Monsanto to fuck up American Society more... thanks to the 'Organic Elite'

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm

In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."


Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?

According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.

WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.

From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.

The abject lying is astounding. It's all about profit for these 'Organic Elite'. Why am I not surprised Whole Foods is one of the idiot corporations behinds this?

Look I don't object to researching and developing new food solutions, provided -

1. They don't deploy them on the public at-large without thorough testing and safeguards in place.
2. And, most important, that those that create them are held accountable by the public for hazzards, dangers, and heath risks they do unleash them (this is why all that talk from people about 'tort reform' betrays their ignorance and pre-fed corpro-talking-points).

Companies like Monsanto don't do that. That's why people don't trust them.

A whole lot more about Monsanto here.

America: "unqualifie­d goodness".

Ah Stephen Colbert's writers could not have come up with a better term.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/chuck_becker/cow-most-sacred-why-milit_b_814888_75389705.html

Read more here.

Quote of the day - 01-26-2011

"... if you think that it is right to inherit an exalted position above your fellow man by accident of birth and blood, then you don’t — cannot — believe that all men and women are created equal — you must put some in a better class than others — and therefore you don’t truly believe in democracy."

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2010/republic/the_republic_monarchies_and_gender_equality/comment-page-1/#comment-766

I could not agree more.

One of the reasons I'd have a hard time living in Canada, is that, if I really believe that I want to make a difference in my live and my families' lives, I'd do what I can to improve life for everyone. As much as it'd pain me to admit, at present the only way to that would be to run for political office.

Which leads to the comment above.

Canada (like other Commonwealth Nations) is legally defined as a 'constitutional monarchy', which recognizes Elizabeth Windsor as the nation's Sovereign ruler.

I don't believe in this whole divine right crap. I would not submit my will to someone just because of their 'Royal Prerogative', nor would I humor such a person by pretending or faking it.

I would shake her hand and say hello if I met her, because my parents taught me to be polite and respectful.

But that's it, nothing more.

I don't bow to someone just because they are styled as a 'monarch', or 'queen', or 'emperor', or what ever exalted title they wish to bestow on themselves (hence my agreement with comment above).

I'm a citizen of Canada by birth - I don't pledge allegiance to something that I already am, nor do I bow to someone who considers themselves worthy of that action because they wear a crown.

But, in order to serve in public office, I'd have to swear an oath to this person. Why?

Yes I know it's largely ceremony and all that. And I understand that it's been part of the country's history.

But that's a part of our collective past that I think should be left there. It's from centuries ago, and it should stay there.

Time to move forward, in the 21 century. It's time to end the monarchy rule in Canada.

Battle of Seattle?

Yes there was one.

Well, okay, there was one, on this day in 1856 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Seattle_(1856))
I don't feel sorry for Dexter Horton. Perhaps if he had become the last casualty, the country wouldn't be dealing with Bank of America's shady business practices.

Traditional media, the American Establishment, and the right-wing.

Some blogs and places I’ve gone online have been forever shocked by what’s going on in the American cable television world.

Long ago, I've come to the conclusion that all cable and network 'news' our 'journalism' programs are neither news nor journalism.

They are entertainment for their target audience - conservative, right-wing, and usually Republican.  This should come as no surprise.

 
Think about it -

All these network and cable outfits in this country are owned by large media corporations, which contain divisions that distribute entertainment across many media (television, radio, music, Internet, print, etc.). And not just America – this spans much of the rest of the world.

These corporations - like pretty much all of them - are all driven by maximizing profit and attaining higher shareholder return, much of which comes from advertising revenue. Advertisers of products are the actual customer. The actual consumer of their products (i.e. the television-viewing public) are not. At least not directly. The audience views the news, views the ads, buys the products being advertised. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So it shouldn't surprise anyone that their products serve largely as vehicles to drive ads.


Most large powerful corporations are essentially part of the American Establishment. And said establishment is by nature conservative - it wants to keep things are they are.


 And I've sort of taken for granted that television audiences (i.e. the are generally decreasing among younger generations, and becoming increasingly more old and conservative.
 
