WTF...Penn and Teller Advocating Genetically Modified Food?

They are talking down Greenpeace, advocating for GE's and genetically modified foods which they say will save the world's starving populations. I guess it will--like those farmers in Iraq who are being warned not to save the seeds from their crops.

Calling Greenpeace anti-genetic food campaign propoganda.

Penn ends the show saying "unless you and yours are starving you need to shut the fuck up."

Wow.

I saw one of them on television recently. He's a big supporter of Bush and the bogus war in Iraq.

because it's pretty clear what their politics are.

If you watched this show tonight, you can see what their game is--typical rightwing bullshit actually, calling all of their ideological opponents "propagandists" and choosing the least credible spokespeople for the opposing side in order to marginalize them.

And what the hell did yelling "get a job" at one of the raw foodies accomplish, other than to paint all lefties as out-of-touch "hippies" a la every other bullshit republican. Bleh.

wearing flowing robes, at an anti-war protest. He was making a speech. One of the passersby shouted at him, "Get a job."

I turned to another Roman Catholic priest and asked wasn't it obvious that he had a job? The other priest said yes.

So, I think it is just something people say, regardless of whether or not the person to whom they say it has a job.

I haven't seen very many of the "Bullshit" shows, but I saw one where they really railed against the drug war. I enjoyed that one!

And either of them supporting the war suprises me a lot.

They say that ALL THE TIME.

Quite a good show, actually. I've watched the first two seasons. I'll admit that some of their arguments aren't completely sound, but they're right more often than they're wrong.

They are a lot better when they stick to telling the truth about the woo-woo bullshit, though.

And they're a long way from "Republicans." I don't believe I've ever heard either of them actually talk about their politics.

The show does make me cringe when it brings on asshats like Larry Elder or "experts" from The Cato Institute.

shut the fuck up! I work in a store that sells food products that advertise that they DON'T have ANY gmo products in them. They have a big SLASH through the the letters g-m-o.

mansanto is a corporate killer and people like penn and teller don't know what the FUCK they're talking about. :wtf:

Skool of Politiks ... right along with "Asshole" Ron Silver

:sarcasm: I hope they all go down together!

Note to Moderators re article reproduced in full below: The Institute of Science in Society gives permission for the reproduction of any posted material for non profit purposes as long as a link to the ISIS web site, www.i-sis.org.uk , is provided

Iraqi Government Urged to Revoke "Cynical and Wicked" Patent Law.

Dr. Brian John

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members’ website.

Aid agencies and NGOs across the globe have been reacting with horror to the news that new legislation in Iraq was carefully put in place last year by the United States that will effectively bring the whole of the country’s agricultural sector under the control of trans-national corporations. This spells disaster for the Iraqi government and the country’s farmers, paving the way for companies like Monsanto and Syngenta to control the entire food chain from planted seed to packaged food products <1>.

The new Iraqi Government is now being urged to revoke Order 81, the offending piece of legislation signed and brought into force by Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, on 26th April 2004.

NGOs have described Order 81 as "cynical and wicked", as the section relating to the registration and protection of plant varieties was slipped in almost as an appendage to an Order dealing with patents, industrial design, disclosure of information and integrated circuits <2>.

The manner in which this Order was imposed on the people of Iraq is an outrage in itself. There was virtually no Iraqi input into the wording of the Order, as the country and its people were on their knees following the Iraq War <3>.

The Preamble to the Order justifies its provisions as "necessary to improve the economic condition of the people of Iraq", desirable for "sustainable economic growth", and enabling Iraq to become "a full member of the international trading system known as the WTO". But when one looks at paragraphs 51 to 79 of the Order, it is clear that they have been designed simply to facilitate the takeover of Iraqi agriculture by western biotechnology corporations.

It is not surprising that Order 81 was written as "enabling legislation" for American corporate interests. The US Agriculture Department, which aided Bremer in writing the Order, was headed by ex-management of the huge US seed and biotech companies, such as Monsanto and Cargill <4>. Ann Veneman, who recently resigned as US Secretary of Agriculture, had a long career working for large US agribusinesses before going to work for the government. So did Dan Amstutz who headed Iraq’s agricultural reconstruction.

