EU Proposal: Shift Farming Subsidies To Science 154
smitty777 writes "There is a proposal in the EU budget which would provide a 45% increase in technology and innovation spending for the 2014-2020 time period. Interestingly, some of the increase from $79B to $114B would come from the controversial farm subsidies program, the Common Agricultural Policy. The article states ... 'While some scientists and observers feel optimistic that the proposal will pass, one stated that "it is extremely unlikely that the member states will agree to anything exceeding this, so we should regard it as a ceiling" on the eventual research budget.'"
This is like a patent troll subsidy (Score:2)
No really.
The common agricultural policy should simply be stopped. Taxes refunded and reduced.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it comes down to "all the other guys subsidize, so we do too." Is this not the case?
Not so much, I was under the impression that all the other guys (where other guys are third world) can't get a market started in some places because euro and american farmers are subsidised out the wazoo.
Oh sure, both of these huge economic blocks love to talk about free markets, but when it comes to farming, we're just not willing to compete fairly in our internal or external markets.
Part of this is because France would jus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, my previous comment was rather one-sided. You can't have food production in europe grinding to a complete halt in case the worst happens.
I don't know where the line is exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, some innocent people (but not good people) may be executed wrongly"
Get the fuck out of democracy, now. You're too stupid to have the vote.
Re: (Score:3)
food we bury in the ground (yes, really)
That's a good policy. We should always produce extra food and then bury the extra.
That way, when there's a drought, you just bury less food and no one starves, and prices stay relatively stable.
Food stability has to be balanced against food efficiency - not everything should be thrown to the free market.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that there IS a drought at the moment, in eastern Africa... I'm sure those folk would really appreciate all that food you're burying. Thanks.
They certainly would, but then this is not really germane to the conversation. If you take away the subsidy, there would be no food to bury. In short, they'd be in exactly the same situation.
Perhaps there is some way in which you could distribute excess food without crashing food prices, but that's another discussion entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck getting the food to the "people" and not the local warlord/junta/dictator without boots-on-the-ground military interdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
That comes into the economics of food = power. The USA could easily ship enough food to keep them from starving, but that's really not the point. If a country doesn't devote ITSELF to managing it's agriculture then food becomes another WEAPON. That's exactly what our food subsidies are right now... they are weapons for the local dictator in power. They've slash and burned all the local farms to "prevent resistance" and they use the charity from first world countries so they can be the only ones with food..
Re: (Score:2)
EU tried that. It completely destroyed the local economies when Europe gave such huge annual quantities of food. Giving out food ended up causing more hunger crises than it solved because the recipient countries stopped producing food. This is why this type of charity is now reduced to limited time, and only during extraordinary circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Ending these subsidies won't put a penny back in the hands of taxpayers, it'll just go back to the treasuries of the member states.
The EU has the same problem as any level of government that doesn't raise its own taxes, in that if they lower their budget one year when the money isn't needed, it'll be nigh on impossible for the to raise it again later when it is needed. So while I don't necessarily like the situation, I understand why the EU wouldn't want to just hand the money back.
Local councils in the UK
Re: (Score:2)
In US, that's how it should work...
For us that haven't got any national debt.... ? No, this is a good suggestion!
Re: (Score:2)
But governments like to hold onto power. Remember, you're always about 9 meals away from a revolution. As Juvenal noted, it's all about bread and circuses. Agricultural subsidies can help insure food supply and stabilize prices. As with all government subsidies (housing, education), the rich game the system, but without them you would see a lot more instability in food prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Making sure that the people who elected you don't risk starvation is pretty high up the list of priorities for a decent and competent politician.
Re:This is like a patent troll subsidy (Score:4, Interesting)
Governments can do good things. Just because you grew up in a time after government solved most of peoples' major problems doesn't mean you should now turn against government.
A hundred years ago, people were suffering under the lack of a social safety net, unregulated robber barons, unfair working conditions, and virtually no government investment in infrastructure and science. During the 1900s, we accomplished many things by careful, measured application of taxes, investment, and regulation. Many of these things are good; some of them are poorly designed and should be revised. If you and your kind succeed in repealing every regulation, tax, and investment, our society will collapse.
