JerseySmarts.com

Greek State of Mind

President Obama Rejects Coddling College Students

by Leave a Comment

During a question and answer session on the topic of education, President Barack Obama made some comments regarding the growing level of political correctness on college campuses. More to the point, the President slammed the increasing extremeness of college students (i.e. students who throw temper tantrums when someone with whom they disagree is invited to speak on their campuses). A quick clip of the President’s comments may be found in the video below:

The President is dead-on accurate with these comments. Colleges should be places of robust discussions – not places where only one side of an argument is allowed to be presented for fear of hurting the feelings of college students. In fact, more than “both sides” of the story should be presented. As we all should understand, each issue has many different “sides” and as many of those sides as possible should be presented to help give college students better perspectives on which to make their own decisions.

Quick Thoughts on Voting During Last Week’s Election

by Leave a Comment

This may be a bit of a delayed reaction, but I enjoyed voting in last week’s election. What made last week’s election different for me is that this was my first time voting as a registered voter in Monmouth County. Up until I bought my house last spring, I was registered at my family’s home in Morris County. As you might deduce, this created an annual problem where I had to drive all the way up to Morris County (and near the Sussex County border, no less!) to vote on Election Day. Sure, I could have registered to vote in Monmouth County when I began renting my most recent apartment, but I never had the security of knowing whether or not I would be in that one place for a long period of time so I never made the change.

What I enjoyed about voting last week (besides the 3 minute commute to my polling place) was that I had a chance to vote for candidates that will have some level of impact on me and my immediate community. Again, as a guy who has been voting in Morris County for the last 15 years, the people that I’ve been voting for have largely not been the Mayors, Town Councilors, Board of Education members, State Legislators, and Congressmen who have a direct impact on the community where I actually live. Last Tuesday, the votes that I cast were different in that they have a direct relationship to my daily life.

And the American in me enjoys the fact that I get to vote in the first place! Unlike most folks out there, I enjoy voting for people from both sides of the aisle – which I did last Tuesday. One of the great things about this country is that we have a choice. Frankly, I wish we had more that two viable choices and I really wish that the Libertarian and Constitutional Parties would grow to become larger players in American politics. But that’s okay – the people are beginning to realize that there are more than two answers to every political question and that it’s not such a bad idea to get people with different ideas involved.

As for the results from last week’s elections, well I didn’t think it was any big surprise. Of course the Republicans were going to run away with the Senate and increase their lead in the House – the majority of the places and states in this country are center-right and every political map proves that point. Yes, the cities and urban areas vote heavily Democratic and that’s where the President has his most ardent supporters, but most of this country isn’t filled with cities and urban areas. Thus the results from last week are no big surprise.

Plus, I’m a big believer in divided government. We have a Democratic President and I think it’s a good idea to have a Republican Congress to check his power. I thought the same thing when President George W. Bush was in charge – a Democratic Congress was good for him to have to collaborate with the other side (which he did very well at the beginning of his first term as well). The biggest “check” that I think will come out of the Republican Congress is their ability to conduct fuller investigations in the Senate. The talking heads on television suggest that there are a variety of scandals brewing from Benghazi to the fast and furious gun running issue to immigration and now to the fact that there were blatant lies told to the American people in order to get the Affordable Care Act passed.

While those are all issues that deserve fuller investigations, what I’m looking forward to knowing more about is the IRS targeting scandal. Folks, if the accusations are true – that the IRS targeted individuals and groups that they disagreed with politically – then that is going to be the biggest scandal in the history of American politics up through our lifetimes, I guaranty it. This is the exact type of issue that the colonists rebelled against back in the late 1700s and it’s the exact type of issue that makes our government ineffective in the 2010s. So… that’s what I’m looking forward to from the new Congress: a true investigation into the IRS targeting scandal.

Governor Romney Playfully Rips Into President Obama at Charity Event

by Leave a Comment

Last night, both Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama attended the Alfred E. Smith Foundation’s annual charity event. The event raises money for children living in poverty and every four years it hosts both Presidential candidates. The candidates are asked to offer some lighthearted jokes about one another at the event and last night, Romney did not disappoint. Here’s a video of his roast of the President:

Pretty entertaining if you ask me. I hope you enjoyed the video!