The Order fits neatly into the US vision of future Iraqi agriculture – an industrial agricultural system dependent on a small number of cash crops, with large corporations selling both chemical inputs and seeds.

It also arises naturally from the USAID programme in Iraq, which unashamedly confirms the thesis that foreign aid programmes are primarily "commercial opportunity" programmes designed for the benefit of American companies <5>.

Iraq’s food crisis exploited

Iraq was once self-sufficient in agriculture and the world’s number one exporter of dates. It is the acknowledged centre of origin of many cereal varieties that have been exported and adapted worldwide.

Twenty seven percent of Iraq’s total land area is suitable for cultivation, over half of which is rain-fed while the balance is irrigable. Wheat, barley, and chickpeas are the primary staple crops, with wheat being traditionally the most important crop. Before the First Iraq War, average annual harvests were 1.4 million tonnes for cereals, 400 000 tonnes for roots and tubers, and 38 000 tonnes for pulses. Over the past 20 years, Iraq’s agricultural sector has collapsed, and only half of the irrigable area is now properly utilised <6>. It is not known how many of the country’s 600 000 farmers are still able to produce food. Grain production during 2003 was less than (space) one-half the grain production in 1990; andagricultural production has been declining by an average of 2.6 % per year since.

Today more than 50 percent of the population is affected by food insecurity. The Oil-For-Food Programme, while essential to the humanitarian situation in Iraq, was a severe disincentive to food production. Over half of Iraq’s total food requirement is imported, and a large portion of the population is dependent upon externally-financed food rations for survival. The World Food Programme (WFP) plays a key role in coordinating the flow of food aid; and recently, three million tonnes of wheat have been imported yearly, mostly from Australia, to be distributed to Iraqis as part of their food rations. Farm machinery and equipment are in short supply amid water shortages, low technology uptake, and a lack of profit incentive. The cost of food rations provided to Iraqis is estimated at over $2 billion per year.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) officials and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Agriculture Reconstruction and Development Program for Iraq (ARDI) are continuing to implement a national wheat production campaign, so as to reduce the dependency on aid. Under the campaign, 1 500 tonnes of wheat seed has arrived in Mosul. ARDI procured the seed to assist the MOA to distribute high quality, certified seed to as many farmers as possible.

Over 400 tonnes of this seed has already been distributed and incorporated into high-profile "reconstruction and re-education" programmes, and another 4 000 tonnes are on their way. We have been unable to discover which varieties are involved, who the seed owners are, and the terms under which the seed stocks are being "donated".
Foreign aid – a nice little earner

Order 81, like the other 99 orders brought into law at high speed by Paul Bremer on behalf of the Coalitional Provisional Authority, was conceived by the US administration as part of the plan to install a "friendly and compliant", and essentially colonial regime in Iraq. The Order explicitly states that its provisions are consistent with Iraq’s "transition from a non-transparent centrally planned economy to a free market economy characterised by sustainable economic growth through the establishment of a dynamic private sector, and the need to enact institutional and legal reforms to give it effect." Pushing for these "transitional reforms" in Iraq has been the USAID, which has been implementing ARDI since October 2003. For this purpose, a one-year US$5 million contract was granted to the US consulting firm Development Alternatives, Inc, followed by a further $96 million contract.

There has been great speculation in sections of the American press about the fate of Iraqi oil sales revenues since the invasion. Only a part of it seems to be accounted for, and auditing procedures appear to have been corrupt. Some $9 billion worth of oil revenues seem to have vanished, and may simply have been recycled by the US Administration as multi-million dollar "aid" from the people of United States to the people of Iraq <7>.

ARDI claims it is rebuilding Iraq’s farming sector, but its real intention is to develop agribusiness opportunities for western corporations. According to GRAIN and other NGOs, "reconstruction" is not necessarily about rebuilding domestic economies and capacities, but about helping corporations approved by the occupying forces to capitalise on market opportunities in Iraq. The legal framework laid down by Bremer ensures that although US troops may leave Iraq in the conceivable (forseeable) future, the US domination of Iraq’s economy will be sustained in law by one hundred very convenient Orders.
Order 81

The critical part of Order 81 deals with plant variety protection (PVP). Superficially, its purpose is to protect the rights of those who develop new and improved plant varieties <2>, but it means that in future Iraqi farmers will be forced to plant "protected" crop varieties defined as new, distinct, uniform and stable. The new law makes a very basic change to Iraqi "intellectual property" law, for the first time recognizing the "ownership" of biologic material and paving the way for the patenting of life forms. It also opens the way for genetically modified crops to be introduced into the country. Crucially, there are no special provisions for GM crops - they are treated as no more novel (and no more controversial) than new varieties developed through conventional breeding programmes.