Sensible government investment and regulation should be supported, not railed against.
Re: (Score:2)
The real purpose for farm subsidies is that city folk don't like to starve! Only 5% of the US population is actually engaged in GROWING food for the other 95%. And with current food prices, that number is actually in danger of going down. One of the big lessons of the Great Depression era was the "dust bowl" problem. Poor farming techniques caused farmers to plant and grow only for what they could get to market... Which was fine until a mass drought hit, and then ruined places where food was still able to b
Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:2, Insightful)
The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins. And that's not to mentioned that Archer Daniels Midland [wikipedia.org] (ADM) basically owns half of them (you think they're just going to roll over and give up billion of $ in subsidies to a bunch of eggheads without a nasty fight?).
You'd have better luck getting cuts to oil subsidies through Texas's and Alaska's objections. And even that is nigh impossible.
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
The "farming lobby" is more about large megacorps than it is about real farmers. That's the real problem here. If you cut out the farm subsidies then some very large corporations will be hammered right in the pocketbook. They aren't going to take that lying down. Neither will Republicans.
This is all about "big business". Using the word "farm" to refer to any of this is a huge and misleading misnomer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ha, yeah, good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You live in the city, right?
I sure know a lot of family owned farms here in east central Illinois that take the subsidy programs.
But, what do I know. I just hang out with farmers and own farmland of my own. I assure you I'm hardly a megacorp.
Yes, the large corporations like ADM and many others do large lobbying pushes, but they don't directly vote. In farm states (you probably call them fly-over states), the congress-critters often rely on the farm vote to keep their jobs.
Whether it should be that way is a different discussion, but the simple picture you paint is misleading at best.
Yes but (Score:2)
And how many of them merely rent the land they till? One of the largest farmland owners in the US has an adress on Park Place, IIRC. Yes preservation of farm families is a good thing, but less so if they are not much more than serfs.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of cash rent and crop share, but most of the farmers where I'm at own a lot of their own ground. It's usually been in families for generations.
You get people buying up land for investment, but surprisingly often their at least local. We've got a local cardiac surgeon who owns large amounts in this county. He's not a megacorp either. (Disclaimer: he operated on my dad for an aortic aneurysm. Several farmers I know farm land he owns, but they also have their own land too.)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? 4, insightful? Anecdote trumps aggregate numbers? And so what if you've got some great buds receiving being funneled cash from Uncle Sugar-Daddy Sam? I supposed to ignore the 90+% of ag subsidies not even going to family farmers, just to avoid hurting your friends' feelings?
They can go fuck themselves. They can get go get a job doing something that doesn't require naked extortion from taxpayers. You know, like non-sociopaths.
Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon": (Score:2)
Since you seem to know what my (and their) opinions on subsidies are better than I do, I'll just let you tell me.
Makes the argument a lot easier for you, no? I'll just listen to you rant. Pass the popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you just defended the subsidies on that grounds that people you like get them. Even if there's more to it than that, you're still ultimately advocating socially-unproductive welfare payments to farmers who can do fine on their own -- and would do something *useful* if they weren't hooking up with Uncle Sugar Daddy.
The subsidies need to end. Completely. As long as you disagree, my arguments were quite responsive to your position. (I use the term "position" here loosely of course. It's actually giving
Re: (Score:2)
"Um, you just defended the subsidies on that grounds that people you like get them."
You really need to take a critical reading course. Or do you just re-interpret things to suit what your mental model of the world is?
I wrote that what Jedidiah said didn't square with my own experience and I thought it was a simplistic view of a more complex reality.
What part of
"Whether it should be that way is a different discussion, but the simple picture you paint is misleading at best."
didn't you understand?
Or did you do
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say that anyone should give up subsidies while having to compete with those who are subsidized. I said the subsidies should end so that all of the welfare babies can go do something worthwhile for once in their lives. (Or better, *don't* compete, since there's overproduction in that area already, get a real job, and join the cause of ending favoritism in government, like an honorable human being.)