What Do The Candidates Say About “My Issue?” Student Loans

by Leave a Comment

October is here and that means a cooler, crisper breeze, the World Series is on, football is on the television, and college basketball is about a month away. It’s a good time of the year! And every four years, those of us living in the great United States get to mix in some national-level politics, too! I have a few different posts that I’m working on that, in part, talk about issues related to the election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

With this entry, I’d like to kick off my comments about this year’s Presidential election by providing you with some official comments on what each campaign thinks about “my issue” – that is, what they think about student loans.

From the Obama website (the Obama website bashes Romney quite a bit; that low-level partisanship crap is not carried over here):

By doubling funding for Pell Grants and establishing a college tax credit, President Obama is putting higher education within reach for millions more Americans.

President Obama successfully fought to prevent federal student loan interest rates from doubling for more than 7 million students, and capped federal student loan repayments at 10% of income. This means responsible students and their families can make decisions about the future based on career goals rather than the price of tuition.

From the Romney website:

Higher Ed: A New Vision Of Affordable And Applicable Learning

America’s traditional community and four-year colleges are the heart of our nation’s higher education system. However, a flood of federal dollars is driving up tuition and burdening too many young Americans with substantial debt and too few opportunities. Meanwhile, other models of advanced skills training are becoming ever more important to success in the American economy, and new educational institutions will be required to fill those roles. Mitt’s reforms spur the access, affordability, innovation, and transparency needed to address all of these challenges:

  • Strengthen And Simplify The Financial Aid System.
  • Welcome Private Sector Participation Instead Of Pushing It Away.
  • Replace Burdensome Regulation With Innovation And Competition.

There are additional comments on each website regarding the candidates’ educational plans and the Obama website also gives additional details, separately, about his plan. However, Obama’s website goes well out of its way to bash and mischaracterize his opponent. It’s really disheartening that the President of the United States would rely on old school, bash-based politics for his re-election campaign – especially after tens of millions voted for a politician in 2008 who promised hope for the future and change from that type of politics.

Oh well, I guess that hope and change guy from 2008 wasn’t being entirely truthful about what type of change we had in store!

All of that aside, the takeaway that I get from reading the two blurbs above is that neither of these candidates are speaking directly to my concerns about student loans. Sure, they are talking about making college more affordable, but that’s really a false issue. Think about it – why do you think the cost of higher education keeps skyrocketing? It has nothing to do with the salaries of professors or staff (despite what you might hear). The truth is that colleges are in a cutthroat race against each other to provide higher levels of service and better, more modern facilities. And neither of these candidates has a solution that addresses that problem because, frankly, it’s not a concern that should be handled at the federal level!

You may be wondering, “Then what would be a good answer for you on this topic, Joe?” Well, I’ll tell you! I don’t want to hear about the cost of higher education decreasing because of higher federal subsidies. No. Instead, I want to hear that good, honest, decent students who academically perform in a remarkably successful manner while attending a public high school will be offered a path to a reasonably affordable bachelor’s degree in the public higher education system. What does that mean? It means that if you score at the highest levels of your high school class, then there ought to be a program for you to receive a dramatic tuition reduction (if not just free tuition) to attend the local county college for two years. Once you complete those two years, if you maintain that high level of academic achievement, then the same financial benefit (either dramatically reduced tuition rates or free tuition) should carry over to a four year public institution.

In this scenario, you can receive a college education at almost no cost, so long as you bust your butt in the classroom to earn it. As a guy who has been a student on-and-off for 30 years and as a guy who has taught in several different types of classrooms, I can tell you that there just aren’t that many students who would qualify for this type of program. So why not offer this program – and do it at the state level without getting the federal government involved – starting immediately? New Jersey used to have this type of program, but it was gutted and I don’t think it’s in existence any more.

When it comes to student loans – there isn’t much substance on either side of the election thus far.

A Catholic Church Group Suggests 2012 Election is a “Test of Fire”

by Leave a Comment

You don’t have to like my religion – heck, you don’t have to like your own religion! However, I like my Roman Catholic faith and I both read up on it as well as review the different contemporary interpretations of its values. To that end, I see videos like the one below as presenting an interesting message in how Catholics should attempt to live up to their faith. Take a look, more discussion afterwards.

The message here is obvious, right? If you’re Catholic, then you should probably vote for the candidate that will support religious freedom as defined by not forcing religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees. Like it or not, I agree with that stance. I think if you’re a registered, recognized religious organization (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, whatever!), then you are protected by the Constitution’s guaranty of religious freedom. Further, I think if the government tells you that you have to do anything that is fundamentally against your teachings, then the government is wrong.

I have no interest in going into details on the other issues noted in the video such as the job creation, the economy, the definition of marriage (my take on this particular issue is totally out of view with the mainstream anyway since I don’t think the government should be saying anyone is “married”), and so on. However, I do think the overall message of the video is one that religious folks should consider during this election cycle and all election cycles: do you vote according to what is popular or do you seriously consider the issues and vote according to your faith?

Most folks would assume that voting your faith means that you’re going to vote Republican. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. In some parts of this country, the education reform movement is bolstered and supported by the Democratic Party and thus if you vote your Christian faith (or whatever faith you are) you may be persuaded to vote Democrat. Further, if you are of a new age Christian faith where your interpretation of the Bible redefines marriage and the structure of civil society, then you’re probably also voting Democrat.

The point here is two fold. First, I like that the video encourages religious people to consider what their faith teaches them about the issues of the day. Second, don’t be so quick to assume that integrating a faith-based perspective into politics automatically means a vote for the Republicans or the Democrats.

Give it some thought. If you believe in something greater than yourself that is of a religious nature, then maybe this is the year that you want to let your faith be your guide.

A Few, Early Thoughts on the 2012 Presidential Election

by Leave a Comment

This year we – the voters – get the fun of a Presidential election. In 2012, the choice is between the incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama and the Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Though I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t mind citing who I voted for in the prior presidential elections. In 2000 I didn’t vote (and I couldn’t tell you why – I honestly don’t remember), in 2004 I voted for George W. Bush, and in 2008 I voted for Obama. The reason I voted for Bush in 2004 is because he was the right man for the job at that time and his competition (Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts) just wasn’t the man to be President. Similarly, the reason that I voted for Obama was because he was the right man for the job. The difference between my vote for Obama and my vote for Bush was that Bush was ready for the job and Obama was a little green under the collar. However, I thought that with the cast of characters surrounding Obama (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc) that he would be able to cobble together a decent first year, learn about executive leadership while on the job, and then have an outstanding second, third, and fourth years in office.

As an independent observer, I can’t honestly say that the past four years have been good ones for Obama or for the country.

The root of the problem for the last four years is an executive leadership team (headed up by Obama) who refuse to take blame for the bad things going on in the country. They point to prior administrations and say the bad things are their fault, not the fault of the current administration. That argument may have worked during the first days, weeks, and months of the administration, but at some point you bought the farm and its lack of crops is your fault. Obama and his advisors don’t seem to get that simple fact of management – that at some point you can no longer point behind you and say, “This is all their fault.”

So I look at a guy like Obama – a guy who doesn’t understand leadership and doesn’t understand the economy and there’s no way I can see myself voting for him again. His Presidency will go down as one of the most mediocre, if not fiscally atrocious, ones in the modern era.

And then I turn and look at a guy like Mitt Romney and I want to put my fist through the wall.

Really, Republicans? Really? This is the guy you chose to run against Obama? Good grief.

When I look at Romney I see what the man is – a very rich, northeastern businessman who dabbled in politics for a little while and has been running for President since 2007. He made a ton of money as an investor before he became a politician and that doesn’t bother me at all. Good for him. I hope everyone has an opportunity in their lives to make the type of money that Romney made. Granted, not everyone will seize that opportunity or even be presented with that type of opportunity in the first place, but I don’t begrudge anybody on this planet their success or their natural environment. In other words, if you’re born into a rich family like Romney, then I don’t hold that against you. If you choose to flaunt that wealth like it’s your own (think Paris Hilton and the crew of morons that she hangs around with), then I think you deserve the near-unanimous scorn that you get from the public.

Romney might have been born into money, but he made a ton more money on his own and I don’t hate him for that success.

What I find absolutely shocking, though, is that the Republican power brokers decided to make this man the presidential nominee when his core life experience doesn’t speak – at all – to the group of Americans who are most upset with the Obama administration. If you look at the folks out there who are disenfranchised by and upset with Obama’s performance, then you’d see that they are mostly middle class people who live in the heartland of American. Sure, some of the liberal-leaning people from the far West and East Coasts are also fed up with Obama’s inability to lead and fundamental dislike of the capitalist economy, but you can’t talk to the fringes of the disenfranchised and expect that to ignite the type of fire that can throw a sitting President out of office. And that’s what the Republicans did by selecting Romney – they chose a guy whose life experience is cut from a different cloth than the type of people who want Obama out of office. They chose a rich guy who has absolutely no idea what it’s like to struggle financially, what it’s like to not be able to find a job, what it’s like to have seemingly insurmountable bills piling up week after week, month after month.

Did the Republicans have to pick a “common man” to be their nominee in order to beat Obama? Not necessarily. They should have, however, picked a guy who at least speaks to the common man’s experience in America. That’s not Mitt Romney. At all.

The bottom line is – do you think Romney would be a better leader than Obama and I think the answer is a simple, unenthusiastic “yes.” The man was a wild success as a businessman/investor and a good executive-level politician. That’s it. He’s got the charisma of a wet noodle and is about as endearing as a bruise that won’t go away.

Where that leaves me this November is in an uncertain place. In good conscience, I can’t vote for Obama again. Aside from lying during the campaign (remember the line that no one making less than $250,000 would see their taxes go up? Yeah – then we got the myriad hidden taxes to pay for his healthcare law… liar), he’s just not grounded in the realities of this economy. However, my gut tells me that Romney isn’t the right man for the job. He has no connection to the disgruntled voter base and simply doesn’t understand what it’s like to be a regular, working class or struggling person in today’s America.

It’s a shame that there isn’t a strong third party in America because this is the election where they’d see major success. You have the Libertarian party running former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, but they aren’t given any coverage by the media. There’s always the chance that a guy like Ron Paul could launch an independent candidacy and challenge both Obama and Romney, but that would just about secure the reelection of Obama and I don’t think Paul wants to do that at all. Or, you could just not vote this time around, but I prefer to actually vote because you get a chance to vote for the “undercard” including state and local elections (where, I think, a person’s votes actually matter).

Not sure who I’ll vote for this November, but a third party looks more exciting than either of the big two candidates. All I know for sure is that I absolutely cannot vote for Obama again.

Guy on MSNBC Goes Crazy – And is Dead Right on the Economy

by 2 Comments

Sometimes, the liberal sycophants on MSNBC hit the nail directly on the head. The video below depicts one of those times. I’m not sure what the guy in the video’s name is, but I share every single one of his frustrations. The only place where he and I differ is in wanting this President to stand up and make and lead the Congress and the country. More thoughts after the video…

The reason why I’m not interested in watching Barack Obama continue to be the “leader” of this country is because the man has very poor leadership skills. And don’t think I’m flattered with the Republicans, either. When I look at the national, elected Republican leadership I can’t help but shake my head while thinking, “Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are the best that this party can do?”

The economy is in the dump because, in part, the leadership qualities of our nation’s leaders are even further in the dump.

Celebrating President’s Day with a Trip Down Memory Lane

by Leave a Comment

In recognition of America’s great Presidents, most people have off from work today. And though today is a day to remember the great lives of men like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin Roosevelt, I thought I would take today to talk about all of the times that I was President of an organization. I figure the shoe fits, somewhat…

Once upon a time I was the Vice-President of the eighth grade class back in Mount Arlington Public School. At the same time I was President of the school’s band. I really can’t remember much about either position, so I don’t have anything to comment on here. Sorry.

High School
When I got to Roxbury High School, I ran for Vice-President of the Freshman class and won that election. I don’t recall much about what we did Freshman year other than maybe a fundraiser or two. I wasn’t overly pleased with the position of being “Vice-President” so as Sophomore year came closer I ran against the sitting President for her position and won. As I recall, being President of the Sophomore class was very much like the being Vice-President of the Freshman class – we didn’t do much. You know, sometimes these high school kids run for office on platforms of being able to change the food in the cafeteria or being able to get better parking situations for the students. The reality is that all of that stuff is off limits to the students and handled by teachers and unions.

Anyway, I ran for President of the Junior class (won that one, too) and at least in this position I was able to plan our Junior Prom. That was a lot of fun because we had a certain budget to work within (I don’t remember how much it was now, but it was thousands of dollars) and we managed to come in under budget. That was a good accomplishment and something that I don’t think normally happened when planning these things.

As my Junior year came to a close I had to choose between running for President of the Senior class or running for the President of the Student Council. There were two things that swayed my decision. The first was that the President of the Senior class is the President of the class for life. In other words, you have to horde all of the memorabilia for the class, you have to plan the reunions, you have to try to stay in touch with everyone…not for me. The second thing that swayed my decision was that the President of the Student Council was a more prestigious position.

So I ran for Student Council President and won (there’s a pattern here, guys). One of my good friends from grade school was running for the President of the Senior class so I endorsed her candidacy and she wound up winning, too.

I liked being Student Council President because it gave me direct access to the Principal and allowed me to plan some of the school-wide events like spirit days and some of our community-based events. For example, Roxbury High School holds a dance every year at the high school for the local senior citizen center. I helped to plan that event and it was really a lot of fun. Also, Roxbury has a winter dance for all students every year and that was a lot of fun to plan, too. And since my buddy was the President of the Senior class, I helped her plan our Senior Prom.

Being President of the Junior class and Student Council President was great training on how to work within a budget, how to manipulate a budget, how to advertise and publicize events where people need to purchase tickets to attend, etc. I really enjoyed those positions. Oh, and on my way out of Roxbury High School I was in charge of the school-wide elections so I convinced a bunch of the younger football players and wrestlers who I had been mentoring to run for positions and I think almost all of them won. I thought that was a good way to leave a lasting impression on the school.

Monmouth University – Sigma Pi Fraternity
When I arrived at college I could have kept climbing the ladder and eventually become President of the Student Government, but I really had no interest. In fact, I had no interest in being “involved” other than doing my school work and making new friends. And that’s what I did for my first semester – met new people, scored a 3.9 GPA, had a whole lot of fun – typical college stuff. But sometimes you can’t hold down the urge inside…

When my second semester began, I decided to pledge Sigma Pi Fraternity (there’s another story behind that, which I might get to at some point). I think there were 9 or 10 guys in my pledge class – I don’t remember any more. However, I do remember that they made me the President of the pledge class and I remember that because they elected me as the President due to my high grades, but the position of President meant that I was quizzed and questioned before the rest of the guys. No big deal, I learned the fraternity history pretty quickly so I didn’t mind.

After I was initiated (almost ten years ago), I didn’t really come around to any of the meetings or events until the week before the semester ended (and at that, I only really remember going to a party and eventually passing out on a couch that was broken and busted). When I began my first full semester as a member of the chapter it had been quite some time since I was in a position of real power (over a year since I was Student Council President). So the urge to do something substantial was bearing down on me and at the end of the semester I opted to run against the sitting President of the fraternity (who was a very well-respected Senior).

That guy dropped out of the race before the guys cast their ballots and I won by default. That was December 2000. I kept running for re-election and remained the President of the chapter until January 2003 (which was actually one month too long, but we did the transfer ceremony to the next President late).

There are a bunch of reasons why I remained President for so long. At its core, I think the reason is because I needed the challenge that the Presidency gave to me and the chapter needed the professionalism that I demanded of myself and the organization. It was a good, symbiotic relationship that was helped by this thing in my head that demands that I become the best at what I do, period. So while I was President, we ended a lot of the bad traditions in the chapter and started (or brought back) some better ones. More than anything else, I remember that being chapter President was more like running a small town than a small business. I say that because when you run a small business you have your actions and maybe the actions of two or three other people to worry about in addition to your finances, advertising, planning for the future, etc. Running a fraternity chapter, though, encompasses all of those things but to a much higher degree. Plus, you had to work within regional and national structures as well as with local officials. Also, at one point we had over 50 guys (which is a substantial number for Monmouth University’s campus – about 2.5% of all men on the campus were members of our fraternity) and all of the guys were out there doing their own thing.

One of the reasons that I was an effective leader, I think, was because I delegated responsibility and didn’t get bogged down in the nitty gritty bullshit that takes place in fraternity chapters. When the guys wanted to have a party, I had people that took care of the parties. When the guys wanted to have a rush event, I had a committee that took care of the rush event. When we had to teach the new classes about the fraternity, we had guys to do that, too. I saw my job as managing the fraternity’s relationship with the external communities and training/guiding the rest of my leadership team on how to manage the chapter.

