Well, weeks after being counted as "out of the running," Vilsack was announced as our new Secretary of Agriculture. The general reaction I'm hearing is not a very happy one, but also "he's not the worst pick." How's that for a ringing endorsement?
Iowans who I've spoken to tell me about their disappointment in Vilsack's vote (as a state senator) to take away local control on hog factory farms in Iowa. During his time as governor "Vilsack oversaw the largest proliferation of hog confinements in the states history." These new hog CAFOs put tens of thousands of independent family hog farmers out of business in the state. The end result of this was a "decimation of rural Iowa" and serious degradation of the state's drinking water.
Iowans also remember the rides on Monsanto's corporate jet that Vilsack - the Biotech "Governor of the Year" - enjoyed during his time in office. He repayed Monsanto by working with the Republican floor manager in the House, promising to do everything he could to get a seed bill to pass. This bill took away county power to regulate GMOs within county borders.
Says one Iowan:
While Tom Vilsack is not the worst pick, he certainly does not have a history of serious reform that was promised by Barack Obama during his campaign for change.
For some quick info on him, I recommend reading A Different View of Vilsack and see a statement by Organic Consumers director Ronnie Cummins on Vilsack and an Organic Consumers alert opposing Vilsack for Ag Secretary (below).
Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head Would be a Terrible Idea Organic Consumers Association, November 12, 2008
2. The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership. http://www.bio.org/news/pressr...
3. When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
4. Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.
5. Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.
6. Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
Web Note, Nov. 20, 2008: Although the Organic Consumers Association is happy that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack apparently supports a modest reduction in our nation's annual $17-25 billion subsidies (for example the often voiced reform for a $250,000 limit to individual farms per year) to chemical, energy-intensive and genetically engineered crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, our position is that all "non-green" subsidies should be eliminated. We can no longer afford to use U.S. tax money to subsidize chemical and energy-intensive crops that basically prop up factory farm profits and the junk food industry, make consumers unhealthy, waste valuable non-renewable resources, and destabilize the climate. We need massive subsidies instead to help American farmers and ranchers make the transition to healthy, energy-efficient, carbon-sequestering, organic crops and farm practices--before it's too late. http://www.organicconsumers.or...
Similarly, we are glad Vilsack has apparently reversed his previous vocal support for genetically engineered crops, including controversial and dangerous biopharmaceutical crops, but we'd prefer a USDA Secretary who calls for on an outright ban on biopharm crops, cloned animals, and an end to all taxpayer subsidies for genetically engineered crops. If Vilsack actually is appointed USDA Secretary we'll definitely remind him of his stated position below--that he supports mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients and strict liability for companies and farmers causing genetic pollution with their GMO seeds and crops.
Finally, we hope Tom Vilsack (and Barack Obama) will admit that corn-based ethanol and soy-based biodiesel, although popular with Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, and subsidized corn and soybean farmers in Vilsack's home state of Iowa, are a dangerous hoax, and that the only way the US will be able to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution by 80% by 2050 (as Obama has promised), and to survive in an era of Peak Oil and evermore expensive energy, is to convert our nation's industrial, petroleum-based food and farming system (which eats up 19% of our energy and generates 37% of our greenhouse gases) to a solar-based, relocalized/regionalized system of organic agriculture as outlined in Michael Pollan's recent essay in the New York Times http://www.organicconsumers.or...
We're happy Tom Vilsack voices support for long overdue "Livestock Market Reforms," but we believe it's now blatantly obvious that factory farms or CAFO should be banned, before they do any more damage to animals, human health, water quality (including massive dead zones in the oceans), and our already destabilized climate.
We look forward to mobilizing America's 50 million organic consumer to pressure Tom Vilsack or whomever Barack Obama appoints as the new Secretary of Agriculture.
Ronnie Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
I worry about this Vilsack's connection to Monsanto, Archer Daniel Midlands, and GMO foods in general. If Monsanto can get one of its lawyers appointed as Attorney General (John Ashcroft) and another one appointed to the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas), what is so difficult about getting a Monsanto Apparatchik appointed as Secretary of Agriculture?
I am all for giving Obama plenty of room for his choices without impugning them right off the bat, but this choice deeply concerns not only me, but some very fine people whose opinion I respect immensely, like Ronnie Cummins, Director Organic Consumers Association, 10,000 of whose members signed a petition to Obama asking him NOT to appoint Vilsack.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:48:13 PM
I still have high hopes for Obama's administration. Maybe he felt so much was owed to Iowa, but who and what is Terry Vilsack to Iowa anyway? Perhaps Obama will clarify where he is going with this seemingly innocuous appointment.
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:02:19 PM
is at the core of this discussion; Monsanto wants to privatize this entire history, and profit off of it, by dispensing with the ancient practice of generating the seed the farmer plants next year.
Instead, the farmer will have to go back to Monsanto year after year and buy need seed, as the seed itself is in essence sterile and can't reproduce.