Where ownership of a crop is claimed, seed saving will be banned, and royalties will have to be paid by the farmer to the registered seed "owner". Farmers will be required to sign contracts relating to seed supply and, probably, to the marketing of the harvest. Where GM crops are involved (and possibly in other cases as well) they will also be required to sign contracts for the purchase of herbicides, insecticides and fertilisers.

Strictly, the new law does not prohibit saving seed from the harvesting of traditional or long-established varieties that are deemed to be "matters of common knowledge" <2, 4>. But with Iraqi agriculture in a state of crisis, there are (gap) critical seed shortages; and as mentioned earlier, the "reconstruction" of the food supply system involves (includes) a substantial involvement on the part of USAID and other food donor organizations giving "high quality seed" to farmers along with technical advice. It is inevitable that that (most of this) seed comes from US registered varieties, and that within a year or two, philanthropy will be replaced by the collection of seed royalties. In addition, Order 81 allows plant breeders to claim ownership of old varieties (and to call them "new" varieties) if they are the first to describe or characterize them. They can then also claim ownership of related crops that are "not clearly distinguishable from the protected varieties". The control of all protected varieties will last 20 years for field crops and 25 years for trees and vines. Farmers who save seed or otherwise break their agreements, and farmers unlucky enough to find the adventitious presence of "registered varieties" in their fields, can be prosecuted; or else their harvests, tools and buildings will (may) be destroyed. Conversely, farmers will have no right to claim compensation from the seed owners who, for example, allow their GM crops to pollute organic crops and destroy livelihoods in the process.
Heads I win, tails you lose

In the end, the Iraqi farmer will have two choices. He can go it alone, and try to grow crops from seeds of "traditional" crops that have become rare during decades of war and sanctions; or he can sign up to the food aid / agricultural programme and then buy seeds from companies like Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and Bayer. If he chooses the first option he may be left out in the cold during the reconstruction programme <1, 4>. If he chooses the second option, after a period of free handouts and advice, he may be trapped into a high-cost cash crop economy from which he will find it impossible to escape. He will also be forced to use seeds that appear to be high yielding but which may in reality turn out to be ill adapted to his local environment; so crop failures and even famine may follow.

It was some 10 000 years ago that the people of the fertile-crescent, now Iraq, began saving seeds from wild grains and planting them. That marked the beginnings of agriculture and western civilization. The saving and sharing of seeds in Iraq has always been a largely informal matter. Local varieties of grain and legumes have been adapted to local (space) conditions over the millennia, and are resistant to extreme heat, drought and salinity. They are not only a national treasure for Iraq but could well provide key genetic resources for agriculture in other parts of the world as global warming takes effect.

In 2002, FAO estimated that 97 percent of Iraqi farmers still saved seed from their own stocks for replanting, or purchased from local markets. Order 81 will put an end to all that, and will brutally disregard the contributions Iraqi farmers have made over hundreds of generations to the development of important crops like wheat, barley, dates and pulses. The new law, in allowing old varieties to be genetically manipulated or otherwise modified and then "registered", amount to legalising the theft of inherited intellectual property owned by traditional farmers, the loss of farmers’ freedoms, and the destruction of their food sovereignty.
Germplasm held in trust?

