Frank Beaty 
Member since Feb 2, 2013



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Rumors of a raw milk ban in S.C. are highly exaggerated

For Jaxx: Here's as good a place to start as any…

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Frank Beaty on February 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Re: “Rumors of a raw milk ban in S.C. are highly exaggerated

Smartasses, this piece was a slick attempt to shape the views of the readers away from a particularly threatening concern that many of us have. We are concerned about a threat we perceive...and in turn, our concern is viewed by the establishment as a threat. Plain and simple. I don't need to be convinced further that the piece is pure propaganda...and I can't be unconvinced...and I really don't give a fug what smart asses think. I am simply curious as to how these party lines keep getting purveyed the way they do. Does Bowers actually believe what he is saying about milk...raw versus pasteurized? Does Mat Cat, for another example, actually believe the unctuous garbage he whips into his pieces such as the one I just tried to get through featuring the Benghazi incident (and with even a little 9/11 mythology thrown in for good measure), pieces crafted with such loving attention to every little detail in the pro-wrestling utterly 100% fake show that is left-right politics? I mean he couldn't have done a better job if he were ringside, calling detailed play-by-play of Hulk Hogan's last body slam. As for what he truly believes, I honestly don't know. He seems to put enough energy into the writing and the oh-so-delicious details of the two criminal wings in power, as if they were actually opposing one another and actually different in anything other than team color, that I actually believe he believes what he's purveying. But it continues to be utter B.S. A fully false political paradigm, ingested from mainstream trash and then regurgitated as more mainstream trash. His particular flavor is...what? Maybe a little more "left" than Maddow, maybe a little less than Amy Goodman? Still sitting squarely on that spectrum of lies. He's a placeholder, and he's chosen his place. Still, a place at a banquet of deception. I can find the same level of lies if I look on the fake "right" side of the fake media, except the rhetoric is dutifully "opposite" from MC's. No mystery. It's a huge show, and you guys are either drinking the kool-aid and are true believers, or you know what you're doing, in which case you're really pretty scary individuals. All that said, I now offer one of many antidotes: good audience I direct you to a site called There you will find good, strong academic pieces, but they also happen to tell some actual truth about the world. Nothing like what you'll find in this "progressive" city "paper." Please. Why don't you cheerlead your child-killing dronemaster Monsanto President a little more. Please.

1 of 3 people like this.
Posted by Frank Beaty on February 4, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Re: “Rumors of a raw milk ban in S.C. are highly exaggerated

My ties are to food freedoms which are being attacked on every front all over the world. Along with health freedoms, speech freedoms, educational freedoms, economic freedoms, nutritional freedoms. Shall I continue, lightweight?

1 of 4 people like this.
Posted by Frank Beaty on February 4, 2013 at 2:05 AM

Re: “Rumors of a raw milk ban in S.C. are highly exaggerated

who put this writer and/or this paper up to doing this piece? I mean I would really love to know. He even gets his dig in on this fitsnews, as if this Bowers piece is some shining example of "journalistic integrity?" Ha! It is an obvious propaganda piece, not even subtle (at least not to a half-trained eye). If anyone has any insight on Bowers' ties and/or motivations, I'd love to hear it.

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Frank Beaty on February 3, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Re: “Rumors of a raw milk ban in S.C. are highly exaggerated

Notice at the end how they downplay the health advantages of raw milk and talk about the scary pathogens that can be in it? Not a word about the pus and snot and fecal content that is allowed (and commonly present) in pasteurized milk...just because it has been treated with the magic (poisonous, i.e.--protein-and-enzyme-destroying) wand of pasteurization.

And notice how they downplay the whole thing? "Oh so secret meeting" and "all they did was NOT disagree with the national ruling" and "merely a group of dairy farmers with no ties to Monsanto, etc." Fact is that this "committee" is WITHOUT A DOUBT comprised of big-dairy elements, or at least predominantly influenced by them. Why else for that meeting, and for its outcome? And for this SC group to come in and convince the SC commission NOT to dissent from a national recommendation IS IN FACT A HUGE DEAL. But no...all that happened was that the SCFB "took the advice of the dairy farmers" and withheld dissent.

This pieces does little but white-wash the "hands-off" approach that is so very reasonable on the part of the SC Farm Bureau and this "committee," (where in reality it represents a serious erosion in SC's overall position) and paint raw-milk advocates as unreasonable zealots. Shame on this paper for the devious and specially-interested puff piece above.

8 of 10 people like this.
Posted by Frank Beaty on February 2, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS