|
|
Posts Tagged ‘White House’
Sunday, November 8th, 2009
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.
Posted in Sustainable Living | No Comments »
Friday, October 23rd, 2009
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.
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
Saturday, October 10th, 2009
Are you serious? Look, I like President Barack Obama. By and large I think that he’s doing an okay job. No, he’s not the best President that America has ever had and no, he’s not the worst. Frankly, he’s not been around long enough for anyone to make such judgments. However, it appears that whatever set of dummies that run the Nobel organization have decided that he has been around long enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Again, I’m as American as the next guy in this country and I love the fact that an American won the award. Yet, I can’t help to wonder the basis of President Obama’s nomination or his award. What…exactly…has he done to warrant such a prestigious award?
Could President Obama be the spark that creates great forms of positive change in the world? Well, yeah, I guess. But then again – you or I could be that same spark. Some would argue (successfully, too) that President George W. Bush was such a figure. Others might say that the work that President Bill Clinton has performed since he left office make him a clear choice for the Nobel Peace Prize. But President Obama?
Hmmm…
I think the folks behind this award are suffering from a form of premature exasperation. That’s right. I think that they hear President Obama speak about good will and their hearts flutter. I used to work for a guy who was absolutely euphoric over President Obama winning the White House (he was later fired from the office due to incompetency). It appears that the folks behind this award are absolutely euphoric, too.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to let President Obama actually become the force for good that everyone thinks he can be and THEN reward him for it? Oh wait, I forgot that he’s a liberal minded politician leading a world power during the localization of the globe. In other words – he can do no wrong in some people’s eyes… which is a damn shame.
Congratulations, President Obama. I hope that you live up to this award.
Posted in International Politics, United States Politics | No Comments »
Monday, September 14th, 2009
Like many folks, I like to read the New York Times on the weekend. I read the online version because it allows me to go right to the sections that I want to see. On the weekends, my favorite section is the magazine, but I don’t want to get off course.
From time to time I read through the editorials and opinion pages online. The reason why I normally don’t read through that portion of the newspaper is because the bulk of the writers’ views are slanted so far to the left that to call their opinions those of the Democrats or even the far left would be an insult to both groups. However, hate-monger Maureen Dowd wrote such a hate-filled, racist piece of garbage yesterday that I felt compelled to post about it in this space.
The idea of Dowd’s hate-filled column is that she thinks Representative Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” to President Barack Obama during his speech the other night due to being a racist. She even pulls up some old information on the Representative that she believes proves her point. Frankly, reading her piece made me physically ill. Here are some of her hate-filled, racist rants:
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
In this quote, Dowd admits that she hears and sees the world through the ears and eyes of racist. How someone can insert “boy” into what they hear is beyond me. It’s reprehensible and gives us a window into Dowd’s true hatred of white men. Why didn’t she hear, “You lie, honey!” and claim that Wilson was gay instead of racist? Oh, because she’s a racist and hate-monger.
Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.
No, you racist, sexist asshole. Wilson heard a man who has – by the President’s own words – been unclear about his position on healthcare and he reacted. Did Wilson react correctly? Not at all. He reacted like a child and he ought to be ashamed of himself. But what type of hate-mongering moron could have listened to that childish outburst and interpreted it as racist? How pathetic?
I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.
What a complete scumbag Dowd is! She says that the protests over the summer were efforts to paint Obama as a socialist, fascist, etc? And that it is based in racial politics? What type of crack is this idiot on? Did some people at those rallies have inappropriate signs? Yes. Did MANY more people at the anti-Bush rallies have worse signs? Yes. Did this filthy hate-mongering fool Dowd chastise them? No…she joined them. Talk about being a racist and a sexist pig.
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
Here we have a two-fer! First, Dowd shows that she’s a liar by claiming that no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at President Bush. What a crock of shit. They may not have done it in the Capitol building, but anyone who has 1/4 of a brain knows that the Democrats had a field day calling President Bush a liar over Iraq! Need we forget the false, “Bush lied, people died,” crap? How does the New York Times employ this idiot?
And then she goes on that some people just can’t believe that a black man is the President. Are you fucking serious? How about the fact that some people can’t believe that President Bush was President? Or that a guy with the lack of morals like Bill Clinton was President? Or that a guy who was an actor like Ronald Reagan was President? Talk about making a mindless point…Dowd’s hate-filled column is flush with them!
You can read the rest of her racist, sexist tirade here, if you want. But the real kicker in all of this stuff is that the White House – President Obama’s White House! – completely disagrees with Dowd. Take a read for yourself.
Now, what will it take for Maureen Dowd to be fired? She spouted off on a racist rant against Joe Wilson. Both Republican Joe Wilson and the Democratic White House have indicated that she was wrong. Her rants are clearly those of a demented person who views the world through a racist and sexist lens. And the New York Times is going to allow her to stay on their staff?
For shame.
Posted in Idiots, Morons, & Fools, United States Politics | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
Watching this healthcare debate going back and forth definitely proves one thing…our government is a mess. And it’s not the “form” of government that we have (a democratic republic) that is a mess, rather it’s the people who are currently in elected positions that don’t understand the nature of our country.
When I see both Republicans and Democrats casting off the concerns of their constituency, it makes me wonder how these people keep their offices. Why are there not more recall elections? Where is the political passion in America that we recently saw in the Iranian reformists, for example? Why are there not mass gatherings in Washington DC demanding that the Republicans in Congress and the Democrats both in the White House and the Congressional leadership begin listening to their constituents?
Look, I know that a minority in this country want both a public option for healthcare and a single payer system, but this country was not set up for the majority to be overwhelmed by the minority. In other words, while we listen to the minority voices and take their views into account, those views should not run this nation. Healthcare does need to be reformed so that more people can receive more coverage. But until our elected officials begin to listen to us, nothing will be accomplished.
Unless a third party rises up with a platform based off of the majority of the population’s concerns…
Posted in United States Politics | No Comments »
Friday, August 7th, 2009
With all of the talk going on about the possibility of a middle class tax hike, President Barack Obama needs to tread very, very carefully. As an independent voter, I think many of my fellow independents pulled the lever for Obama due to his repeated refrain during the campaign of not raising taxes on those households making under $250,000 per year. Sitting here and thinking about it, there are no households in my immediate family, extended family, within my network of close friends, and even in my network of “sort of” close friends who bring home more than $250,000 per year. In other words, according to President Obama’s campaign promise everyone that I care about should be safe from a tax hike.
However, there is a lot of rhetoric out in the political sphere right now about the possibility of raising taxes on the very population that President Obama promised not to raise taxes on. Let’s listen to our friends at CNN…
I don’t buy the clarification offered by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. I think that both Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers aren’t skilled in the growing level of doublespeak in this administration. In other words, the further they get from being at President Obama’s side, the more we can expect them to tell us what’s really going on.
It’s scary. President Obama needs to tread lightly on this subject because if he raises taxes – even temporarily – on the middle class, he can kiss the majority in the House and Senate goodbye. Americans don’t like to be lied to. Let’s all hope that President Obama keeps this promise.
Posted in United States Politics | 1 Comment »
|
|
|
| |
|