So I could just tune it all out and get my information from a variety of other sources and be good to go, yes?
 
Well I could. Except -

While folks like Media Matters, FAIR, and so forth do a great job in documenting, analyzing and refuting much of the toxic stuff dumped into their audiences' minds, it's always after-the-fact, and never in real-time. In other words, the damage is done when such falsehood are not challenged right there and then. It's as if the audience is hermetically sealed in pool of corrosive ideas, that keep said audiences locked in, obedient and ignorant. And when ignorant people attain political power and use it, the whole world suffers as a result.

What is the answer then? I need to think about this some more.

Overheard on a bus - an explanation.

As positive as I try to be, a lot of times this site ends up being a laundry list of things I can't stand. This comes as no surprise to me, as it seems to be a trend in my life. That is, I may not be good at finding success, but seem to have an uncanny ability to spot bullshit, stupidity, and people being general morons.


(Not that I’m ever a general moron – no).

Uh... Anyways … one of my major pet peeves is being forced or subjected to something that could easily be stopped by a higher authority.

Case in point – when riding public transportation like a bus, there are rules posted that indicate that riders should not bother other riders. In my case, one of the specific Common Sense Guidelines is to ‘Respect other passengers' privacy’.

As I’m not an employee of the public transit authority (and neither are most of the general rider population), enforcement of said rules typically falls on the driver (oh sorry, ‘coach operator’).

Problems arise because I’ve found most bus drivers to be idiotic, or they do stupid things, like be racist, and therefore are unable to concentrate on anything but drive the bus, or too stupid to actually do part of their job and enforce the ‘Common Sense Guidelines’.

Never mind that ‘Unreasonably disturbing others by engaging in loud, raucous, unruly, harmful, abusive or harassing behavior.’ ... is a criminal offence.
So, if such behavior is criminal, and drivers are supposed to enforce it, why then am I subjected to it regularly by other riders? In other words, why are other riders morons?

I respect the ‘guideline’. I mind my own business.

But for some reason, there are individuals who maybe due to inadequate parenting, or for some other reason, cannot seem to get that the rest of us don’t want to hear Rihanna pumped up on your phone loud for us to ‘groove’ to. Or, that I don’t care if you missed your flight because you slept in, again, and need to complain about it?

What bothers me more is the lack of enforcement.

So, what’s the solution? How can I ‘fight back’, even if it’s otherwise meaningless?

Well, it occurred to me I have a blog. It also occurred to me that taking down the information I’m forced to hear on the bus is my own business.

So, why not print it out here? My hordes of readers can decide for themselves on the level of idiocy.

With that in mind, I present the first two installments of ‘Overheard on a bus’.


1) 01/20/2011

People: Caucasian female, mid-20’s, bottle blond, glasses, overweight, and appeared to be wearing blue scrubs.

Evidently all the men in her life are perverts even though they are married and have kids, and are all hitting on her. She also cannot stand all the assignments she gets at school. They are below her, but she doesn't feel the need to complete them - it's a waste of her time.



2) 01/21/2011

People: Caucasian female, early/mid-30’s, bottle blond, slim and Caucasian male, early 40’s.

Tang is apparently a great thing (better than orange juice) along with Vanilla Wafers were the best thing about Sunday school. I don't know why, but I cannot begin do describe how many levels that's fucked up.

Rocket Robin Hood DVD - a review

As some of you may know, I've been a fan of this cartoon series since I was a small child.

Over the holidays, I had the chance to order both Volumes 1 and 2. I discovered that with the exception of one episode, I've got the whole series.

Having watched the bulk of it, I think I can say now what I think of it.

Like the 1967 Spider-Man series that was produced by the same group (and around the same time), I can honestly say that I find the first two seasons in terms or writing and quality stand the test of time in terms of entertainment, far better than the third season.

Granted, the animation wasn't probably up to the standards of today, even then. It doesn't matter much to me. I've always been attracted to shows that are plot- and character-driven. It's largely the same with animated shows as well.

