tastemaker

Awesome! I remember someone doing something like this a few years back, but I don't know what happened to it. Even if I am not available for the call, I look forward to listening to the podcasts.

If you're finding the idea of a generator/powerbox a bit overwhelming to start your business, one thought that comes to mind is to go places where you might be able to set up a stand near your vehicle. All you'd need is an inverter to run the blender off your cars cigarette lighter. These are pretty cheap, so not much financial risk involved.

A lot of use of the word "Rawganic" around. Not necessarily a concern unless someone has it copyrighted, trademarked, or whatever, but could be a potential road block down the word if you run into a douchbag business that feels like threatening you with state violence. If you can make these juices with organic products for under $6 each, I have no doubt you can be very successful. Best price I've seen locally is right around that price point, but for non-organic. Anyway, best of luck with it!

-How many of you are vegetarians/vegans and what do you think about the lifestyle? I have been on a primarily vegan diet for two years now. I did it for health reasons. Not only have the negative health symptoms I was experiencing largely subsided, but have noticed an overall improvement of digestion, complexion, and mood. Please let me know if you would like more specifics. -Do you guys see eating meat as wrong even though morals can't be considered when an animal is involved due to their lack of capability to understand morals? Though I do feel it is more consistent ethically speaking, if I weren't convinced of it as being an optimal diet, I would work meat back into the mix. I was convinced largely by the work of Dr. Michael Gregor, who runs the site www.nutritionfacts.org . Highly recommended, as he sifts through peer reviewed research on the subject to compile in easily digestible videos (no pun intended). -Do the cravings for meat every go away because I cannot stop thinking about it? There are a lot of transition foods available (meat substitutes, etc.). I think it is natural when switching any diet (especially those high in sugars or salts) to have some withdrawal. When I first went vegan, I really didn't know what I was doing and ended up shorting myself about 1000 calories from where I should have been per day. I was literally starving myself and lost 30lbs because I didn't realize how many more plant based foods I needed to eat in order to get a proper caloric intake. I then began tracking my nutrition with a free tool called CRONOMETER. Using this, I was able to not only ensure I was getting enough calories, but find balance in getting all the proper nutrition as well. -Is it even healthy for humans to go vegan/vegetarian because I literally hear two sides to all of it and being as uneducated as I am in the health department, I can't figure out which is correct and incorrect? Pick almost any issue and there are "facts" and "science" on both sides. There are a lot of emotions and politics in the sphere of diet. I have been more convinced that the vegetarian/vegan diet is closer to what the human body is designed for, but it is difficult to get unbiased information in this field. Here is the video that convinced me to look deeper into veganism, something I hadn't really seriously considered prior. It cites peer reviewed materials illustrating how the further one moves away from a plant based diet, the higher the chances of risk for the leading causes of death: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death The results I've experienced have been consistent with what I've read, which is why I am still a vegan. -If you are a vegan/vegetarian, do you have any foods/stores you can recommend? You can eat terribly on a vegan/vegetarian diet, just like you can with any other diet (french fries and soda are vegan), but unprocessed whole foods are optimal. I eat a lot of bean, rice, and veggie dishes. A few favorite staples for me: rice with broccoli and avocado, chickpea tacos, curry stew served over quinoa, banana/date smoothies, and bean based soups and chili's. As far as the cost, you can certainly eat vegan for cheap (I mean, Ramen noodles are vegan), but it can get pricey when it comes to eating whole foods. I also try to do organic, so it's even a bit pricier for me. If you don't go organic, I could see you getting by around $3 per meal. For me, I try to stay under $5 per meal, but again that's going for all organic ingredients. Here is the breakdown of a common CHEAP meal for me financially: 5 organic potatoes (1/3 of a $4/5lb bag) - $1.33 8 ounces steamed mixed organic veggies (1/2 of a 16oz bag) - $1.25 1 tablespoon of coconut oil (butter substitute) - .20 cents? Pepper or other seasoning - negligible Total cost: $2.75 Total calories: 950 That's one example of a highly nutritious, simple, and BIG meal that won't leave you hungry. I buy in bulk my staples, such as rice, dates, or anything else that has a longer storage life. I'm happy to discuss other budget meals common in my rotation if you want to PM me (Or if you have any further questions you think I might be of value in answering). Otherwise, best of luck with your explorations of the diet