It was pretty damn successful, too. We dug ourselves out of a $9,000 debt, more than tripled the size of the chapter, and skyrocketed up the national rankings (the chapter was eventually ranked #1 in the nation while I was the Chapter Director a.k.a. local advisor). Plus, our image on campus was heightened by all of the great things we were doing to the point where I won my final election to become President of the InterFraternity Council…and I wasn’t even present at the election!

Being IFC President was fun because when the university told us that we couldn’t do certain things that are fundamental parts of self-governing, I dissolved the IFC. That spark was part of what eventually lead to a somewhat reform of Greek Life at Monmouth University, but that’s an entry for another time.

So there you have it, folks. Those are all of the times (that I can remember) where I was President of an organization. Happy President’s Day!

Tell Obama to Remove “Big Agriculture” from the USDA

by Leave a Comment

Hey, I know that I hoot and holler a lot about our country getting a better, more sustainable food supply. For those of you that are bothered by this, I’m sorry but it’s one of the things that I feel strongly about these days. I really believe that our countrymen have been put in a bad way because of a lousy food supply that is based more on corn than on natural elements. Seriously, take a read of any of Michael Pollan’s books and you’ll understand how incredible this change has been and how it has effected us as a people.

That’s why I joined the Food Democracy mailing list – so I could use whatever voice I have in this world to advocate on behalf of bringing our food system back to basics. Part of that change – and make no mistake about it, this is the change that I voted for – is removing from the government those organizations that have an interest in mass producing quick, low-cost sources of food. With that in mind, this is the latest e-mail that I received from Food Democracy:

Dear Friends,

Speak up to stop Big Ag.

President Obama has found himself with some strange bedfellows lately.

While on the campaign trail in Iowa, Barack Obama boasted, “We’ll tell ConAgra that it’s not the Department of Agribusiness. We’re going to put the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.”1 Despite that promise, it seems that ConAgra’s friends at Monsanto and CropLife are still finding their way into the USDA.

Last month, President Obama nominated two “Big Ag” power brokers–Roger Beachy and Islam Siddiqui–to key agency positions, putting agribusiness executives in charge of our country’s agricultural research and trade policy. Please join us in telling the President that this isn’t the change we voted for. We don’t want Big Ag running the show any more.

Siddiqui’s confirmation hearing is set for next week. Please help us reach our goal of 50,000 signatures to make a real impact.

http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/65?akid=35.18844.xoo-6g&t=1

Obama’s first agribusiness selection is Roger Beachy, to be head of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Beachy is the founding president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, MO. It may sound innocuous, but the Danforth Center is essentially the non-profit arm of GMO seed giant Monsanto; Monsanto’s CEO sits on its board, and the company provides considerable funding for the Center’s operations.2

As the head of the USDA’s new research arm, formerly known as the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CREES), Beachy is responsible for deciding how U.S. research dollars will be spent in agriculture.3 Translation: more research on biotech, less research on how to scale sustainable and organic agriculture.

Unfortunately, Beachy has already started work at the USDA, but the next nominee—Islam Siddiqui—still must be confirmed by the U.S.Senate. Siddiqui, the Vice President of Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, was recently nominated to be the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the Office of the US Trade Representative.4 Amazingly, when Michele Obama planted her “organic” garden on the White House lawn, Siddiqui’s CropLife MidAmerica sent the First Lady a letter saying that it made them “shudder”.5

During his career, Siddiqui spent over 3 years as a pesticide lobbyist, an Undersecretary at the USDA and a VP at CropLife. In defending Siddiqui, the White House has stated that he played a key role in helping establish the country’s first organic standards.6 What they neglect to mention, though, is that those original organic standards would have allowed irradiation, sewage sludge and GMOs to undermine organic integrity! The standards were so watered down that 230,000 people signed a petition for them to be changed, which they eventually were.7

Fortunately, the organic community stopped Siddiqui and his cronies then, and we need your help now to do it again. If Siddiqui’s nomination is allowed to go through, then agribusiness will continue to control the seeds, the science, and the distribution of global food and agriculture.