Hey, don't be alarmed: these guys also brought you Saccharine, Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormones, and a whole host of other really nasty chemical products.
This is not some trivial bantering about of political terms: this is an attempt to get at the heart of what the relationship between Obama's Secretary of Agriculture (choice) Tom Vilsack is all about, and whether he will be turning over 6004 years of agricultural history and science to Monsanto to make loads of money on forever.
That's all....
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:45:56 PM
Reply: Associated Press Article on Visack, today...
Agriculture pick Vilsack was registered lobbyist
By MARY CLARE JALONICK – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Until the end of March, Barack Obama's pick for agriculture secretary was registered to lobby for the country's largest teacher union, whose issues include nutrition programs overseen by the Agriculture Department.
But former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack did not lobby on nutrition or agriculture matters, a spokesman for the president-elect's transition team said Thursday, and therefore has no conflict of interest problem.
Obama has promised to lessen the influence of special interests in his Cabinet. People working for his transition are prohibited from working in the "fields of policy" in which they lobbied over the last 12 months.
He has not detailed the rules for his Cabinet. But transition head John Podesta indicated last month that people going into service in the Obama administration may have to stay away from issues on which they lobbied for two years.
Vilsack registered to lobby for the National Education Association through the law and lobbying firm Dorsey and Whitney in Des Moines, Iowa, where he is a partner. The NEA has included nutrition programs — which fall under the Agriculture Department — on its agenda for a rewrite of the No Child Left Behind education law. An overhaul has been one of the association's priorities.
"Governor Vilsack was not a lobbyist on agriculture or nutrition issues and of course he will represent the interests of the president-elect and the American people, not his former employer," said Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for the Obama transition team.
Neither Vilsack nor the NEA returned several messages left Thursday.
The Iowan was registered to lobby both the House and Senate on the education law between May 2007 and March 2008.
In a document on its Web site, the NEA listed school breakfast and lunch programs administered by the department as among the priorities for the rewrite. Congress is planning to take a look at those nutrition programs, some of which expire next year, when lawmakers return in January.
In addition to his lobbying registration, Dorsey and Whitney's Web site says that Vilsack, who began working there after he left his governor post in 2006, "focuses on strategic counseling and advising clients in the fields of energy conservation, renewable energy and agribusiness development." Those are all areas that partially fall under the Agriculture Department.
A spokesman for Dorsey and Whitney, Bob Kleiber, said Vilsack helped with business and client development for the firm, along with his work as a lawyer. He said Vilsack did not lobby any of the firm's agricultural clients.
He would not give details about Vilsack's client list.
"We don't go there unless it's a matter of public record, which it's not," Kleiber said
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:12:50 PM
I honestly don't know what more you Obama cheerleaders need to see. It's so clear. He is nothing but a corporate shill and elite hand puppet. He is no better than Bush and 100 times more dangerous because of his charismatic style.
In both cases there are vested interests from within the gov and the causing of harm in the world out there (to serve those vested interests).
Monsanto is worse as it affects the entire planet. Its effects are so far-reaching that they impact ultimately, as Linn Cohen-Cole has said, on Life itself.
by
Aurora (0 articles, 95 quicklinks, 52 diaries, 648 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:46:07 PM
Jersey Girl ... once again you got it exactly right.
See also Mr. M.'s and the other posts to the previous article on this topic.
I wonder how long it will take for the Obamaniac 'hope'-heads to try to spin this in a positive light?
Well, to pre-empt them .... There IS NO F'n positive light. Just one more nail ... a huge and glaring spike ... in the coffin that was hope for any positive change from the Obama sock puppet.
A multitude of suckers born over the infinite minutes of a two-year faux campaign......
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:48:25 AM
I personally have led a life of skepticism, but I am still optimistic about Obama -- admittedly totally out of character for me.
During the election I supported him, and posted a highly critical document on an Obama support mailing list that he appears to have followed word for word during the last days of the campaign.
My reason was thus: Better a slow "globalist" death with Obama, than a quick nuclear war death with McCain.
I posted this opinion also in a variety of places, and within a few days McCain stated that he wanted to "remove all the nuclear weapons from the world." Seems he may have been listening too.
This "listening" is all entirely possible, even probable.
Back during Katrina I ran a group on Care2 that unquestionably had influence in Congress, again and again we reported a problem and got 24 hour turnaround on acts of congress! (we had a US senator on the list)
So I say "soldier on" and if you get a chance, read Ho Che Minh's biography for inspiration. If you do, understand this: violence is a mistake every time.
by
John Bessa (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 94 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:02:57 AM
I know I will not like everything Obama does and have posted recently my thoughts on his persuit of Dick Cheney after the ABC interview. I caught some criticism from other Obama supporters about not giving him a chance, which I have stated I will but that he must persue Cheney. My feelings are that he is the best chance we have and we all need to "hope he can". If I am wrong-----so be it. Will not be my first.
by
virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:53:40 AM
In what way do we have any other choice than to give him a chance?
