Bolivian President Evo Morales was under fire on Wednesday for suggesting that eating hormone-injected chicken could provoke male deviance at a global climate change summit.
Bolivia's opposition and homosexual groups criticized comments made by Morales at the first "people's conference" on climate change the previous day, in which he said that chicken producers inject birds with female hormones and "when men eat those chickens, they experience deviances in being men."
The Bolivian president also suggested that the European diet made men go bald.
Spain's National Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals sent a protest letter to the Bolivian embassy of Madrid, calling Morales remarks "homophobic."
The president of Argentina's homosexual community, Cesar Cigliutti, said: "It's an absurdity to think that eating hormone-containing chicken can change the sexual orientation of a person."
"By following that reasoning, if we put male hormones in a chicken and we make a homosexual eat it, he will transform into a heterosexual," he added, in online comments.
Right-wing Bolivian deputy Andres Ortega criticized Morales for recounting "urban legends" at the conference which sought to draft new proposals for the next UN climate talks in Mexico at the end of the year.
"I thought it was a place to talk about science and real and positive things about preserving the environment," Ortega said.
Thousands of environmental activists, indigenous leaders and ecologists were taking part in the three-day summit focusing on the world's poorest, whom they say were largely ignored at official UN-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen last December.
Morales on Wednesday announced the creation of an international movement to protect the Earth which would promote a world tribunal for climate issues and a global referendum on environmental choices.
Developing nations have resisted a legally binding climate treaty, arguing that wealthy nations must bear the primary responsibility for climate change.
#4
I love it when the Libs eat their own. However, chicken and dairy producers, as well as many feedlots, give the livestock estrogen to increase milk production and fatten them up quickly for market. Marbles them well, like a woman's hiney. Vegans rant about estrogen-driven cancers and the weight gain the hormones cause, including "man-boobs". I personally buy organic eggs, milk, and grass-fed, hormone-free beef and chicken but certainly never have had the urge to cross-dress!
#6
Evo Morales - Eating Chicken Turns Men Into Maricónes
LMAO! Best title I've seen since I started reading here (not long ago). I keep picturing two famous people declaring this: Al Pacino in Scarface and Speedy Gonzales.
#7
Sounds like he has a sudden "Shortage" in the Man department and is desperate to blame anything other than himself.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/23/2010 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
His first name just seems like it *should* be a Romance language noun for "egg". Huevo's the closest I could get, though.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
04/23/2010 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
However, chicken and dairy producers, as well as many feedlots, give the livestock estrogen to increase milk production and fatten them up quickly for market.
Bullshit. No matter what you feed chickens, you will never increase their milk production.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
04/23/2010 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
You produce milk in a dairy not a feedlot, and to my knowledge this method of increasing meat production ended or never started many years ago.
#11
Perhaps there was a mistranslation from the french word for chicken, cuz this does not account for the womenz.
Lumpy, I think if that were the case as the vegans make it, there would be a lot more of it. The man-boobs phenomenom as I have seen it likely has more to do with a lifestyle which encourages such physical reactions, that is the ones I know seem to couple the diet change with walking, biking, jogging etc. They tell me its the rice and beans but they go through shoes a little more often than they had. I have also seen the ones who change their diet without the physical team-up and they have triceps like mush just like before. Its about calorie in/calorie out and IMHO has more to do with people just not learning or caring about their physical vessel. There are those who have physical/psychological issues to contend with - my arguement is that there are those who choose to confront that reality and then those who say phucket.
Diet is important, there is no doubt about that, a person cannot just shovel garbage through orafices and hope for the best. A person must be intimate and honest enough with themself to know what is and more importantly what is not appropriate to injest.
gorb, it would be safest to give up eating altogether. Nowadays there's no way of knowing what might contain chicken products. Especially vegetables, fertilized as they might be by chicken offal or chicken poop... particularly the stuff labelled as organic. Manhood is too precious a thing to be risked in that way. ;-)
#16
Morales on Wednesday announced the creation of an international movement to protect the Earth which would promote a world tribunal for climate issues and a global referendum on environmental choices.
All to be run by the man who thinks that eating chicken makes you gay...
#18
And if a man eats [censored], does he turn into a woman?
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
04/23/2010 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Manhood is too precious a thing to be risked in that way. ;-)
You're right! From now on, it's only water for me that has been saturated by estrogens that have been disposed of in the area's toilets.
The man-boobs phenomenom as I have seen it
Now that RB is T&A-free, this gives me an idea. TW, it'll be just water and KFC for me from now on. Excuse me, I have to go shopping for a jumprope and a full-length mirror now.