I wrote that what Jedidiah said didn't square with my own experience and I thought it was a simplistic view of a more complex reality.
Right, you said that because you have some buds (i.e., anecdotal evidence), that somehow refutes the
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have food shortages and mayhem. Food is one of those things you just don't want to fuck around with. I have no issues paying taxes for farm subsidies.
Remember the Irish potato famine? Reduce farming to need based only and that's what you set yourself up for. As it is we have a hu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a big fan of subsidies. A lot of farmers I know aren't either. But, if your in farming, it's a business. If the subsidies are available, you nearly have to take them to stay competitive with those who do.
There are some situations when countries have to use them, but in most cases they're a poor sort of crutch and last far longer than they are really needed.
They're addictive. When you have subsidies people/businesses get used to them and when you cut them it can hurt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. It's not like we were expected to read the fucking title.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair it's all the same thing, just change a few words to "France".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The farming lobby is one of the strongest in Congress. You'll have every midwestern senator and his brother screaming holy bloody murder before debate even begins. And that's not to mentioned that Archer Daniels Midland [wikipedia.org] (ADM) basically owns half of them (you think they're just going to roll over and give up billion of $ in subsidies to a bunch of eggheads without a nasty fight?).
You'd have better luck getting cuts to oil subsidies through Texas's and Alaska's objections. And even that is nigh impossible.
Suprisingly the US Congress and midwestern senators and the like have very little say in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this has to do with the EU how?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They probably have their own versions of ADM and Con Agra.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the EU would have a hard time cutting any US subsidies. WTF? You can't even get past the first word of the subject line of the article?
Re: (Score:2)
And don't forget that agricultural research in Europe has a tendency to find itself on the wrong side of an angry [expatica.com] desrtuctive [google.com] mob. [redgreenandblue.org] Food producers won't like the lost subsidies, and lot of people in Europe just don't want science in their food so I can't imagine they'll support more research either.
E.U != U.S. (Score:2)
I'm actually pretty sure that most of Congress, and particularly midwestern Senators that are plugged in to US agricultural interests, would be quite happy with the European Union ending farm subsidies; the E.U. (unlike the EE.UU.) isn't the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you!
Good thing that the Farming lobby and the congress has nothing to do with EU!
Re: (Score:2)
I was meaning to reply to the post above referring to trying this in the U.S. I think I hit the wrong reply button and ended up in a new thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing we in the EU (where this is being proposed) don't have to pay any heed to the US congress isn't it?
If only that were true :-(
We could do this in the USA (Score:2)
Some things don't change (Score:2)
Obviously the parties currently in power would not be interested in that change.
It's worse than that. The disproportionate power of the smaller States in the Senate is not only built into our Constitution, it's the only part that can't be amended.
That little feature isn't changing unless we toss the one we have and replace it with a whole new one -- a plan that I think you'll agree is not without major risk.
Subsidies are a drop in the bucket. (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine what we could get done if we weren't spending billions per month on war.
Our problems with the budget have nothing to do with unemployment, welfare, SSI, or unions, or whatever monster that the Republicans say is hiding under the bed. It has everything to do with the fact that we're pissing money away on wars that we /did not and are not paying for/. (Cut taxes while fighting a war? Just who the fuck is claiming fiscal responsibility here?)
We give science short shrift here when it is /undisputed/ by people on both sides of the aisle (except for nutcases like Palin) that basic and applied science give valuable dividends to society as a whole.
And don't tell me that the "free market" and companies will take up the slack. PARC no longer exists and neither does Bell Labs. R&D has been the first thing to be cut by bean counters in the last 30 years.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let your mindless Republican bashing get in the way of this being a story about the EU.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicanism is morally and fiscally bankrupt.
Deal with it.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
People need to put down the koolaid, seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
False equivalency fallacy.
You just did it.
The Republicanists and their propaganda wing, Fox News, want you to believe that "the Democrats are just as bad as we are" to make it look like they're not as bad as they really are.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Yup.
Got multiple wars going on... can't balance the budget... I know lets cut the space program. [rolls eyes]
Re: (Score:2)
To illustrate directly: each JDAM costs $35,000 - $70,000 [wikipedia.org]. We might as well ship out crates of luxury automobiles and push them out the back of transport planes.
