct intensity … and this we deem … normal…

And into this emerging paradigm we procreate new life … standing mouth open aghast when their action appear often inhuman, defiant, debasing … our own scotomas shielding us preventing us from seeing that in ourselves …

The games we play today appear designed to push the majority of us away from achieving individual conscious competency leaving us instead driven to becoming just a cog in a collective of an emerging ‘cyborg’ species. 

The evolutionary path of this new ‘cyborg’ species is unknown causing consternation among today’s elected leaders vying for pathways to remain enjoying copious amounts of public adoration which provides to them their lofty pinnacle from which they wield unimaginable power and domination.  

How long do we intend to play this game…?  




… SCROOL DOWN … Insane … yes … but … they’re neat to look at …

… SCROOL DOWN … Insane … yes … but … they’re neat  to look at …

Five Insane Vehicles That Go Like Hell


19.07.MF.Samsung.DH.57934.off_track_portraiture_mp4-26_ copy

There are vehicles that help you get around every day—the sensible sedan, the commuter ferry, the sturdy city bike. And then there are machines that double down on technology and design to get from one place to another faster than you can imagine. We’ve collected five insane vehicles, all of which combine engineering and aesthetics to do one thing: go like hell.

McLaren Mercedes MP4-26

Mclaren’s new formula one car is actually a hybrid—its Kinetic Energy Recovery System stores energy from braking that drivers can use later for a quick overtaking boost. But the innovations don’t end there: The aerodynamics of the car’s carbon-fiber body have been fully reengineered. And even though the F1’s tires are now Pirellis instead of Bridgestones, meaning the team had to get used to a new set of shoes, driver Lewis Hamilton raced the MP4-26 to victory in the Chinese Grand Prix at the start of the season. McLaren is a quick study.

McLaren MP4-26


Around $5 million


Over 200 mph


1,411 lbs.


Around 15 ft.


Ducati Desmosedici RR

To create the Desmosedici RR, Ducati updated the design of its MotoGP race bike, then slapped on blinkers and a license plate. The carbon-fiber body is wrapped around a 989-cc, four-cylinder, 200-horsepower engine that redlines at 13,800 rpm. Stacked with racing tech like forged magnesium wheels and a digital dashboard with lap timers, each Desmosedici RR also comes with a full race kit, including swappable exhaust systems, a race stand, and sponsor decals. Only 1,500 of these noisy, barely street-legal beasts were made, and they’re all gone—the entire allocation sold out before production even started.

Ducati Desmosedici




Over 188 mph


377 lbs.


6.6 ft.

19.07.MF.Samsung.DH.57936.OTV-2 Encapsulation 3.jpg

Boeing X-37B

The US Air Force has a new toy: the robotic, reusable X-37B space plane, which is now flying experimental classified missions. The supersecret unmanned drone is only one quarter the size of the Space Shuttle, so it can easily be launched into low earth orbit by an Atlas V rocket. Once there, it can circle the globe for up to nine months—powered by batteries and solar arrays—before performing a fully automated reentry and runway landing. After touchdown, the 29-foot-long robot can be turned around for another mission in as few as 15 days.


Boeing x-37B




17,500 mph


11,000 lbs.


Around 29 ft.

Photo: Courtesy of United States Air Force


BMW Oracle USA-17 Racing Yacht for America’s Cup 2010

Being able to sail more than three times the speed of the wind requires some pretty hefty engineering. The big brains behind BMW Oracle’s USA-17 racing yacht placed a rigid wing sail on top of the 90-foot trimaran’s three carbon-fiber hulls. The 223-foot sail—the largest ever constructed—is split vertically into two pieces, and the rear section is made of multiple panels that can be individually adjusted, much like flaps on a jumbo-jet wing. The design allowed the yacht to average 26.8 knots in just 7 knots of wind during its winning run at the 33rd America’s Cup last year.


USA-17 Racing Yacht


$400 million


33 knots


185 ft.


Around 90 ft.



Damien Hirst Trek Madone 6.9 Pro

The British artist designed this one-off bike as part of the Stages global art exhibition to benefit the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Hirst laid real butterfly wings along the Madone 6.9 Pro’s carbon-fiber frame, both because of their uniquely iridescent qualities and because they wouldn’t add any discernible WEIGHT to the 16-pound bike. Hirst repeated the motif with painted butterflies on the Bontrager Aeolus rims. Armstrong rode the bike during the final stage of the 2009 Tour de France, after which it sold at Sotheby’s, raising $500,000 for the foundation’s fight against cancer.


Trek Madone




What’ve you got?


16 lbs.