In recognition of the unique "seed heritage" of Iraq, traditional varieties have been saved as from the 1970s in the country’s national gene bank in Abu Ghraib outside Baghdad. There is concern that most of these may have been lost during the latter years of Saddam Hussein and in the recent conflict. However, the Syria-based Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centre and the affiliated International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) still hold accessions of several Iraqi varieties in the form of germplasm. These collections comprise the agricultural heritage of Iraq and they should now be repatriated. But CGIAR is reluctant to give assurances on this <8>. Ominously, germplasm held by international agricultural research centres belonging to the CGIAR has been "leaked out" for research and development to Northern scientists <1>. Such "biopiracy" is fuelled by an IPR regime that ignores the prior art of the farmer and grants sole rights to a breeder or researcher who claims to have created something new from varieties made by generations of indigenous farmers.
Wider implications

The US has now effectively declared a new war against the Iraqi farmer. Order 81 also goes against the United Nations Millennium Forum Declaration <9> which aspires to "move towards economic reforms aimed at equity, in particular to construct macroeconomic policies that combine growth with the goal of human development and social justice; to prevent the impoverishment of groups that have emerged from poverty but are still vulnerable to social risks and exclusion; to improve legislation on labour standards, including the provision of a minimum legal wage and an effective social system; and to restore people’s control over primary productive resources as a key strategy for poverty eradication." The signatories to the Declaration also seek "to promote the use of indigenous crops and traditional production skills to produce goods and services; to exempt developing countries from implementing the WTO Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement and to take these rights out of any new rounds of negotiations, ensuring that no such new issues are introduced; and to examine and regulate transnational corporations and the increasingly negative influence of their trade on the environment. The attempt by companies to patent life is ethically unacceptable."

Order 81 is also in clear contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in that it will increase chemical use, reduce the number of planted crop varieties, accelerate the trend towards monoculture, and decrease biodiversity <10>. Biosecurity will also be negatively affected, and the negative social effects will include population displacement, rural decline and an extension of (poverty and) urban slum dwelling. As to the Biosafety (Cartagena) Protocol dealing with GMOs and their transboundary movement, the Order is apparently designed to flout its aims and objectives, as there is no mention of any regulation of GM crop shipments, plantings, harvesting or export. It is no coincidence that neither the US nor Iraq has signed the CBD and the Cartagena Protocol.

The Food Aid Convention (cf Articles iii, viii and xiii) states that GM food aid should only be offered and accepted after recipient countries have discarded "conventional" alternatives and non-GM food aid as non-options <11>. The United States is a signatory to this Convention, but it has been widely accused of violating it whenever it suits its own interests to do so.

The Rio Declaration (1992) includes many progressive principles, including the polluter-pays-principle (the polluter bears the costs of pollution) or the precautionary principle (carry out environmental assessments to identify adverse impacts and eliminate any potential harms from a project before it is started). It advocates that today’s development shall not undermine the resource base of future generations and that developed countries bear a special responsibility due to the pressure their societies place on the global environment and the technologies and financial resources they command <12>. These principles are all flouted in Order 81.

The 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic resources for Food and Agriculture (supported by the FAO and the Convention on Biological Diversity) acknowledges that plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are the raw material indispensable for crop genetic improvement, whether by means of farmers’ selection, classical plant breeding or modern biotechnologies, and are essential in adapting to unpredictable environmental changes and future human needs; that the past, present and future contributions of farmers in all regions of the world, particularly those in centres of origin and diversity, in conserving, improving and making available these resources, is the basis of Farmers’ Rights; and that the rights recognized in this (the) Treaty to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed and other propagating material, and to participate in decision-making regarding, and in the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from, the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, are fundamental to the realization of Farmers’ Rights, as well as the promotion of Farmers’ Rights at national and international levels. Order 81 is in clear violation of these principles.

Order 81 was supposedly drafted by the Coalition, and it supposedly represented the consensus view of the Coalition partners, including the UK and various other members of the EU. The Order extends the patenting of life forms into the area of crops and agriculture, in spite of a massive ethical debate about this within Europe. It also treats GM varieties as if they are no different from new "conventional" varieties, which is in clear contravention of EU policy <13>. Those who drafted Order 81 were clearly happy to see the farmers of that blighted country blighted further by a "green light" for GM contamination of the food supply and by commercial enslavement. This is an edited version of an article posted by GM Free Cymru, 4 March 2005.