As for the DVD transfer -

Like the animation, it's inconsistent at best. It looks like they made one honest attempt, and stuck with it. This could be because the original source material (as stated in each DVD disk) was fragile, or it could be that they didn't have the budget to go any farther, or it could be that no one really cared as they didn't see a whole lot of profit ...

... well regardless ... it doesn't really matter much to me.

The writing, and the characters are there. Indeed I found them entertaining as a child, and continue to do so as an adult. There are touches of wit that I didn't know existed, and the characters remain as memorable as I recall. I think part of the appeal is that I find many of them quite endearing (Little John, Friar Tuck, even the Sheriff of NOTT).

From what I've read, the budgets were severely cut after the first season, which led to them using or re-using tremendous amounts of previous created footage wherever and whenever possible. That itself doesn't bother me so much as the what happened in Spider-Man, where they'd be endless amounts of time and space spent doing almost nothing. Those aspects of the later season might have been viewed as 'cool' and 'psychedelic' back then, but they seem very dated and boring now (that and recycling of episodes - I think the stoned element segment was in three separate Season 3 episodes, all of which featured Will and Robin).

The more campy aspects of the show (from the first two seasons) actually stand up better - at least to me.

The other aspect of the show I've always dug - was the music.

Like the Spider-man series, the music is phenomenal. A combination styles (surf, jazz, classical) and different instruments (strings, horns, guitar and lot of percussion), with some distinct themes that echo suspense, tension, sadness, happiness, and resolution - truly add to the overall impact of each episode.

I know, there are many out there in Intenetland who revile this show, its animation, heck the whole concept (people flying in space without life-support - Meh!).

But these people are either revisionist in their thinking, or they are still awaiting surgery to have the sticks pulled out of their asses, or some combination of both.

The show was targeted to kids. It was fantasy. In a kid's world, it's completely believable, and entertaining. These jokers who revile the show, probably think it was cool that Star Trek TOS was re-mastered with new special effects, which add nothing to the enjoyment of the show (because, like Spider-Man, and Rocket Robin Hood, Star Trek was plot- and character-driven, the special effects were secondary, and really don't interfere with enjoyment of the final product. And those stories' impacts are supported by strong and distinct musical themes).

That's what these people will never get. To each their own I guess.

Clueless Joe

In honor of Senator Joseph Lieberman's pending departure from the US Senate come 2012 (another two years of this person, sigh), and his rather moronic reaction when shown Americans were lied to for the rationale for invading Iraq back in 2003 by Arriana Huffington, I publish this set of lyrics, set to the tune of the original Curious George cartoon theme song -

Clueless Joe

The clueless right-wing moron

There he goes

Lying as he leaves …

Clueless Joe

The classless right-wing moron

There were no WMD in Iraq

Time for you to go

Clueless Joe

The clueless right-wing moron

‘Read it, sweetheart’

The words of a beaten jerk …

Clueless Joe

The classless right-wing moron

Why’s he leaving?

Connecticut wants to know?

Clueless Joe

The clueless right-wing moron

‘Every intention’

Doesn’t prove WMD was there …

Clueless Joe

The classless right-wing moron

I’m glad you’re leaving

Leave or we’ll make you go

Those darn pesticides ... ridding the world of all things useful.

Looking back, Theobald wonders if the losses were really caused entirely by the mites, or if the pesticide imidacloprid played a role. Both imidacloprid and clothianidin are "neonicotinoids," a class of pesticides that has risen in popularity in the last fifteen years. Imidacloprid, the first of the neonicotinoids to be commercialized, was registered in the U.S. in 1994. Neonicotinoids attack the nervous system of insects. They are frequently used by treating seeds prior to planting. Then, once the plant grows, the pesticide spreads to all parts of the plant -- including the pollen. The hope is that only pests who try to feed on the plant will be killed, and beneficial insects will not be affected. Sadly, it appears that the bees never got that memo.

Read more here.

(h/t to SourceWatch here).

Who knows what impact will be down the road to anyone who's consumed the by-products of what the bees collected?

Thank you EPA for trying to kill us all, and cover it up!

Gold stars for all of you!

Another one bites the dust.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/comcastrophy-comcastnbc-m_b_810380.html

Well more aspects of democracy, Internet openess, and customer choice have been gutted today.

