6303167472_e1037756e1_b

Young Voices Podcast – Are We Finally Accepting the Scientific Consensus on GMOs?

Today’s Young Voices Podcast features Young Voices Executive Director Casey Given and YV Advocate Andrew Wilford on the forthcoming release of GMO apples in select stores in the Midwest. Could the relative lack of outrage regarding these apples mean Americans are finally accepting the scientific consensus on GMOs?

The Young Voices donate page is now up and running, and be sure to follow Young Voices on Facebook and Twitter.

Don’t miss out on our future podcasts – subscribe on iTunes here!

6303167472_e1037756e1_b

Are We Finally Accepting the Scientific Consensus on GMOs?

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption, Americans are generally distrustful of all types of GMOs. An ABC poll from last year found that more than half of Americans believe that GMO foods are unsafe. However, the relative lack of outrage over the forthcoming release of “non-browning” genetically modified apples could mean public perception of GMOs may be changing. This would be an important step towards reducing food waste, fighting global malnutrition, and helping the environment.

If American public opinion is finally turning against anti-GMO rhetoric, it is about time. There is no scientific debate about the safety of genetically modified foods; a recent Pew Research poll even found a greater scientific consensus for GMO safety than anthropogenic climate change. And as Mark Lynas of the Cornell Alliance for Science has pointed out, many of the same tactics used by climate change deniers are mirrored by the anti-GMO movement.

The case of these genetically modified apples is hardly any different. The apples take much longer (about three weeks) to oxidize or turn brown after being exposed to the open air. By “silencing” a chemical that plays no role in apples today, scientists were able to reduce the browning effect of oxidization while retaining safety and nutritiousness.

Continue reading at Townhall.

The_swedish_alternative_rock_band_Pound_in_a_garage_somewhere

Is Trump Making Rock Rebellious Again?

Donald Trump is going to wish he didn’t make alternative rock great again.

Throughout its existence, the alternative rock genre has been one of the ultimate checks on authority and abuses of power. Punk rockers like The Clash and The Sex Pistols mainstreamed ideas of anarchy and anti-authoritarianism in the 1970s and 1980s. As Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie argue in their book The Declaration of Independents, Vaclav Havel, the leader of the Velvet Revolution against Czech communism in 1989, was inspired by the music of the Velvet Underground. During the administration of President George W. Bush, Green Day was one of the leading anti-war voices.

Sadly, over the last eight years, alternative rock lost some of its anti-authority edge while Barack Obama was in office. The band Muse is one of the few exceptions, releasing three albums during the Obama years, two of which —The Resistance in 2009 and Drones in 2015 — are remarkably anti-authority. Drones was a particularly strong album in its blasting of the military-industrial complex, but that’s commonplace from Muse regardless of who the world’s leaders are.

But Donald Trump’s candidacy prompted alternative rockers, such as the Scottish band Franz Ferdinand, to release songs and music videos that blatantly call out Donald Trump and his penchant for illiberal authoritarianism.

Continue reading at FEE.

dream

Young Voices Podcast – Trump should protect Dreamers, pass broad immigration reform

Today’s Young Voices Podcast features Young Voices Executive Director Casey Given and YV Advocate Jacob Richards on DACA and what President Trump might do regarding the Dreamers.

The Young Voices donate page is now up and running, and be sure to follow Young Voices on Facebook and Twitter.

Don’t miss out on our future podcasts – subscribe on iTunes here!

Director_Provides_Update_on_Orlando_Shootings_Investigation_(27550838552)

Dispelling 3 Myths Swirling Around the Sally Yates Controversy

Acting Attorney General Sally Yates did a very smart thing … for her career. In her refusal to enforce President Trump’s immigration ban against a number of dangerous countries—Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia—Yates has rocketed into the progressive political exosphere.

She may hope to someday become Senator Yates.

A number of misconceptions have been swirling around Yates’ controversial memorandum, and President Trump’s subsequent decision to fire her and add Dana J. Boente as the new acting attorney general. Here are a few brief arguments dispelling those mythic notions.

The first myth is that somehow, this Obama appointee has suddenly grown to love our system of checks and balances.

Quite aside from the question of the Trump immigration order’s lawfulness, Yates’ concern is “whether any policy choice embodied in the Executive Order is wise or just.” But it’s neither the duty nor the prerogative of the president’s agents to choose not to enforce a policy based on the wisdom or justness of that policy.

Her insubordination is a revival-in-miniature of the Obama administration’s assault on the separation of powers. Simply put, this is “an act of sabotage” intended to make governance more difficult for the Trump administration, with the added bonus that Yates gets to genuflect in an act of progressive piety. The idea that Yates, an attorney appointed to the Obama Department of Justice, is concerned about presidential overreach is, to be generous, risible.

 Continue reading at Townhall.