5.6 ft.


absolute “cluster-f**k”


… Hey … get real … it’s NOT just California which is burdened with an absolute “cluster-f**k” of competing convoluting water laws and agencies … take a good look at Arizona …

California groundwater management trickles up from local sources

by Staff Writers    Stanford CA (SPX) Jul 14, 2011

Land surface in California’s San Joaquin Valley subsided about 29 feet (9 meters) between 1925 and 1977 because of groundwater depletion. Signs on the telephone pole indicate the former elevations of the land surface in 1925 and 1955. Credit: Richard Ireland, U.S. Geological Survey (1977)

In a typical year, California gets about 30 percent of its water from groundwater wells. Yet when it comes to managing this precious resource, the state of California relies on a mixed bag of more than 2,000 local water agencies with varying degrees of authority.

Critics say that this decentralized system leaves the state vulnerable to overdraft, which occurs when water is pumped out faster than replacement water is absorbed. But according to a new report published by Stanford University’s Program on Water in the West, a surprising number of local water districts are taking on the challenge of groundwater protection, even without state leadership.

"Contrary to popular expectations, our report uncovers a treasure trove of innovative strategies for groundwater management in California," said the paper’s author, Rebecca Nelson, a former Australian water lawyer who is now a graduate student in the Stanford Law School.

"The California legal framework for groundwater management is weak," Nelson said. "It doesn’t compel local districts to do anything, so many of them don’t. But there are these gems in the rough. This report highlights the work of some of these outstanding managers."

Statewide survey
To evaluate how well groundwater is managed in California, Nelson first had to overcome the lack of basic information about groundwater management in the state. Because California lacks a centralized data clearinghouse, she had to contact more than 50 local districts and request copies of their groundwater management plans – if they had any. "Maybe on two hands you could count the districts that acknowledge the 
environmental effects of over-pumping," Nelson said.

This lack of statewide data is a problem not only for researchers but also for local water agencies wishing to learn from each other and develop a comprehensive regional strategy, she said.

Despite California’s inherent decentralization, the survey revealed that some local districts are making advances on a number of fronts, including conservation and transparency. Nelson found that several water agencies are developing effective conservation strategies without state mandate. The Mendocino City and Soquel Creek water districts, for example, have opted to limit pumping by issuing permits and charging fees, much like those used to manage rivers, reservoirs and other surface waters.

To balance their water budgets, some districts are shifting their focus from water-supply augmentation to water-demand reduction. It’s a politically risky approach, Nelson said, because most districts are governed by elected boards, and telling constituents that they no longer have unlimited access to groundwater could jeopardize a board member’s re-election campaign.

Transparency has been another historic problem, she said: "Groundwater agencies are protective about their local information, because they fear that the state will intervene if it learns too much about local problems."

But in the survey, Nelson discovered that some agencies have begun to overcome this lack of transparency by forming new, unexpected partnerships. For example, the Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority in California’s farm-rich Central Valley has decided to include environmental organizations in its groundwater management planning process. "It doesn’t happen often that an agriculturaldistrict will bring in a group like the Sierra Club, but it’s great when it does," Nelson said.

Critical overdraft
A trained engineer, Nelson worked as in-house counsel for an interstate river basin commission in her native Australia before coming to Stanford to pursue a doctorate in law. She soon discovered that over-pumping had already caused serious problems in parts of California, where 11 groundwater basins suffer from critical overdraft.

"Years of groundwater siphoning can pose a variety of critical challenges," said Buzz Thompson, professor of law and co-director of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. "As groundwater tables fall, for example, the cost of pumping water to the ground increases. Ultimately groundwater use can become uneconomic."

Subsidence is also a serious issue, said Thompson, noting that parts of the Central Valley have sunk 30 feet or more as a result of groundwater overdraft. "Overdrafting of groundwater can also reduce flows in hydrologically connected rivers and, in the case of coastal aquifers, lead to saltwater intrusion," he added.

State vs. local
The current system for managing groundwater in California evolved through a series of court battles between landowners over well rights dating back to the 1800s. Today, California is almost unique in having no statewide legislation providing for management of groundwater use.

Some experts recommend that a comprehensive strategy should be developed at the state level. But that’s unlikely to happen, said Nelson, noting that many groundwater users will oppose new state regulations that could chip away at their water rights.

Ultimately, Nelson hopes that her report will inspire water management districts to collaborate and create a comprehensive plan that makes sense for the entire state. "The homegrown innovations uncovered by this report point the way forward for local agencies to better manage groundwater in California, and the way towards an updated and improved state policy structure to encourage them to do so," she said.