The country's top financial watchdogs turned out to be horndogs who spent hours gawking at porn Web sites as the economy teetered on the brink, according to a memo released Thursday night.
The shocking findings include Securities and Exchange Commission senior staffers using government computers to browse for booty and an accountant who tried to access the raunchy sites 16,000 times in one month.
Their titillating pastime was discovered during 33 probes of employees looking at explicit images in the past five years, said the memo obtained by The Associated Press.
It says 31 of those probes occurred in the 2-1/2 years since the country's financial system nearly crashed.
The report was written by SEC Inspector General David Kotz in response to a request from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
Among the startling findings:
- A senior attorney at the SEC's Washington headquarters spent up to eight hours a day looking at and downloading pornography. When his government computer ran out of hard drive space, he burned the files to CDs or DVDs. He later agreed to resign.
- An accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in a single month from visiting "sex" or "pornography" sites, but still managed to amass a collection of "very graphic" material by using Google to bypass the SEC's internal filter. He wound up with a 2-week suspension.
- Seventeen of the randy employees were "at a senior level" earning salaries of up to $222,418.
- The number of cases jumped from two in 2007 to 16 in 2008. The cracks in the financial system emerged in mid-2007 and spread into full-blown panic by the fall of 2008.
California Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said it was "disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at porn than taking action to help stave off the events that put our nation's economy on the brink of collapse." An SEC spokesman declined to comment last night.
#4
Does anyone really think that if any senator is elected president he is not going to offer advice to the gov of his home state on his replacement? But if he was in on the take form the highest bidder. That is some else. IMO it would qualify as HighCrimes and Misdemeanors
#5
I still have to wonder who it was that leaked the investigation. I'm suspicious of the timing between the abrupt end of the investigation and Valerie Jarret taking her name out of contention and accepting a job in the WH.
#4
My humble prediction TW ... Blago's going to disappear. Or disappear and reappear in the Chicago river. Or have a heart attack. Maybe sepsis. Or acute cirrhosis the way it happens in Bangladesh.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/23/2010 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
Not that cost was an object, really. They just said that to sell the thing, just as they told us it was our money in Social Security instead of admitting it was a passthrough instead of a savings account.
President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by the vast, right-wing conspiracy neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings. Right. It might shield the world from comet collisions. I bet they didn't even consider that!
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill - Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings - could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful."
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions. Pay less to get less?
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of pointless bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare. Just in time for my retirement! (2016)
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.
In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.
At which point the decision becomes a choice of cutting benefits, raising taxes, or both. I'm betting on both.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/23/2010 06:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#7
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded ... that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance feeling good about himself. The cost is a small price to pay, don't you know?
Sorry, couldn't find "Stupid Politicians", but this seemed close enough.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a Capitol Hill press conference Wednesday to unveil new light fixtures in the House cafeteria. The light fixtures cost $140,000 and will take almost 10 years to pay off in saved energy. For some reason, I don't believe it. I wonder how many thousands of dollars went into the press corps visit. I wonder what it costs for new bulbs.
Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers told CNSNews.com that the new lights, along with motion sensors and automatic window shades, are a first for the House. The lights already have been installed in one Senate Committee room.
We have a couple of applications,' Ayers said. This is the first one in the House [and] we have another application that we've installed in the Senate that's in room SD-G50 in the Dirksen [Senate Office] Building. That's a committee hearing room. We're piloting this new technology.'
Ayers said that the new light fixtures and window shades were installed in the cafeteria, located in the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building, because the LED [light emitting diode] light fixtures have become much less expensive.
It's now becoming much more affordable, so we're sort of kicking the tires on it for the moment. It seems to work terrific. It's got great energy savings, and it's got we think great lighting quality, and the price of the light fixtures just in the last year has come down significantly.'
Ayers said that the price had come down from $800 per fixture to $300, meaning that the lights would theoretically pay for themselves in less than 10 years, due to estimated reductions in electricity usage.
I think this fixture was $800 a year ago, and it's now just over $300, so in one year that's a pretty significant savings which allows us to begin using this kind of equipment and technology, because we're able to get a good return on investment. At $800 a fixture we can't get a good return on investment, but when it gets down to $300 and I'm sure it will go even lower we're able to get a good return on investment. Shoulda waited. But the press won't come out a second time, so I guess Nancy had to beat the rest to the punch.
This particular room, with all of the technology, was about $140,000, which is less than a 10-year return on investment for us.'
Pelosi said that the new lights in the cafeteria would make the Capitol a shining example of sustainability' and green technology. Now why on earth should Nancy be giving a tour for this? Not that I mind her wasting her time on this crap instead of shoving crap down our throats.