Sorry to be picky, but again I get confused by certain statements being made on your part. You both feel that the debate is not over (you use the words "dead wrong", which seems to imply some credible criticism to the theory), but then state how you have "not seen any credible counterevidence (scientists or scientific papers) that cast serious doubt...". These statements conflict with one another. If there is no counter-evidence, how can the the debate not be over in your mind? I'm also not sure what the ambiguous phrase 'serious doubt' means (so there is just a little doubt? Can doubt be a partial concept?). "And everthing ive had given to me has been (when you go the actual source) not what people claim the source says. Or that sources given havent been from sciensts in the field or from any scinetic papers or even scientific community at all." I agree that we can refer to experts to help make our points, but I also find this statement confusing. Firstly, why do you have to be "given" evidence to the contrary when you are "looking to be proven wrong"? This implies that you are both active and passive in your pursuit of counter-evidence. Also, in reference to your "everything I've been given" comment, Dr. David Evans, whose biography seems to suggest he is an expert in his field, and one who has used his expertise to consult with the Australian Department of Climate Change, does not qualify for you as an expert in the field? If so, then you cannot used the word "everything". Moreover, I'm not sure how this source is not what I claimed it to be. I feel as though there may be some defenses around counter-evidence at work here. Again, I'm not sure why I should trust the information on skeptical science over his, but in the face of conflicting information, I maintain skepticism on those making the claim (who carry the burden of proof). I have no problem with counter-claims, but if the research cited has been funded by government grants, they would be no less potentially bias than if Evans were being funded by big oil. As Stef said in a recent podcast, any "science" funded by the government is just another government program. "This i might have confused for emphaty since i though surely if youre interested in this topic then being informed about potential error in said topic would be kind and understanding thing to do IF i cared about you" Well, I appreciate the correction on the use of empathy, but I don't know how or why you care about me or why you think "correcting" someone is to show care for that person. I have not seen care expressed through empathy. If you want to help people, you need to connect with them. People don't listen to Stef because he says stuff that theoretically makes sense, but rather because he lives his values. This is why I have quickly abandoned the typical back and forth debate on AGW in favor of trying to understand where you're coming from. Making myself dependent on convincing you of a position I hold (or vice versa) would be a waste of energy, as most debates are not actually about the issue, but about people's un-excavated histories. "I dont know how to take your abusive history into account except only by NOT trying to be manipulative in any way." I appreciate that, but I think you may underestimate the power of our histories and how much it influences our thoughts and actions. And if underestimated, you may not recognize that you are manipulating. "Might my religious upbringing have something to do with this? I think so, since as young boy/man i did try to smoothen out or soften the religious tensions that people had with christians and christanity (and faith in general). But my underlying reason was to help others, genuinely help them and as it turned out THEY were the ones to guide me from error when i thought i was right and rational about those beliefs which i held. Well the most exhausting thign was the bullies actually, religious and socialist parts were to the most part only confusing and jamming. I feel like there are some pieces missing here to make sense of this (like how the Christians you were trying to help led them to help you accept reason), but more importantly: why did you feel it was your job as a child to soften tensions between grown ups? "My parents were (and still are) veeeeeery moderate. And never shunned critical inquiry or societal alternatives to complex problems." I don't know what "veeeeery moderate" means when it comes to religion. Your parents do not shun critical inquiry to the complex problems in the proof of the God they believe in, the destructiveness of religion throughout history, their role in the infliction of religious lies upon others (including their own children), how all of this contributes to the cycle of violence, and the alternative of atheism? "Well i certainly hope ive made my motivations clearer and i hope ive given satisfactory answers." I'm not looking for "satisfactory answers", just emotionally honest ones. "I am wondering if you did watch the series by pothole54?" I watched the first video, and it does conflict with some of what I've read from skeptics as far as interpretation of data is concerned, but I'd like to know what makes him a credible, unbias synthesizer of information in your mind (he mentions being involved with KYOTO, which sets off red flags to me). Information can be manipulated or arranged to purport any view we want, but I am less concerned about debating the minutia of every last conflicting interpretation in this theory than I am trying to understand why convincing others is important to you. Ultimately, I would have to understand and trust you before I would place value in the sources you share with me.

I'm confused by a couple of things in your reply. Firstly, I would like to address this idea of how you feel it is "important to be proven wrong and make sure to inform others if they've made errors". You seem to acknowledge that there are two clear sides to this debate, with experts on different sides, and that we are layman on the subject... so how have you decided you are in a position to "inform others they've made errors"? How are you the "doctor" or the "driver" (or how am I), using your metaphor? The site you posted, skeptical science, did not appear to be coming from such a position of how it is important to be proven wrong. That site seems to support the "debate is over" AGW position (at least the pages you sent me, one of which cites the dubious 97% consensus number). I agree about the importance of debunking claims, and would add that the proponents of a very large claim have the largest burden of proof. Your response does not appear to me that you're "looking to be proven wrong" (I see no evidence for this other than the words stating that this is your intention), but more so -- as the rest of the response indicates, combined with your valuing of the skeptical science source -- you're looking to "inform" or "correct" others as a primary motive. Though, it seems these are somewhat conflicting values (if you are looking to inform or correct, it means that you are sure your information is more valid; if you are looking to be proven wrong, you are not sure your position is correct and would not be as confident in informing or correcting others). Though perhaps not mutually exclusive (maybe one can be 100% confident in a position while still taking into consideration others), I do not see where these simultaneously coexist for you in your response. Though I can only see these coexisting in a situation of empathy, which takes us to the next thing I'd like to discuss. I experience a cordiality in your response, but don't experience empathy in your attempt to "inform" me, so I'm not convinced empathy is your motive. I alluded to my abusive history with manipulation as a possible influence for my concerns over the conflicting data, interpretations, and the power agenda's at play in the AGW debate, but you neither acknowledged that history nor clearly connected your own history to your position (what you said was "at stake" was not about yourself -- which is what I asked -- but rather the idea of helping others). If religion was a dominant presence in your upbringing, you may still have very strong emotional ties to those ideals subconsciously at play, which would be important to be conscious of. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but for examples sake: the compelling feeling to want to "help" and "inform" could parallel the idea of "saving" others in religion. I believe Stef even remarked in one of his podcasts the connection of global warming to the idea of original sin -- if CO2 can be classified as a pollutant, then we are all born polluted -- and how it is presented in the media as a metaphorical burning in hell if we are not able to be "saved" from this sin (by the magic of government -- i.e. God). Regardless, I'm sure that it was a terribly confusing and emotionally exhausting thing to overcome an environment of socialists and religiosity (as I have some experience in this myself), and you deserve a lot of credit for that, but the fact that you were able to overcome these to accept libertarianism and atheism does not necessarily mean anything in the way of empathy and your motives for others. This is just my experience of the interaction.