The Program on Water in the West is jointly run by the Woods Institute and The Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford. Nelson is also leadresearcher with the Comparative Groundwater Law and Policy Program, a collaboration between the Program on Water in the West and the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

This article was written by Donna Hesterman, a science-writer intern at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. The paper "Uncommon Innovation: Developments in Groundwater Management Planning in California" can be found


… One for your head … one for your funny bone …

… One for your head … one for your funny bone …

Eric Merola, the filmmaker who created the groundbreaking documentary Burzynski, is are releasing the full documentary on NaturalNews.TV for everyone to view.

This documentary tells the astonishing story of the cure for cancer that was censored, attacked and nearly destroyed by the medical establishment (which actually does not want a cure for cancer!). This is a must-see documentary for everyone to see.

Read the announcement of this groundbreaking documentary at:

Watch the full movie right now at NaturalNews.TV:

Or visit the movie website at:

Be sure to share this with friends because the whole world needs to know the truth about this cancer cure created by a doctor that was very nearly stomped out of existence by the medical establishment. The information in this film would put the cancer industry out of business!

A screaming funny video to share with you about the situation in Oak Park, Michigan, where a woman is being threatened with 90 days of jail time for the "crime" of growing a vegetable garden in her own yard!

Watch our comedy satire news report video at:

Or see it on YouTube at:


…Congre$$ bellie$ up the “hog-trough” … did you really have any doubt…?


…Congre$$ bellie$ up the “hog-trough” … did you really have any doubt…?

U.S. House votes to end EPA water pollution oversight

By Ken Ward Jr.  July 13, 2011

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Fueled by coal industry complaints about the Obama administration’s crackdown on mountaintop removal, legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday that would strip federal regulators of their authority to make state agencies properly police water pollution.

House members approved the legislation by a vote of 239 to 184.

The legislation faces an uncertain future in the Senate, and a veto threat from the White House, but its approval by the House provides a symbolic victory for critics of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"The reality is that the agency is strong-arming the states," said Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D-W.Va. "Rather than bringing the sides together and bringing balance, they have widened the divide."

Rahall, ranking Democrat on the House Committee Transportation and Infrastructure, joined with committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., to push legislation they dubbed the "Clean Water Act Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011."

Mica and Rahall found common ground in their anger with EPA: Rahall over the mountaintop removal crackdown and Mica over federal efforts to force greater cuts in nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from Florida farms and other businesses. West Virginia Reps. Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley, both Republicans, were co-sponsors.

The legislation would stop EPA from rejecting Clean Water Act "dredge-and-fill" permits approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as EPA did earlier this year with the largest mountaintop removal permit in West Virginia history.

But the bill goes much farther than that. It would block EPA from stepping in if states write water quality standards federal scientists believe are too weak. EPA would no longer be able to withdraw federal approval of state water pollution regulatory programs, and would be stripped of authority to object to water pollution discharge permits issued by state agencies.

In a report issued Tuesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said although lawmakers have considered minor changes to particular regulatory programs before, "it is highly unusual for Congress to advance legislation that would broadly alter the federal-state partnership in order to address dissatisfaction with specific actions by EPA or another agency."

During floor debate Wednesday afternoon, backers of the legislation spoke of EPA "usurping" what they said was legal authority of states without federal interference how to protect their rivers and streams.

Would looser environmental regulations help the economy?



WASHINGTON — Republicans in the House of Representatives are waging an all-out war to block federal regulations that protect the environment.

They loaded up a pending 2012 spending bill with terms that would eliminate a broad array of environmental protections, everything from stopping new plants and animals from being placed on the endangered species list to ending federal limits on water pollution in Florida.

The terms also include a rollback of pollution regulations for mountaintop mining and a red light on federal plans to prevent new uranium mining claims near the Grand Canyon.

Another Republican-sponsored bill that’s before Congress would weaken the nation’s 1972 Clean Water Act, taking away the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to step in when it finds state water-pollution rules too loose.

The sweeping anti-environmental regulation agenda has support among Senate Republicans and the GOP’s presidential hopefuls. Its backers say it’s necessary for the sake of jobs and economic growth.

Read more:






… DuPont’s TEFLON & arthritis …


… DuPont’s TEFLON & arthritis …

Teflon component linked to arthritis


(Reuters Health) – High blood levels of a man-made chemical used in non-stick coatings were associated with a raised risk of arthritis in a large new study of adults exposed to tainted drinking water.


Researchers found that people with the highest levels of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in their blood were up to 40 percent more likely to develop arthritis than people with lower blood levels more typical of the general U.S. population.

