[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 2.8 / 25 )I got this message from the True Food Network today:
In the waning months of the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the ranks of federal agencies rushing through new regulations that weaken protections for human health and the environment. USDA has released a proposed rule that would significantly weaken oversight of all genetically engineered crops, and which continue to allow companies to grow food crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals.
The USDA began this process over four years ago by promising stricter oversight. Unfortunately, improvements considered early on have been dismissed, and the proposed rule now has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well. For instance:
* USDA has created a huge loophole allowing biotech companies to assess their own crops to determine whether USDA should regulate them. And the criteria are open-ended, very subjective, and will certainly reduce USDA’s oversight of GE crops.
* The proposed rules could also allow companies to grow untested GE crops with no oversight whatsoever: “Over time, the range of GE organisms subject to oversight is expected to decrease...,” a move which USDA itself admits will make contamination of conventional/organic crops with untested GE material more likely.
* To add insult to injury, USDA has proposed to write into law its “Low Level Presence” policy, which excuses it from taking any action to remove untested GE crops from conventional or organic food, feed and seed. This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits.
* USDA rejected options that would have banned outdoor cultivation of pharmaceutical-producing GE (food) crops, the only way to ensure that untested drugs don’t end up in our food, despite strong support from citizens and the food industry.
* USDA has refused to propose any controls on pesticide-promoting GE crops, despite increasing pesticide use and an epidemic of resistant weeds that have been fostered by these crops.
* Finally, USDA snuck in a last-minute “correction” that bars state or local regulation of GE crops more protective than its own weak rule. CFS strongly opposes such preemptive language that would bar local or state authorities from putting meaningful regulations or restrictions on GE crops in place that best suit their communities. This last-minute change should be cause to extend the public comment period.
The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here. The structure of the new proposal opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.
After denying requests for an extension to the short comment period given for the proposed rules, USDA’s comment period closes on Monday. Sign our petition to the USDA today and demand stronger—not weaker—regulations for genetically engineered crops!
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 27 )THE NEW YORK TIMES
The Climate for Change
By AL GORE
Published: November 9, 2008
The inspiring and transformative choice by the American people to elect Barack Obama as our 44th president lays the foundation for another fateful choice that he -- and we -- must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis.
The electrifying redemption of America's revolutionary declaration that all human beings are born equal sets the stage for the renewal of United States leadership in a world that desperately needs to protect its primary endowment: the integrity and livability of the planet.
The world authority on the climate crisis, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is "unequivocal." To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up. Our children and grandchildren need you to hear and recognize the truth of our situation, before it is too late.
Here is the good news: Read More...
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 2.8 / 21 )I haven't watched his show, Countdown, on MSNBC, but Keith Olbermann's incisive comments in this video make me want to start.
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 2.9 / 14 )Finally, we had a clear election result to take our country forward! After the Supreme Court fiasco in 2000 and voter disenfranchisement in 2004, we actually got the election results on election night, and the best man won. This is a testament to the power of democracy and the reality that the American people can still drive the political process.
My happiness over national politics is tempered by my diappointment that the majority of California voters voted yes on prop 8 to write discrimination into the State Constitution. At the same moment that we have taken a historic step beyond racism, we've institutionalized prejudice against gays and lesbians. I am disappointed, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time until we can learn tolerance in this area too.
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3.3 / 6 )I just sent out the following email:
Hello Everyone,
Instead of calling strangers tonight to try to get them out to vote for Obama, I thought I'd email people I know. I'm sure you've been overwhelmed with political messages but it will all be done by this time tomorrow, so I hope you'll forgive one more.Tomorrow is a pivotal day for our country. We have suffered as a nation and as a world over the last eight years. Many American families have seen their loved ones killed, injured or traumatized by their service in Iraq. Even more Iraqis have lost their lives. Hard-working people have lost the pensions that they were counting on for their future. Many have been driven into bankruptcy by medical bills they cannot pay, because they had no health insurance, the copays were too high, or the insurance companies denied them coverage. Our climate has become more unpredictable and more extreme, resulting in catastrophic storms and droughts. Some of the victims of these storms have still not seen the help they expected from their government. Polar bears are drowning because the arctic ice is disappearing. Both new and longtime homeowners were tricked into taking loans they could not afford, with conditions they did not understand, and many have been driven from their homes. The cost of the Iraq war has drained the funds needed for schools, bridges, security, healthcare, welfare, college scholarships, and scientific research. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened to one of the highest in the world. The government has tortured prisoners while occupying their country, held prisoners in Guantanamo for years with no evidence against them and no hope of justice, and listened in on the phone calls of American citizens without their knowledge.
We cannot recover from the last eight years by voting for the same team that got us in this mess! John McCain was in the Senate throughout the Bush years, and voted with Bush 90% of the time. He supported the war in Iraq while Obama was speaking out against it. He got a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters in the last Congress. He says the Roe v. Wade decision was wrong and that it's wrong for a woman's doctor to do a procedure required to protect her health. While average Americans are fearing for their jobs, his solution for the economy is to cut the capital gains tax. While average Americans can't afford decent healthcare, he wants to tax our employer-provided health benefits in exchange for an inadequate tax credit.