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMiraq.php

Corporate homogenization of crop gene pools is bad. Genetically modified food, if produced responsibly, is no more dangerous than navel oranges or sweet corn. Some environmentalist groups are a bit overzealous in their efforts with regards to genetically modified foods and claim that it is all horrible and dangerous. However, this modern agricultural ludditism is just reactionary and ignorant of scientific fact. Corporate agribusiness is the enemy, not genetic modification.

Nobody knows that at this point. And what would make GM better than Monsanto when they're producing the same product?

Yet, no one fears peas. I used "GM" as a shorthand for "genetically modified." Sorry about the confusion. I'll reiterate: corporate agribusiness - bad, genetically modified food - not bad. Anything else is uninformed and alarmist.

the whole thing about "frankenfood" is way overblown...the people who protest about it ought to get together with the "free mumia" morans, and start having their own rallies, instead of crashing everyone else's.

Technology is not inherently bad.

n/t

Studies are showing that GMO's have less nutrients, and lower yeilds.

see this discussion..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=1837

Unless I'm reading something you aren't, that study was on Monsanto's GM seeds, and I said Monsanto was bad. That does not mean all genetically modified foods are bad, because they aren't.

http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm
and
http://www.cyberparent.com/nutrition/geneticengineeringrisks.htm
and
http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html
and
http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3840/26C.html
and
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=306362005
and
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/Stories/0,1413,136~32730~2799473,00.html
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1443002,00.html
and
http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=58806-gm-food-products


What have you been reading?

every single one of those links gives you information about the nutritional and environmental problems with GMOs.

I suggest you go back, read them again, SLOWER.

And I'll repeat, you haven't proven me wrong. I still say, as I have said, that corporate agri-business is bad, but genetically modified food aren't. The same study results can be obtained by comparing various hybrids of any organism, not just genetically modified ones.

What I'm saying is simple agriculture.

link from earlier post...
http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html

snip>
Q. I’ve heard the argument that genetic engineering is just an extension of traditional breeding. But how can you breed a fish and a strawberry? You can’t. Why isn’t this type of “cross-breeding” seen as possibly dangerous to human health?

A. First, it is usually inaccurate to talk about a “fish gene” or a “strawberry gene.” Many genes, which are merely blueprints for producing specific proteins, are shared among many organisms.

So, while you cannot “breed” a fish with a strawberry, you could theoretically take a gene from a fish—or something else—and introduce it into a strawberry cell, which can subsequently be regenerated into a whole strawberry plant, which will contain an extra gene and an extra protein. (By the way, fish genes have not been introduced into strawberries.)

In traditional breeding, many genes are transferred between related species, without clear control over just which genes are being transferred and which are not. Genetic engineering is far more precise, which is, in fact, one of its greatest benefits. It allows, for example, a single gene from a cold-hardy plant to be introduced into a strawberry to help increase its tolerance to cold weather. Another example: Genetic engineering has allowed the gene responsible for making human insulin to be inserted into a certain type of bacteria. That bacteria now makes human insulin, a product that has been used by people with diabetes for years with no adverse effects. This type of “cross-breeding” between humans and bacteria obviously would be impossible without genetic engineering.

There is a natural precedent for this type of “cut and paste” operation: The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens performs this type of gene transfer in nature, and is in fact one of the tools molecular breeders use to move genes around.

It’s true that genetic engineering could be used to produce dangerous products. But the same statement can be made about virtually any technology. Scientists generally agree that products from each type of genetic engineering should be reviewed carefully before they are implemented.
end>

In nature, in regular agriculture, those genes would never mix.
Nature has always had it's own balance, and when natural inbreeding happens, the result survives or doesn't according to the laws of nature. We are seriously FUCKING with that balance.


on edit - still can't come up with a link?

Providing links to things on the internet only supports an argument, it doesn't make it fact. Your quote here is out of context - most genetically modified foods aren't putting fish genes into strawberries, that's a radical example. Your fanaticism is distorting your interpretation of the facts.

"In nature, in regular agriculture, those genes would never mix."
That statement is patently false, though it may take millenia to occur. We are just able to do the same in a single day. The thing is, that isn't what all genetically modified foods are, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend so.

very important you read this one slowly so you really comprehend...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2996471

...nor as intelligent and informed as you pretend to be.

Of course, I really didn't expect any.

Since you've only been here a month, maybe you don't know the rules.
back up your statements.