The war machine backs up the US dollar (Score:2)
The US dollar funnels the world's wealth to the USA and allows the US to effectively tax the rest of the world through inflation.
The 40% of government spending which goes on the military is to keep americans fat and happy. Without the dollar siphoning off the wealth from the rest of the world, American lifestyles would be far more difficult to maintain.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how a powerful military enforces that though, the situation mostly exists through the US being the largest single and single language market. The dollar isn't backed by bullets, it's backed by taxes.
America should do the same (Score:4, Informative)
Do the same here. (Score:3)
Even with my strong libertarian leaning I realize there is a social benefit to perusing real science and innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
We should do the same here. Off the top of my head my quick list of subsidies that should be cut:
Even with my strong libertarian leaning I realize there is a social benefit to perusing real science and innovation.
You guys subsidies oil?
In most European countries there's high energy taxes on oil... In Denmark 8 USD/gallon is quite normal...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean terrified? If gas ever reached $5 a gallon, the news would officially label it Oilageddon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet your daddy... (Score:2)
The CAP is badly run, inefficient, but a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if they want to save money on inefficiencies in the implementation of the CAP and spend it on science I am 100% behind that, but if they want to rely on the world market for our food supply I think that is a dangerous idea.
Re: (Score:3)
but the truth is that without it European farmers could not compete on an open market
So why does Britain still have agriculture - we don't get much in subsidies, It's mainly the French who get the lions share of the subsidies - that's the whole reason why Britain gets the big rebate and we all argue about all of this every budget.
I don't support a penny more to the EU - they tried to take over the military and have and extreme military expansionist policy last time they (and who is they?) wrote the so called 'constitution' - constitution my arse, corporate wet dream more like.
EU is a bad id
Re: (Score:2)
but the truth is that without it European farmers could not compete on an open market
So why does Britain still have agriculture - we don't get much in subsidies, It's mainly the French who get the lions share of the subsidies.
France gets almost 2.5 times the subsidies of the UK. They have slightly less than twice [wikipedia.org] the area of agricultural land that the UK has. It obviously is unfair, but not to the gross level that some people seem to think. After the rebate it is about even.
that's the whole reason why Britain gets the big rebate and we all argue about all of this every budget.
I don't support a penny more to the EU - they tried to take over the military and have and extreme military expansionist policy last time they (and who is they?) wrote the so called 'constitution' - constitution my arse, corporate wet dream more like.
EU is a bad idea, it's not democratic, no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws, one MEP to millions of people is extremely undemocratic and unrepresentative and allows for corporate lobbyists to have more clout than ordinary citezens. Some laws have even been written in part by corporations on behalf of the unelected Commission who chose the laws. MEPs only get to vote on them and they are snowed under by a Commission with a law writing addiction out of control.
Citizens of Europe don't understand that their local gov'ts only decide on prison sentances and local taxation, everything else is decided by faceless unelected bureaucrats.
OK so you are against the EU in general. This probably means that you are happy with the UK relying on the open market for 40% of its food needs. I think that in future as populations increase world wide this will be a disastrous move.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The EP is undemocratic. Says a Brit whose system of vote is first-past-the post (you vote is not diluted, it just doesn't count) and a house of lords. There are 500 000 000 citizens of the EU. They all count.
Also "no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws" is not just a stupid argument. It is the ultimate "I am entitled to my ignorance and my point of view" point which completely invalidates anything you might say. Go read WP or something. It is just not that complicated.
Finally, please, do
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like first past the post either, but at least in Britain you can talk to your MP and make a difference.
"no-one has any idea who chooses and writes the laws" is not an argument at all, it is an observation of fact - the fact that Europeans are clueless about how European government works and that can't be good for democracy.
WP?
The European Commission is as democratic as the house of lords. The difference is the house of lords strikes down bad laws whilst the Commission creates them.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know? The media in the UK ignores the EU completely unless they're bashing them. The BBC has good coverage of European politics on specialist programmes on the news channel at odd times of the day, but you will never see mature coverage of EU policy on any mainstream news programme or in any mainstream newspaper in the UK, even the sca
Re: (Score:2)
How would you know?
