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.