Get ready for the Internet to become a lot closer to being more like cable and phone service: crappy, expensive, and owned by large corporations who's bottom line is their revenue, and nothing else.

Growing up in today's America.

As a parent to two small children, I do one of the many thing all parents do - I read books to my kids.

It's inevitable. If you want to encourage kids to read and learn, you have to start by reading to them. I also think it's important to also supplement that with telling them stories, in addition to reading them.

One of the great things about books by Dr. Seuss and Richard Scarry, is that by using animals instead of people, they took the racial element out of stories and lessons being taught to kids. They may not have always been consistent, and I may not have always agreed with the lesson being taught, but I largely thought it was a good idea to separate cultural elements from actual lessons.

And yet, in reading the new crop of books prevalent in today's America, I'm astounded at how much more 'whiter' the worlds these books send children to, really are. Lots of color, not just so much in the main character.

Increasingly, everything is written from the perspective of Caucasian females. Sure there are males, and yes there are non-white characters, but doing this is what I call being more liberalish - i.e. branding of characters to appear liberal to a primarily white audience.

The other even more disturbing thing is how increasingly emasculating these books also are. It's amazing how much connection there is between these books and product advirtisements, and shopping malls. Males (both boys and men) are treated as dolts, oafish, and often wrong. Conversely, females (specifically girls) are either well-behaved and 'wronged', or snobby and 'right'.

I guess I should not be so surprised - most children's books are written by white women, from a white perspective and largely for girls. Nothing wrong with that by itself, if it weren't for the following -

Must they always do so with concious and sub-concious digs at males (boys and men)?
Must they always be so white (how come not other races)?

And even when a lead character is male (Harry Potter), he's often impotent and silly. He needs female characters to help him address problems.

In these books, a strong smart boy or man is absent.

Some recent examples -

• Fancy Nancy, Super Why - the white characters are the leading ones. They have non-whites, but they are always secondary. Why? Just pointing that out is in and of itself an example of Caucasians creating a 'liberalish' environment really for themselves, not all people.

• I came across a spider book/cartoon - and it was rather sad to see the women/mommies are the dominant source of all that is right; and the male adult characters either stupid, or subservient.

• Serendepity - fictional innocent righteous sea creature is a 'girl' man-handling (literally) evil bad fishermen. And of course men are the ones destroying earth and sea in these books.

What kind of message does this send to boys, apart from 'You're whipped and deserve to be put in your place!'? Maybe that's not the message I want my son getting.

What kind of message does this send to girls? - You go grrl. You know it's alright to encourage girls to be smart, and strong, but arrogant and snobby?

Some more sad examples -

• The princess meme, for example. Little girls should be placed on a pedestal over everyone and worshipped because they are sweet and innocent and holier than thou (just a bunch of moral superiority bullshit).

• Or even worse, the 'fairy' syndrome, where girls are held up as magical, special and power, while boys are usually clueless or stupid, while any male always are secondary, wrong, or both.

Does this mean in order for my kids to get any kind of perspective of the world other than a white female version, I'd have to write my own books? Who has the time to do that?

Though  ... it occurs to me I should not be so quick to judge. Maybe I should stop and consider that my kids are people too, they can think, they can act. Perhaps I should listen more to them?

Ultimately I have to realize that a book is a book, and that - by itself -  reading it isn't as important as talking about it with my kids, and listening to what they say. This is something I need to do more often.

While the solution is to pick better books, and let my children know that 1) I don't always agree and support all the books there; and 2) explain to them why, I should never lose sight of the bigger picture - as their parent and father, it's up to me to provide the the best example of how to be in life.

Zellers - > soon to be Target

Woolco.
Woolworth.
Pascal.
Eaton's.
Dominion.
Steinberg.
Miracle Mart.
Simpson's.
Consumers Distributing.

Now ... Zellers.