I agree, UK media sucks bad, I know how the EU works because I went out of my way to find out, Wikipedia was useless - it does not document the workings of EU governance well.
Media doesn't cover the EU because British people are apathetic about real politics much like Americans - they'd rather be talking about football or 'stars in their eyes'. Hundreds of years of political struggle seem to be going down the drain because people are too lazy to think for themselves and have succumbed to the corporate messa
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Sure.
- the European Parliament's MEPs are directly elected by the citizens
- the European Council is made up of heads of state, like, say David Cameron, who (I hope) is elected by the citizens.
- the European Commision is indeed not directly elected, but has to be approved by the Parliament, and put in office by the Council - seems like there's still some democratic checks there.
Just because you don't know these "foreign" people, doesn't mean they haven't been electe
Re: (Score:2)
Britain doesn't elect it's head of state - the Queen, it also doesn't elect it's Prime Minister - the main party in parliament's leader becomes Prime Minister.
MEPs don't make most of the decisions, the decisions that count are made by the Commission and their and others bureaucrats.
Just because you don't know these "foreign" people, doesn't mean they haven't been elected.
Why are you trying to put racists words in to my mouth, they certainly don't belong there. And what makes you think I'm not one of 'these "foreign" people' as *you* put it.
You can right to your MEP all you like - they don't make
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That used to be the case (for milk and butter, to be precise) since the 1970ies up until 2007. The matter has been taken care of.
Iit will never happen (Score:5, Interesting)
The Common Agriculture Policy [wikipedia.org] (CAP) was devised as a way to keep a strategic asset, the ability to produce food without depending on foreign powers, in spite of any economic pressure that could force farmers to abandon farming altogether and therefore squander the food production potential of the EU members. This is mainly achieved by a series of agricultural subsidies devised to keep farms afloat even when their production, in today's market, is far more expensive than any import food, particularly in the third world.
Knowing this, reducing CAP subsidies so that the money is directed elsewhere represents the destruction of europe's agricultural potential and the abandon of europe's objective of being self-dependent in terms of food production. Although investing in science and technology is always a good thing, doing it at the expense of being able to guarantee europe's basic needs isn't a smart move. It's literally betting the farm on the expectation that a boom in tertiary and quaternary industries will be enough to compensate the dependence on third-world countries, some of whom are run by despots, for the ability to get a meal. Just to put it in perspective, just think of a OPEC [wikipedia.org] formed to control europe's food imports, and imagine the effect of a speculation attack on the price of food. It would be suicide.
And I don't even mention the lobbying for the agroindustry.
So no, don't expect this shift to occur. The CAP subsidies will keep on being directed to the farmers and science will be forced to get it's funding from somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
ust think of a OPEC formed to control europe's food imports, and imagine the effect of a speculation attack on the price of food. It would be suicide.
- cartels don't work.
Cartels don't work, because it you are part of the cartel and you agree to quotas, then if you believe that everybody else will only fulfill their quota, then you may as well go above it, because it's not a big deal in terms of total output.
However if you believe that everybody else is going above their quota, then for you not to go above it is really stupid.
This means that regardless of what is agreed upon by the cartel, everybody is cheating and trying to sell more than they agreed t
Re: (Score:3)
How stupid a statement can you make?
Argicultural land doesn't just exist, it's argicultural land because it's actively being maintained as Agricultural land and would revert to natural habit very quickly. Much more than a decade out of use and you couldn't turn it back into Argicultural land without major effort (cutting trees, plowing over grass land etc) before you could even sow and even then the yields in the first few years are going to be very
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do if and when the market tanks? Faith in the market to provide all is deeply troubling and naive approach to running a government. In some cases, indeed most, the free market works best. But it needs competition. Where there are natural monopolies, or monopolies through consolidation, or simply an oligarch of the old-boys club, then the free market has failed. And some things are too vitial to leave to the free market. Military security, nuclear production, and fee
Re: (Score:2)
Why Europe should be self-sufficient in food production?