Dr. Kim Innes of the School of Medicine at West Virginia University and colleagues used data on nearly 50,000 adults living in areas of Ohio and West Virginia where a chemical plant had contaminated water supplies with PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), both chemicals widely used in non-stick and stain-resistant coatings.

Both chemicals are "persistent organic pollutants," meaning they remain in the environment and in the human body for years. Both have also been shown to affect human and animal immune systems and metabolism, including functions such as inflammation that are linked with arthritis.

Arthritis is a degenerative joint disease characterized by pain, stiffness and bone damage that affects some 27 million Americans.

To see whether there was a connection between the chemicals and arthritis risk, Innes’ team looked at people being monitored as part of a larger effort known as the C8 Science Panel, established following the settlement of a 2001 class-action lawsuit against DuPont Chemical.

A DuPont plant in Washington, West Virginia, released PFOA, PFOS and other chemicals into the air, which eventually contaminated drinking water.

Overall, nearly 8 percent of the study participants were found to have arthritis. People with the top-25 percent highest blood levels of PFOA were about 20 percent more likely to have arthritis than people in the bottom-25 percent.

Once the researchers adjusted for a variety of factors including, age, weight, socioeconomic status, gender and military service, the people with the highest PFOA blood levels were 40 percent more likely to develop arthritis than those with the lowest levels.

Somewhat unexpectedly, the authors also found the opposite to be true for PFOS. People with the highest blood levels of PFOS were 25 percent less likely to be diagnosed with arthritis than people with the lowest levels. Innes speculated that this may stem from an inflammation-reducing effect of PFOS.

The connection between PFOA and arthritis was strongest in people who were younger and not obese. Since age and obesity are two known risk factors for osteoarthritis, that finding strengthens the apparent link, the researchers note.

Still, the design of the study cannot prove that arthritis is caused by PFOA exposure, or prevented by PFOS exposure, cautioned Dr. Kyle Steenland, an epidemiologist at the School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and a member of the C8 Science Panel. However, a viable alternate cause for the study findings has not been proposed, Steenland acknowledged.

Innes and her colleagues also note that the 8 percent rate of arthritis reported by participants in this study is actually lower than the national average for adults — a difference they attribute to underreporting of arthritis by the study participants. More cases would not have likely changed the results, they wrote.

Given the many thousands of people in Ohio and West Virginia who were exposed to the chemicals in their drinking water, it is important to continue to monitor the health of the affected population, Steenland said.

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, online June 27, 2011.


Frankenfish … Is GM Salmon a Vital Part of Our Future …?

Frankenfish … Is GM Salmon a Vital Part of Our Future …?

By BRYAN WALSH Tuesday, July 12, 2011 … Read more:,8599,2082630,00.html#ixzz1S6FgLERq



Salmon on display at a New Zealand king salmon factory

Neil Sands / AFP / Getyy

As I write in this week’s TIME cover story, aquaculture — fish farming — is an increasingly essential part of our global food system. Already about half of our seafood starts on an aquatic farm, and as seafood demand continues to rise and the wild ocean catch plateaus, you can be certain that the emphasis on aquaculture will continue to grow.


For much of the world, that’s a good thing. Seafood tends to be healthier than land-raised meat, and fish farming on the whole is a more efficient way to produce protein than raising traditional farm animals. (Efficiency in this case means turning inputs — fish feed — into outputs, fillets on your table.) If aquaculture can deliver inexpensive protein to the masses, it could go a long way toward meeting the increasing demand for food globally, expected to double by midcentury. "We need to shift from collecting and harvesting fish in the wild to a culture bred around seafood production," says Yonathan Zohar, the director of the Center of Marine Biotechnology at the University of Maryland. "[Fish farming] needs to be sustainable and it needs to be economically feasible." But there’s a major problem with the expansion of aquaculture as it’s practiced today: fish feed. The most popular commercial species — think salmon — tend to be carnivores high on the food chain, so they need to be fed a lot of smaller fish in order to grow. If we end up taking more fish mass out of the ocean for feed than we produce via farming, well, that’s not very sustainable. One way around that obstacle is to pick more farmable species, like barramundi and tilapia, which produce more protein than they need as feed. But that doesn’t satisfy the consumer demand for salmon or tuna or cod. "With aquaculture it’s a bit like we’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole," says Paul Greenberg, the author of Four Fish, one of the best books on global seafood. "We can try to change the hole with different species, or we can try to make the peg fit that hole."