I always thought of Target as a knock-off of Zellers. I don't fully know the history of Target (I wasn't aware that some form of it existed back in 1902). Guess it doesn't matter now.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2011/01/13/target-zelles-takeover.html

"The Zellers locations will continue to exist under that brand name for "a period of time," HBC said in a release. But Target will convert 100 to 150 of those Zellers locations to Target stores in 2013 and 2014 and sell the rest of the current Zellers network of store leases to other retailers."

I understand things change over time (heck the Hudson Bay Company, which is the oldest North American Company was long a source of British and Canadian pride, until four years ago, when it became just another division in an unimportant chain in some large conglomerate not many Americans can afford to shop at, or know about).

But still ... it's hard as a Canadian not to feel sad. I'm not trying to be all revisionist, but overall, I had a fair number of fond memories of buying all sort of toys and goodies at various places like Eaton's, Simpson's, and yes, Zellers.

Same thing with grocery stores like Dominion, and Steinberg - all the nice baked goods. Especially Dominion - they had this way of baking cakes - a smell and taste like no other (yeah I'm aware it may turn out to have been some poisonous ingredients that'll give me cancer some day. Fuck you - I'll live in my memories for a bit longer).

And there was something very Canadian and in my case very Quebecois about going to those places as a kid and even as a teenager. Yes they were businesses, but it's a part of the collective culture that'll never exist going forward, except in my head, and in the heads of others who may feel the same way.

On this day, 67 years ago ...

... The President of United States spoke these words as part his State Of the Union Address -

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; 
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

Sounds like an enlightened idea. I wonder why, 67 years later, we as a nation seem so much farther away from that than ever?

Say hello to the friend that's always been there for you.

Lockheed Martin that is.

Fucking stunning -

Consider all this but a Lockheed Martin précis. A full accounting of its “shadow government” would fill volumes. After all, it’s the number-one contractor not only for the Pentagon, but also for the Department of Energy. It ranks number two for the Department of State, number three for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and number four for the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development. Even listing the government and quasi-governmental agencies the company has contracts with is a daunting task, but here’s just a partial run-down: the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Land Management, the Census Bureau, the Coast Guard, the Department of Defense (including the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Missile Defense Agency), the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Technology Department, the Food and Drug Administration, the General Services Administration, the Geological Survey, the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of State, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Agency, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Did you get all that?

Obama's appointments of JPMorgan Exec and Goldman Adviser to Top Jobs - more of the same lame game.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/9849

Here's a (bit(ter)) taste -

So the chief gate keeper for the President of the United States has been a powerful opponent of the President's agenda, and a NAFTA cheerleader. The chief economic adviser makes a killing advising Goldman, and thinks that offshoring jobs to China will strengthen the U.S. economy.

Normally I'd say what the fuck, but at given the tragic events of this past weekend, I'd say I'm either too emotionally drained, or just plain worn out.
And from the (currently) lone comment -

... there is enough crossover to insure control of the financial situation to the benefit of the few, and to maintain a permanent war and debt economy at the cost of the country and the people.

Treat the problem, not the symptom.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2011/01/05/montreal-er-overcrowding.html

"Hospital emergency rooms in the Montreal area are overcrowded and some patients have been waiting more than two days to see a doctor."

The solution isn't introducing more fees and stocking up the ER rooms to accept large capacities.

Reader Voska1 has the right idea -

I'd like to know how many people are in the ER that don't need to be but have no other option due to lack of a family doctor and not enough walk in clinics. I know where I live we have a shortage of doctors so finding a family doctor is difficult. As well walk in clinics have such short hour and huge line ups that you often can't get in unless you are there at the moment they open. So if you are sick they tell you to go to the ER as they can't get you in during that 3 hour window.


The solution seems to be more family doctors and more walk in clinic with longer hours. But the focus always seem to be on how can the ER handle more traffic. That's just treating the symptom not the problem.

.... OR CURRENT RESIDENT

It never fails to amaze me how little businesses value their customers. It's all about the bottom line.

Sending mail to them with one name, followed by the words ...

"OR CURRENT RESIDENT" along with my address.

really emphasizies how much it's all about money. Nothing makes me feel less important. Frankly as long as anyone leafs through the catalog and orders something and doles out some dough, they're happy.

Whoever came up with that idea is a fucking moron.