Three years ago House Democrats launched our Green the Capitol initiative, ensuring that our nation's leaders remain responsible stewards of our environment,' Pelosi told the small crowd of reporters and staff gathered in the cafeteria.
Today, in that same tradition, we gather to renew that pledge, taking one step forward in our effort to make this Capitol of the United States, this beacon of freedom and liberty, a shining example of sustainability,' she added. So LED lights make us a beacon of freedom and liberty. Not what our forefathers had in mind. I guess we are in the process of retooling the language now to eliminate the meaning of those kinds of words.
Pelosi said that the new light fixtures and window shades which raise and lower based on the level of sunlight coming through the windows would set the standard for sustainable living nationwide.'
In making this change we are flipping the switch on a greener future for Congress and setting the standard for sustainable living nationwide,' Pelosi declared. We'll I'll just run right out and get some for me then.
#1
our nations leaders remain responsible stewards of our environment
I...I can't ... snark that. My mind .. just ...
Oh, is that what the term "boggle" means?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/23/2010 6:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This strikes me as one of the least stupid things they have done. Trivial, but not stupid. And the time they spend on stuff like this is time they can't spend on Crap 'n' Trade, etc. Even if it does take 10 years to pay of (or 50) try to name another expenditure they have made that has any chance of paying off. LEDs truly are more efficient than incandescent or even fluorescent bulbs, and are still early on the price/development curve - I expect the light 'quality' to go up and the price to come way down over the next decade.
#6
Are they so desperate they're trying to distract us with shiny objects now?
"Unemployment is through the roof, the economy is in the tank, weve mortgaged our childrens future, our troops are fighting for their lives with little support from their government, healthcare sucks more and more every day, China owns almost $1 trillion of our debt, but look, we have new lights in the basement cafeteria!"
I'm just waiting to hear this woman declare, "Let them eat cake".
#7
Ayers said that the new light fixtures and window shades were installed in the cafeteria, located in the basement of the Rayburn House Office Building, because the LED [light emitting diode] light fixtures have become much less expensive
Window shades in teh basement huh? Good enough for government work.
How many dems does it take to change a lightbulb? 2 - Pelosi holds the lightbulb while Obama turns the world.
#8
Are they so desperate they're trying to distract us with shiny objects now?
OUTSTANDING snark, and from a newbie (Keeney) too.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/23/2010 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Seriously, this is why I Don't have any, if the price comes down (Like the compact flourescents did) then, and only then I'll buy some.
At present they're only attractive to huge electricity users, like department stores, and I've noticrd more Trafic siggnals are now LED, for cities they're cost effective, not for me, not yet.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/23/2010 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
LED fixtures are still pretty expensive, yet about half the price (or less) they were a few years ago, so that part is true.
Even if you doubled the estimated '$300/ea' cost to include install labor and misc. materials, that still would equate to about 230 or so light fixtures (I don't remember the House Cafeteria space being large enough to require that many). I haven't seen what they are using yet, but a 10-year payback for 230+ fixtures better offer better savings than the standard 60-watt power reduction per fixture over florescent lighting one typically anticipates (and figuring 13.8Kw/Hr savings for 230 fixtures x local power rate/hr [used .10/hr] x # hours in use = around 4,230 days before payoff if they're on 24/7).
Area 'Occupancy Sensors' that shut down lighting if no one is around would be incredibly cheaper and provide the same cost savings way before these LEDs will.
The 'automatic shades' however, are 'technical nightmares' when they begin to fail (which they will, loooong before the LED lighting).
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
04/23/2010 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Steny, am I...am I...smiling?
I'm not sure, your highn...Madame Speaker.
#12
LED is so much a better solution than compact fluorescent. wonder which one the govt is trying to force on us?
CF bulbs do not pay for themselves. they cost of the bulb is pretty much a wash on the energy saving. they are also an environmental nightmare if you look at the production and disposal (conveniently left out by the left in their mad rush of faux piety) when the price point drops i will go LED in my house. what we need is are LED replacements that screw in to current light sockets.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
04/23/2010 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#13
LED traffic lights have a problem up north, however. After one of our delightful blizzards, some of them got "snowed in". It kind of screwed up traffic control for a while in some places.
#14
After one of our delightful blizzards, some of them got "snowed in".
If only scientists could invent some kind of highly efficient light that had a heater in it to melt the snow. I would pay double for that!
And I would think that the inexpensive answer to this expense disaster is to just wait for LED lights to come out that will screw into the existing sockets.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Does this mean I shouldn't eat eggs, either? 