Trying to make a better peg — that’s a pretty good description of what a small Massachusetts-based biotech company called AquaBounty is trying to do with Atlantic salmon. AquaBounty’s AquAdvantage salmon contains a gene from the chinook salmon, a larger cousin that cruises colder waters in the north. That gene keeps a vital growth hormone activated rather than shutting it down after a certain point, enabling the AquAdvantage salmon to grow more quickly — up to twice as fast as a conventional Atlantic salmon, according to AquaBounty. Such speed has obvious economic benefits for producers, enough that it could possibly make farming of salmon much more economically viable in the U.S. (Nearly all of the farmed salmon consumed in the U.S. comes from abroad, in part because costs tend to be lower.) "We’re loading up 747s from Chile full of farmed salmon and flying them to North America with a huge carbon footprint," says Ronald Stotish, AquaBounty’s CEO. "With this we could grow salmon in land-based systems in the U.S., raising fresh seafood close to where it’s needed."


(See a video of fish farming in Maine.)  ….,32068,1042439336001_2082000,00.html


The Food and Drug Administration convened a panel of experts last fall to review the genetically modified (GM) salmon, and they were mostly satisfied with AquaBounty’s proposals. Many environmental groups, however, haven’t been so happy with what they’ve come to term the Frankenfish — which would be the first GM animal to hit the market if approved. (A spokesperson for the FDA said that the agency was still reviewing the AquAdvantage salmon, and that there was no timetable for a decision.) "You can have unknown outcomes from genetically modifying a species," says Zach Corrigan, the fish-program director for Food & Water Watch, an NGO opposed to GM technology. "We don’t think they’ve looked carefully enough at those possible effects."


Skeptics worry the GM salmon might provoke an allergic reaction in some consumers, but the real fear has more to do with what kind of damage the modified fish might do if it escaped into the wild. Conventional farmed salmon frequently break free of the sea nets they’re raised in, and they can mix with wild populations of fish. That’s not good for their wild cousins: a farmed fish, like a domesticated pig, is bred for a life in captivity, not in the open oceans, where it needs a different suite of survival traits. Not only can escaped farmed fish spread disease — farmed salmon, for instance, can transmit the deadly parasite sea lice to wild fish — they can actually degrade the gene pool through interbreeding. So it’s not hard to see why many environmentalists worry about the havoc a GM salmon might do if it got loose and started mating. Just watch Jurassic Park.


For its part, AquaBounty says it will ensure that its modified fish never taste freedom. According to the company’s proposal, the GM salmon would be raised only in closed containment systems — inland or indoor tanks that are essentially Alcatraz for fish — not the open-ocean nets that are common for conventionally farmed species.


AquaBounty would ensure that nearly all of the fish are sterile by ensuring they carry only female genes. And even if the fish did manage to escape into the wild, many scientists believe they wouldn’t have innate skills to compete for mates — and therefore wouldn’t do much damage to the wild gene pools. "If they have no mating advantage, than it seems like natural selection would purge them quickly," says William Muir, a population geneticist at Purdue University who has developed models used for evaluating the risks posed by modified fish. "I have no concerns about this fish in this environment."


Not every scientist is so sanguine, and the reality is that there’s no real way of knowing what impact GM salmon might have on the wild environment unless you let a bunch loose in the ocean — and nobody plans for that to happen. Skeptics also argue that the GM salmon aren’t worth the trouble. Fish farmers have managed to create increasingly efficient salmon the conventional way — breeding them — reducing the advantage that AquaBounty’s nearly two-decade-old technology might offer. And salmon farmers, who have long fought the public perception that their industry is a dirty one, may not be eager to court public controversy by raising a transgenic fish. (AquaBounty wants to sell the eggs to producers, not raise the fish themselves, meaning that the farmers would take the heat from unhappy consumers.) "I can’t see an [aquaculture company] that would go out and hurt the market by taking on that contentious issue," says Nell Halse, a spokesperson for Cooke Aquaculture, a major fish-farming company in Canada and the U.S.(


Even if AquaBounty’s technology doesn’t take off in the U.S., it may find success in China or other parts of the developing world where wealth and seafood consumption is rising, where the government is more comfortable with GM foods and, significantly, where regulation might be more lax. There are also other genetically modified animals in the development pipeline, from a transgenic trout that can pack on 15% to 20% more muscle than a conventional trout to a GM pig that produces less-polluting manure. Genetic modification — especially in animals — is a new technology and a potentially very scary one, but if scientists can engineer species to use feed more efficiently and emit less waste, they could help fish farming become more environmentally friendly, not less. "With the right safety measures, I’m willing to embrace the technology as an incremental step toward sustainability," says Eric Hallerman, a fisheries scientist at Virginia Tech who has studied the GM salmon. "You have to consider the larger picture." The Frankenfish isn’t without its risks — but neither is a crowded and hungry future