For the sake of national security.
Let the consumers choose.
The consumers have chosen, by voting for their countries to join the EU, and electing governments and MEPs that have come up with this policy.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is huge untapped anti-EU sentiment that is not served by any of the existing parties, then surely one of the smaller fish would use it to prop themselves up to the "major" status?
Re: (Score:2)
Because people not starving to death is more important than right-wing ideology.
Good. Screw those hick farmers. (Score:2)
I want to see them suffer while the rest of us dine on Replicator synthesized gourmet cooking.
Re: (Score:2)
Better idea... (Score:2)
If they're going to finally make cuts to the farm budget, why not cut the overall EU budget? Those f*****rs are increasing the size of their budget when most of the member states are slashing spending and imposing painful austerity measures. They're so out of touch; it's so offensive. What value are they bringing? That's right: none, other than some more expensive unnecessary buildings [guardian.co.uk]
Scientists don't riot. (Score:2)
Scientists generally don't stage mass protests, obstruct traffic, riot etc.
All of which commonly occurs in Europe whenever the agricultural sector there feels threatened.
Riot? (Score:2)
Not really. That's more or less France in a nutshell. It's not Europe as a whole. A little in Belgium I suppose(?). I've never seen it happen in the 48 other European countries.
Oh, and they might obstruct traffic, but they're hardly "rioting" à la Greece.
You're not European, are you?
Re: (Score:3)
You write as if what you do is science.
It's not.
Quack.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
You write as if he's serious and not just trolling.
He isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.
And you're giving money to those Godless heathens in the Middle East (or Norway, whatever) instead of paying to support American farmers.
Why do you hate America?
Re: (Score:2)
He's got a point on wasting money on ethanol subsidies though. That crap needs to stop. I found a station near me that sells pure gasoline and my fuel economy jumped about 3% after switching. Not much, I know, but over the course of a work week that's worked out to an extra day of driving before I have to fill up.
And you're giving money to those Godless heathens in the Middle East (or Norway, whatever) instead of paying to support American farmers. Why do you hate America?
Sarah? Is that you or did you give Michelle your user id and pw again?
Re: (Score:2)
but Ethanol is more easily renewable... we grow the corn in the USA, directly from Sun and Water... using pure gasoline just makes fossil fuels run out faster.
The whole "gas is more efficient" really misses the point. When cars were first being rolled out industry KNEW they were creating a ticking environmental bomb of emissions (hell they CHOSE to put LEAD in gas for 70 years!! when they knew it's effects well) But gas was more easy to grab, sell, and profit from quickly. Using Ethanol means you have to ma
Re: (Score:2)
- have a large clinic set up with 101 beds and 101 Chiropractors.
- Have 101 people show up.
...why do I get the feeling that ol' Bob here is relating the beginnings of his idea of the ultimate porn flick?
Re: (Score:2)
...why do I get the feeling that ol' Bob here is relating the beginnings of his idea of the ultimate porn flick?
Because that's about the only thing on your mind, perhaps?
Re: (Score:2)
It would be ironic as all heck to have money from the corn mafia to be uses for something I've dreamed of for years. Roughly laid out, here's the idea that's been in my head since the dangers of HFCS have come to light: - have a large clinic set up with 101 beds and 101 Chiropractors. - Have 101 people show up. - Ask them about their consumption of HFCS products (especially soda which is double bad with all that CO2). - Have each Chiropractors inspect each patient's spine in utmost detail, taking note of each and every subluxation, even minor ones which have yet to cause health issues. - Yes, that means 101 inspections per patient with a different doctor, but some Docs may miss things. - Cross reference the numbers & severity with the HFCS consumption. - If and when (yes WHEN) the numbers are in and HFCS is shown to promote subluxation growth, publish the results in a journal such as Nature so the general public will learn of the dangers. Of course setting up such a vast and detailed study would cost lots of money, that's why we need government funding for such sweeping science. Take care, Bob
Actually, what you describe isn't remotely related to science; but a simple and often made error in statistical analysis. You don't even have to add in Chiropractic to make it bad science.