Please join Food Democracy Now! and a broad coalition of other groups, in calling on President Obama to keep his campaign promise of closing the revolving door between agribusiness and his administration.

Please click here to add your voice.

http://fdn.actionkit.com/go/65?akid=35.18844.xoo-6g&t=1

Thanks for standing with us and our coalition partners from across the country, including: The Pesticide Action Network (PAN), National Family Farm Coalition, Food & Water Watch, Farmworker’s Association of Florida, Institute of Agriculture & Trade Policy, Greenpeace and the Center for Food Safety in calling for President Obama to live up to his promises to put people’s interests ahead of special interests

As I’ve said in previous entries on this topic, it takes less than a minute to send a brief message to the White House. Please take some time and, if this issue interests you, send a message to the White House. I’m realistic. I know that changes today won’t effect the food supply tomorrow, but I do think that changes in the food supply will help future generations of my family and our country eat more natural foods and thus be healthier people.

The Game The White House Is Playing With FOX News

by Leave a Comment

Unless you don’t watch television news, I’m sure you’ve been keeping somewhat of an eye on the battle started by the White House against FOX News. The folks in the White House have suggested that FOX News isn’t a real news outlet and they’ve even begun to cut them out of interview opportunities. The New York Times ran an article on this struggle this morning which does a great job of covering what, exactly, the White House’s beef is and the FOX News response.

There is a lot to write about this particular issue. I could write about how one of my liberal professors is touting the White House’s opposition to FOX News strictly on ideological grounds. One could also write about how Chris Wallace from FOX News Sunday hit the nail directly on the head when he suggested that this White House is filled with a bunch of crybabies. Or one could write about how other news stations are sticking up for FOX. In fact, directly from that New York Times article comes this:

In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”

Pretty respectable for the competition to honor the unfair treatment that FOX News has been receiving, huh?

However, I want to focus on two things regarding this issue – the White House’s intentional blur between what is news and what is opinion on FOX News and the game that the White House is playing with FOX News.

First, anyone who studies media or watches a great deal of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News while reading a diversity of newspapers can tell you that there are only so many ways a company can report a story. When a tornado hits Kansas, you don’t often hear FOX News reporters saying, “A tornado hit Kansas today and the lousy liberals are to blame.” Just like you don’t hear any legitimate reporter on MSNBC blaming conservatives for acts of God. When it comes down to reporting events from around the world, you’re going to read or watch the same report no matter where you go.

However, when it comes to commentary, you’re going to get a divergent approach to “reporting.” Bill O’Reilly calls himself a “humble correspondent.” That’s part of his approach to opinion journalism and there is nothing wrong with that at all! O’Reilly takes a very traditional view on the issues, but that’s okay because he’s hosting a program that is rooted in commentary. Glenn Beck has a staunchly libertarian point of view. Now, those who are not well-versed in political ideology would suggest that Beck is a conservative, but he’s not. So the next time you hear a mass media report or read in a newspaper that Beck is a conservative, then you need to second guess that source of news. Sean Hannity, on the other hand, is a hardcore conservative and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.

FOX News clearly labels these programs as commentary and anyone who knows anything about social interaction beyond “Hello, my name is…” can tell that these programs are NOT news-based! The White House isn’t filled with dummies, they understand that these programs are opinion programs. However, their strategy is to lump the legitimate news departments in with these opinion programs to paint FOX News with a broad, anti-liberal, anti-Obama brush. They know that by doing this, there will be a certain percentage of the population that completely agrees with them and will eventually take over this fight now that it has been brought up at a higher level. It’s a shame that such easily influenced, non-critical thinking people exist to do the White House’s prolonged dirty work.

My second point is that the White House actually managed to do something that they hadn’t been able to do up until they began attacking FOX News, i.e. get the FOX News commentators to STOP digging into the backgrounds of Obama’s staff. Think about it. Glenn Beck single-handedly led to Van Jones’ downfall, which opened up the door for other media organizations to wonder what they had missed out on (read the New York Times article linked above). This, frankly, scared the hell out of the White House and led to them attacking FOX News. If the media is covering itself, then they’re NOT digging into the people who maybe shouldn’t be sitting around the table with the President, right?

Hopefully, people will begin to notice this on a large scale and begin to demand that their White House stop engaging in partisan attacks on the media and, instead, get back to the job of running this country.