I've been here for years, kiddo. Keep repeating your link mantra, though, and maybe you'll be able to feel intelligent when you don't look it.

the search function didn't return anything before March when I looked you up.

If you have been here for years, then why the bad attitude?

Links are cool.

one more for you, authored by chlamor

Genetically Modified Food is Wicked and Dangerous In All Respects

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3436579

Libertarians do not support the war in Iraq. Nor do they believe in policing the world. So, Penn and Teller cannot be Libertarians. They are Corporate Conservatives.

Do you have any links for that? :shrug:

I know that both Penn and Teller are both registered members of the Libertarian party and have both been quite active in it for some time now. They are even listed on the homepage for the Nevada Libertarian Party: http://www.lpnevada.org/

and he supports the war.


Your statement seems like someone who says "She/He can't be a democrat - she supports the anti-abortionists". People are not all black and white.

My experience of Libertarians is they tend to side with Republicans.

Or George Bush, for that matter. From a Scarborough Country that aired on May 18th, 2004, of all places. ;-) It was a show about Michael Moore and Farenheit 9/11. Here's the quote:

JILLETTE:  Barnum never went into politics.  He did all of his hokum based on just show business. 

You know, I find avoiding conspiracy theory is very, very important, because conspiracies are so comforting.  They kind of answer everything.  And the more I read about Michael Moore, the more I think that maybe Michael Moore is just a tool of Bush, because I did not like the Iraq war.  I did not like Bush very much.  At the Academy Awards, when Michael Moore was speaking, all of a sudden I got this real Republican urge just flowing through me. 

And everything I‘m reading about this movie, and hoping people die over there, Americans die over there to punish us, it starts leaning me way over the other way.  So if I have a conspiracy to go with, I‘m going to go with Michael Moore is just trying to make Bush look really, really good. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5013506

So I cannot imagine, no matter how conservative they may be otherwise, that they are enamored of "born again" Bush.

I met them after a show they did in Seattle back in 2000. Very nice and humble one-on-one. I am not a fan of their libertarian mindset, but am glad they are outspoken about the idiocy of monotheism. Plus, they put on a damn good show, regardless of ideological incorrectness.

:hi:

I may not be a big fan of the Libertarian party, but it sure as hell beats the Republican party these days. At least the religious right doesn't own and control their every move. Only big business, just like every other political party. ;-)

Yeah, hence the reason I won't hit the streets anymore. It's 2 hours or so of my life I can spend elsewhere... MAYBE making a difference. But that's an argument for another thread.

P&T are more interested in science and the art of illusion and con-gaming than politics. Although I think Penn is disingenuous in the way he slants the argument against the anti-GM types, I am sympathetic to a large degree: My own experience on DU has proven that the Left has as many whacko reactionaries as the Right - even if our reactionaries have their hearts in the correct place. Nevertheless, whackos and reactionaries on either side wear me down, and are fair game for ridicule and satire, even if from the likes of P&T. :hi:

only no gray areas. Oversimplification is key. Easier than having to face the tough problems and find real solutions. That keeps the simple minded that love them happy. Miller uses big words to compensate for the lack of content in what he says. He is trying to convince people he is smart. He knows he isn't. Little mind. No real ideas. Just rhetoric.

so what else is new.

the only thing that they could say that would surprise me is that the tall guy is really the bottom.

Pen and Teller are first and foremost funny. At least in my subjective opinion. Their "Bullshit" series is a refreshing bit of tubing that touches a variety of subjects.
In nearly all of them they manage to give a short, humorous but informed no-nonsense impression of the bullshit kitchen.

I remember seeing this particular episode and wondering about some of the things they say, but for crying out loud, people.. you cannot yell REPUBLICAN every time somebody says something that you happen to disagree with.

Even if they ARE Republicans. Does that mean we should not watch them anymore? Should we be afraid that they brainwash us with their opinion on organic food?

I am carrying this little quote about dualism in my sig line. I suggest you all take a long hard look at it.

The point is, they presented one side of the issue by pretty much making all naysayers look like tree hugging idiots. Had they covered the issue in its totality, then people like me could make up their own minds. Their show was nothing more than an attempt to brainwash people--and I'm sure they succeeded.