Barack Obama will cut taxes for every American making less than $200,000 a year, and only raise taxes for those making over $250,000 a year. He will send young Americans to college if they agree to serve their country after graduation. He will promote a new sustainable green economy keeping good-paying jobs in the country and protecting the environment. He will make the Congressional health insurance plan available to all Americans. He will bring our troops home from Iraq and return to diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy. He has also chosen a knowledgeable, experienced, competent vice president to back him up.For all these reasons, our duty is crystal-clear. It is crucial that we get out and vote for Obama tomorrow. We cannot afford to get it wrong again. We cannot afford to miss this one. Let's get it right tomorrow. Let's take our country back.
PS. Tell your friends to vote Obama too!
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 0 / 0 )Proposition 8 is a measure on the California ballot that would change the California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. It provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Rather than focusing on the issue at hand, which is whether consenting adults in a loving, committed relationship should have the right to marry the person they love, the proponents of Proposition 8 have pushed this as an issue about education. They cite a provision of the California Education Code that sex education classes must teach respect for marriage. That's true. Then they talk about parents from Massachusetts who were outraged when their children were taught about gay marriage. What they conveniently fail to mention is that the same section of the California Education Code that that requires sex education classes to mention marriage also gives parents in California the right to withdraw their child from all or any part of the sex education curriculum that they object to. The code is very clear and goes on at some length about parents' right to review the curriculum and opt out of anything they don't agree with. A student may not attend a sex education class that their parents have excused them from attending. So there is no chance that your child can learn about gay marriage in health class if you don't want them to. I don't know if there are any other references to marriage in the education code but this is the one cited by the proponents of Prop 8, so I assume it is the strongest if not the only reference to marriage.
Now that we know our kids' education is still within our control, let's get back to the issue at hand. Do you think it is right to amend the very Constitution of our State, not just a law but the guiding framework of our government, to impose a narrow, religiously based idea of marriage that denies lesbian and gay Californians the rights that heterosexual Californians enjoy? Shouldn't every couple that loves each other and vows to live together and support each other as life partners have the right to get married? That's just as true now as it was in 1948 when the California Supreme Court struck down the ban on interracial marriage. (See below for a history of this issue from Wikipedia) Sixty years later, let's not fall back to restricting marriage based on prejudice. I hope you'll join me in voting no on Prop 8.
Some history, from Wikipedia:
Early, gender-neutral language
From 1850 to 1977, California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary. While California did not explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, court decisions and some statutes dating from both statehood and the 1872 codification of the civil law, assumed as much.
1948: The right to marry
In a 1948 ruling the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all such laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that:
Marriage is ... something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.... Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.
This opinion was later cited by the Court in 2008, in support of the right of individuals of the same sex to marry.
1977: Addition of gender-specific language (to State law, but not to the State constitution)
In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at Family Code section 300) to read that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman".
1999: Domestic partnerships
In 1999, Assembly Bill 26 passed and marked the first time a state legislature created a domestic partnership statute without the intervention of the courts.
2000: Proposition 22
In 2000, voters passed with 61% of the vote, ballot initiative Proposition 22, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman.
2004: Same-sex marriages performed, then annulled
In 2004, a number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to authorize the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples by the City and County of San Francisco. The 3,995 marriages were annulled by the California Supreme Court, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as In re Marriage Cases.
2005-2007: Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act
In 2005 and again in 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The Act marked the first time that a state legislature had approved a bill authorizing same-sex marriage without a court order. Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson said, “[t]he governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state.”
2008: California Supreme Court ruling
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3, ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.
On June 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its In re Marriage Cases order pending the November vote on Proposition 8.
As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid and recognized in the state of California. The Los Angeles Times estimates that 16,000 same-sex couples have married since June 17th.
2005-2008: Ballot initiatives
From 2005 to 2008, anticipating that either the courts or the legislature might overturn Proposition 22, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced several attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well. Prior to 2008, none had made it to the ballot.
In late 2007 and 2008, at least four different groups sponsored new ballot initiatives for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. One of them, whose website is ProtectMarriage.com, made it onto the November 4th ballot.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3.3 / 6 )Check out this essay by Pat Ford, the Executive Director of Save Our Wild Salmon.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 1 / 1 )If you haven't seen it already, check out this e-mail written by a Wasilla, Alaska native who has seen Sarah Palin in action. I found it very interesting and it doesn't seem to be slanted to either party's political gain, although like everything else I've seen on Palin, it makes me think she is not worthy to be Vice President.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 2 )I was listening to This American Life via podcast today and I found last week's episode riveting. It dealt with the financial crisis and bailout plan in much more detail than I had heard anywhere else, and it turns out that there is a way for the American taxpayer to profit under the plan. It's called stock injection, and the idea is that rather than buying up the banks' toxic assets, we should simply give the banks money in exchange for preferred stocks, meaning the taxpayers will own a share in the banks and be the last to lose money should they go downhill. Listen to the show , and then call everyone you can think of and insist that we implement stock injection. I tried to find contact info for Secretary Paulson or Neel Kashkari, but there seems to be no way to email the Treasury Department or to leave a message if you call over the weekend. I did call my senators, so hopefully they can publicize and promote the stock injection option. I see that purchasing stocks is now mentioned as a secondary measure to buying up worthless securities, but I think we should scrap the idea of buying up their crap, and go completely with the preferred stock idea.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 0 / 0 )Back Next
Calendar
