Enhanced interogation

The typical argument for the use of so called "enhanced interrogation" which I will call by the non euphemistic name torture.  is lives are on the line and the CIA and military need to get information from terrorists as quick as possible- so why should we be concerned about their rights and humanity - with enough torture they will talk and give you the information you need to hear to diffuse a ticking bomb.
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it is based on the notion that a terrorist would not lie in order to have the torture end- which is what history show happens.
In order to believe the ticking bomb argument- you should believe the following as well.
1. people in the late medieval period and Renaissance routinely made potions which allowed them to fly on brooms to attend orgies with Satan - these confessions were obtained after torture.
If you even suggest that people may have lied because they were looking for an escape is to invalidate the ticking bomb argument.
3. there was a massive infiltration of German saboteurs in the USSR in the Stalinist era.
2. The U.S. sent pilots into combat in Vietnam who were fresh out of ground school with only enough fuel for a one way flight- and the many other  lies American pilots told the guards at the Hanoi Hilton.
If there was a ticking bomb you want to get accurate information as quickly as possible not to allow yourself to follow a wild goose chase where the bomb explodes killing people because the leads were lies.

All lives matter

There are some articles I'm hoping originated from the onion-
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/a-college-president-had-to-apologize-for#commentaddingblock
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-craven/please-stop-telling-me-th_b_6223072.html
In this case it is people getting upset over Kathleen McCartney of Smith college tweeting all lives matter and saying such a tweet is culturally insensitive.

Such tweets strike me as racist-  as they sound like they want us to ignore other police shootings.

The people complaining will ask questions like 

the question that stands and begs the answer is, do black lives matter?

The answer is yes- as the category of all people does include black people. Any statement with the word all- means if there is one exception then it is false-so accept the fact we mean what we say.

Then they ask if we would have felt the same if the skin color was reversed- and my answer here is simple yes I would- and that is death is tragic and when police shoot people we must be willing to look at the evidence and be willing to hold the police accountable when they cross over the line.

I ask these people how do they feel about the Dillon Taylor case?  

Dillon Taylor was a 20 year old white man who had been shot by the police in Salt Lake City, Utah

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58472404-78/taylor-cruz-hands-gill.html.csp

If they are upset over his death after reading about it- then they have proven all lives do matter however if they want to give any excuse that states that these three case should not be viewed with the same lens that is built on a notion that their is a difference in any of these due to skin color - then the complaint is racist.  

The usual line is that the relationship between the black community and the police is problematic at best. This might be true but it does not change the fact the cases should be looked at individually and the verdicts should be based completely on the evidence at hand. People might bring up issues like race relations- or the historically bad relationship between the police and black community these are important issues that need to be honestly discussed with people recognizing the fact the dream of the civil rights movement where people are judged by their character and not skin.

I refuse to make an exception/

GMO

At times it feels like I am one of the few people who believe in the free market when it comes to genetically modified organism.
There are plenty of post on the internet demanding GMO either get labled or flat out banned often times promoting the alleged superiority of organic foods. When discussing our food supply it is important to remmeber the following fact yield per acre and the amount of farm land needed to support the population has steadily increased as people switched from purely organic methods to modern methods.
At the grocery store- organicly grown food costs about twice as much non organic food. There are two possible reasons for this- either it costs twice as much to farm organically and a higher percent is tossed out or the market is rather small but filled with wealthy yuppies who allow themselves to be gouged.
I'm more inclined to believe the first- because unless there are laws that limit organic farming and make it essentially impossible to start an organic farm agricultural companies would be starting organic farms- to rake in the higher profits.
Some of the arguments for organically grown food are the following.
1.) they are healthier- there have been some studies that have brought this into question claiming there is not that much of a difference. Then there is the question about how healthy is a plant grown in manure ?
2. They are better for the environment- they will state pesticide use but ecosystem is affected by more than just pesticides and there is a possibility that the right GMO could result in in a plant that uses fewer chemicals.
As I am not an agricutluralist I can't say what is possible or what people are working on.
Nor do I know the full pros and cons of any given GMO.  The public needs real information- and not simple fear mongering by people who fear the advent of a new technology. The last thing would be a ban on all current and future GMO technology or laws that would ban alternatives.