Well, this is what all global warming debates typically come down to, the conflicting data and information. As far as these sources, given all the conflicting information, data, and interpretations from other sources, I'm not sure what makes these more reliable and trustworthy sources than those on the skeptics side. Upon first glance, I see a lot of potential problems for reliability in those sources (and a simple google search brings up sites debunking those sites... which I'm sure there are debunkers debunking the debunkers, and debunkers debunking the debunking of the debunkers, and so forth). However, I'm less concerned about that than I am your interest in the topic. Why is your position on this important to YOU, and how does it connect to your history? To be forthright, I come from a history in which manipulation was at the forefront of my upbringing, and I am very sensitive to manipulation for the purposes of control and power. Therefore, when I see manipulations in language, through omission, data, and solutions that serve the powers that be, etc. I feel it quite strongly in my gut as if someone is trying to use the illusion of reason as a method of control over me. This does not mean it is always the case and I have to be aware of the degree of my feelings in relation to reality, but in the case of AGW, I do not feel my concerns are unfounded, or feelings invalid. The political agendas need to be stripped away (almost an impossibility on this subject) before an objective analysis can be made. Personally, I would be more interested (and would seem more productive on an FDR forum) in turning this thread into one where we can come to an understanding of the emotional roots that fuel the skeptical and pro-AGW positions on this highly debated topic. So, I pose the question for all: what do you feel is at stake for YOU and how does it connect to your history? [NOTE: I realize that this may be off topic from the original post, so if there is interest in this direction of the topic, I would be willing to open up a new thread]

Dr. David Evans breaks down the "feedback" theory here, illustrating how there is currently no evidence to support it and how it is so crucial to the entire AGW case: http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case I also recently watched this presentation from geologist Bob Carter, which explains where we fit into the long term history of the planet, and it is nothing unusual: The whole AGW feedback theory hinges upon the idea that the earth is constantly teetering on the edge of disaster with CO2 and it only takes a little push in the realm of CO2 to push us to the brink of catastrophe. This is all sensationalism, and models are not science; they are built to predict, and the predictions need to match reality, which has been a real problem to the theory.

If anyone is looking for a drama to watch, I would highly recommend the movie "What Maisie Knew". A contemporary adaptation from the novel by Henry James, it tells the story of a bitter divorce as seen through the eyes of a child. I was quite surprised to see a film shot in such an unapologetic manner in regards to the abusive treatment and negligence all too common in divorce (and single parent) situations. Julianne Moore gives one of her best performances as Maisie's aging rock star mother, and Onata Aprile, the young actress playing Maisie, does a wonderful job. For those of you with Netflix, it is available to stream for free. If anyone does watch it, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

One of her comments under the video: "I don't even know where to begin. I am so grateful to all of you for making this video go viral. It is true. She did resign shortly after I had sent the link of the video to the Principals email. She is caught but not in custody. I was interviewed at the police station where I made my report to move forward with charges. Because of all of you who shared she will not be getting away with these things that she has done to me or any one else. I've shared my story with Sara Welch of Ktla5 and it will air some time tomorrow morning. Thank you all again.... I really can't thank you all enough!!! :*)** "

I can't imagine how terrifying this call must have been to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vv7q-MLTyQ

Pleasure to meet you, sir. Yeah, Higgins Lake isn't exactly around the corner, but feel free to shoot me a message should you find yourself further south. Perhaps we could arrange a meet up. How long have you been listening?

Welcome! What was the philosophical journey that led you to FDR?

Signed.

I'd love to see this interview. I actually found Stefan through a critique that GEG did on Stefan's "Statism is Dead" video series back in 2009. At that point he was not an anarchist, but he has always been a great communicator for peace. I've always been a big fan of his lectures and books.