You have to wonder who's paying for this tripe when people like Rush Limbaugh are also uttering the very same lines as Penn and Teller. The fact is, if genetically engineered foods were as safe as they claim, we wouldn't need Limbaugh or Penn and Teller to try to brainwash the public.

It's bullshit and I know bullshit when I smell it.

They present facts.
They target all kinds of subjects. They did an excellent show on drugs with the conclusion (quoting from memory) "In a free country, one should be free to use whatever". Hardly a popular Republican viewpoint.

They target the Bible, funeral corporations, bottled water....and yea, rganic food. Isn't that the show where they petition against bihydrogenmonoxide in our drinking water? :rofl:

So who's "paying for it"? The religious industry? The funeral industry? The soft drink industry? No, SHOWTIME is paying the bills.

There is no way that you can compare Penn and Teller to Limbaugh or Miller based SOLELY on a SINGLE issue that you don't agree with.

(and I'm not just talking about you)

things about GMF. I don't trust Limbaugh period so it only makes me more suspicious about the issue.

So in your opinion anything that Rush says is false. If somebody else says the same thing it is therefore equally false?

Is that a correct interpretation of what you are trying to say?

liar. I don't readily accept news from drug addicted liars.

:sarcasm:

However, even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day.

What would you say is your definition of liberalism?

...but I sorta doubt it.

From "Prince Charles vs Richard Dawkins:"

Agriculture has always been unnatural. Our species began to depart from our natural hunter-gatherer lifestyle as recently as 10,000 years ago - too short to measure on the evolutionary timescale.

Wheat, be it ever so wholemeal and stoneground, is not a natural food for Homo sapiens. Nor is milk, except for children. Almost every morsel of our food is genetically modified - admittedly by artificial selection not artificial mutation, but the end result is the same.

A wheat grain is a genetically modified grass seed, just as a Pekinese is a genetically modified wolf. Playing God? We've been playing God for centuries!


http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/AIG/1999+2000/newpage4.htm

the show they did about drugs. But you beat me to it. :) They definitely showed, at least their libertarian leaning with that episode.

They did a skit at the end mocking the commercial "This is your brain on drugs" by having a steamroller roll over like 7 eggs, with each one representing an aspect of people lives that the government sticks its nose in. It was good to say the least...

But yeah, of all the shows I've seen, nothing ever made me think "republican" or like they were trying to cram politics down my throat. With that being said, I don't think P&T are always funny, to each his own.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

reactionaries give me hives.

penn and teller suck.

the end.

Personally, I think their opinions are a little more complex than suck or not suck. But maybe that's just me? :shrug: These comments taken from the Bullshit! website seem practically liberal to me.

Teller: If there existed even one psychic who had predicted that disaster, we'd be very, very interested. But, nope. What haunts me about 9/11 is the horrible knowledge that those who did the deed did it to further the divine will. Whenever we hear a politician bless killing, we should think twice.

Q: Stop going after weirdoes and morons and put your focus on the corporations and gov't. That is where the bullshit really is and these are the lies that hurt the people and the country.

Penn: I'm inclined to agree, but we have to go with what we know. Teller and I have been looking into to the kinds of things the shows are about for years and have some idea what we're talking about. The government scams may be too much for cheap carny trash to address. But, I'm with you -- I'd like more of that on TV (Maybe I mean "any of that on TV").

Penn: When you're dealing with scams, women seem to be the victims more often. This is true for bunco scams of most sorts. I've often said that the psychic rip-offs are a feminist issue. Our society seems to tell women that they're more "intuitive" and that's a way to say something very beautiful in a very ugly way. Being open-minded and loving does not mean being a sucker. Being skeptical is not being cynical. To me, they aren't even related. I would like to think of myself as intuitive, and certainly women (and men) that I care for have that quality -- but that doesn't mean "sucker."

Penn: That's not the way I would state this. I think skepticism is a feminist issue. What is it in our society that makes women victims on this front, and why do we think that's okay? Why are most of the bunco scams run on elderly women? Why is most of the psychic shit done to lonely middle-aged women. It's very sad. I have no idea why we're doing this -- it should be a NOW issue. And the fact that it's not a NOW issue, even though so much money is being taken from women, is a very deep and sad problem.

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/community.do?content=answer2

same old song and dance. they suck you in with seeming complexity and then slap you around with their basic assholeness.

Sorry. I'd rather devote my time to people who try to be totally progressive than some half-assed comedian act that is occasionally p.c. Sorry if you are a fan, but I'm not one to try to convert.

But I don't always disagree with them either. I'm also not going to judge them based on only one facet of their personality. My husband is a comedian and my best friends are comedians, so I believe that it's a little unfair to call someone an asshole that you only know through the limited exposure that Penn & Teller receive from the media.

They put on a GREAT live show and, like others here, I was able to meet and talk with them after the show. They were very personable and friendly (Penn moreso than Teller, but being quiet is Teller's schtick). And I've alway liked their support for critical thinking and their outspokeness against supernatural and unscientific thinking.

When their show came on Showtime I really anticipated watching it. I enjoyed their first few shows. They were trashing stuff like faith healing, Ouija boards, witchcraft, and fung shwei (sp?). I agreed with the things they were saying and laughed at the oddball witches and faith healers, etc. But I began to notice that, even when I agreed with them, I was bothered by some of their disengenuous rhetorical tactics. They used what - IMHO - were misleading language and visuals, and often seemed to be airing people's statements out of context. I kept thinking, why are they doing it like this? Their points are valid and they could make them convincingly in an honest and straightforward manner. Why the dishonest tactics?

When they started on topics I disagreed with them on, I pretty much gave up on the show. It didn't entertain me, it just angered me.

I guess this says something unfortunate about human psychology. I noticed but tolerated the crappy rhetorical tricks when they supported my beliefs. But I got angry when the same techniques were used to say things I didn't like. (Hmmm... maybe I did learn something from them after all, but I doubt that it was intentional on their part.)

I guess this is the same phenomenon that cause so many to accept the horse manure shoveled out by organizations like Faux News. They know it's biased and selective but it supports what they want to believe.

As far as P&T's politics - I've read some of their books and have definitely gotten the impression that they are very big on personal freedom and responsibility, and small government. But they are also very anti anything to do with religion or the supernatural, and certainly don't want the government interfering in peoples personal moral decisions. So they are closer to Libertarian than Dem or Repub.

They're magicians, maybe misdirection is also just in their blood.

Good point. I think misdirection is a good word for what they were doing and it definitely is also a big part of doing magic.
Their dishonest rhetoric really disapointed me because, as I said, I was a big fan. Even so, I still highly recommend seeing their live show if you get the chance.

Ridiculing recycling. It made me furious--the reasoning was so spurious, together with the condescending attititude. Glad I'm indifferent to them as performers, since I find their commentary dreadful.

right alongside zell miller and dick morris

-that tells me all i need to know about him

Was is just Penn? Could you tell if he was in it knowingly and honestly - or was he misrepresented, taken out of context, etc.? The man's starting to seem like one big contradiction to me. Maybe he's totally mercenary and will say anything for the right price. :-(

Along with deconstructing certain key scenes in "Bowling for Columbine," "Michael Moore Hates America" features the advice of Penn Jillette. A fellow libertarian, Jillette is also half of the comedy duo Penn and Teller, whose award-winning cable show "Bullshit" seeks to expose, well, bullshit.

"Are we trying to make ourselves look important, funny and smart at the expense of someone else?" Jillette asked rhetorically in the trailer for the film. The essence of the documentary, Jillette explained, requires a certain manipulation of the truth. The hurdle for all filmmakers is to avoid manipulating beyond a certain point. It's a lesson that Wilson has taken to heart.

"It's really easy to fall into that trap," he said. "The trap that Michael Moore is in is that he believes that the ends justify the means. It's like, 'What I'm saying is so important that it's worth lying or manipulating the truth, even though I know that what I'm saying is wrong.'"

http://nyunews.com/artsandentertainment/film/8220.html

Gosh! Maybe I should add the DVD to my Netflix queue; no doubt, Moore's "lies' are listed in detail.

Though I don't always agree with them. The PETA episode was dead on.

I think the first one I saw that really turned me off was the one on second hand smoke.