The only alternative is for the nation to rise up and march on Washington with torch and pitchfork...perhaps the MOST unlikely event to ever be imagined in this zombied out nation.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:12:57 PM
It is a somewhat alarming situation. I anticipate Organic Consumer Association might just go into high gear on this one. Hardly a response at all so far from Vilsack, who ought to at least address these concerns. OCA will probably concentrate on writing letters to Senators on the panels, but with Harkin strongly supporting Vilsack, it will be a smooth concurrence. Any ideas on that specific question?
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:26:07 AM
... that if powers-that-be wanted they could, through their media machine, get this country of fools to elect a bag-of-crap as POTUS.
Oh, wait, they just did that ...
Once one has the curtain pulled back one is awed at the magnitude of lies we've been lead to believe. It truly is hard for me to go out among the public anymore and observe the false existence most people are living. It's all I can do to hold back from walking around smacking them on the back of their heads and shoving their faces it the folly of their existence.
I know that sounds terribly arrogant, but the real arrogance has to be placed on those that would have sold us that sake-of-crap to begin with.
Well, America, for the next four-years, once again, you're left holding the bag.
This bag-of-crap hasn't even been sworn in and he's been rubbing our faces in the crap, and unfortunately most of the people that voted for him haven't a clue as to the meaning of Obama's picks. They'll listen to MSM spread that crap on their dwindling loaf of read and eat it up.
M-m-m-m, tastes good ... or so they're lead to believe.
For some of us though, crap is still crap.
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:38:48 AM
Vilsack is a poor choice. More of an AGony Secretary than an AGriculture Secretary. I suppose Michael Pollack didn't want the job, as he told Bill Moyers, but surely we could have done better than this? The only positive thing I can say is that, as with all of Obama's recent appointments, they are talking the right talk, but the question is will they walk the right walk when in office and pressured from all the usual K-Street special interests? There's no comfort in these people's recent records (nor, today, in the choices for financial heads).
I think the system is rotten to the (apple) core. We need to start taxing polluters and stop subsidizing them; then organic and small farmers will actually be on a level playing field (pardon the pun). We need to bring in alternate energy setups, like wind turbines to make grazelands pay for themselves again, instead of CAFOs. We need to hold CAFOs to the same standards for waste disposal we hold any large human community - would we let human waste run off untreated into streams and rivers? Didn't think so.
by
Scott Baker (13 articles, 51 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 162 comments [35 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:13:43 PM
Scott, I substantially agree with you, but I am nobody....
and this just came in from a member of Milwaukee for Obama, and bears immediate posting in this context:
Whoa folks. It's just the Secretary of Agriculture (not to begrudge you anything, Mr. Secretary).
Let's start at the top. Obama ran on an aggressive platform of change in farm and rural policy, and any advocates looking into the crystal ball to predict the future at USDA should revisit it today (short version | long version (pdf)). From the plan:
Strong Safety Net for Family Farmers: Fight for farm programs that provide family farmers with stability and predictability. Implement a $250,000 payment limitation so we help family farmers -- not large corporate agribusiness. Close the loopholes that allow mega farms to get around payment limits.
Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior Against Family Farms: Pass a packer ban. When meatpackers own livestock they can manipulate prices and discriminate against independent farmers. Strengthen anti-monopoly laws and strengthen producer protections to ensure independent farmers have fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in prices.
Regulate CAFOs: Strictly regulate pollution from large factory livestock farms, with fines for those that violate tough standards. Support meaningful local control.
Encourage Organic and Local Agriculture: Help organic farmers afford to certify their crops and reform crop insurance to not penalize organic farmers. Promote regional food systems.
Encourage Young People to Become Farmers: Establish a new program to identify and train the next generation of farmers. Provide tax incentives to make it easier for new farmers to afford their first farm.
Support Small Business Development: Provide capital for farmers to create value-added enterprises, like cooperative marketing initiatives and farmer-owned processing plants. Establish a small business and micro-enterprise initiative for rural America.
There is something in that plan for nearly everyone who reads it. Obama is at the top, and he's staked his reputation on delivering specific policy reforms. As Secretary, Tom Vilsack's most important job will be to support the President in the crucial work of implementing that vision. Here at the Center, we believe Tom Vilsack will serve Obama well in that capacity.
That said, we will not miss a single beat in our work to ensure that President Obama and Secretary Vilsack live up to their potential and their promises to rural America.
Audio for this story will be available at approx. 9:00 a.m. ET Morning Edition, December 18, 2008
When President-elect Barack Obama nominated former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as his secretary of agriculture, he praised Vilsack's knowledge of both agriculture and energy. But author Michael Pollan says the incoming administration's focus should be on food and the people who eat it.
Obama announced his selection Wednesday and touted Vilsack's credentials.
"As governor of one of our most abundant farm states, he led with vision," Obama said, "promoting biotech to strengthen our farmers in fostering an agricultural economy of the future that not only grows the food we eat, but the energy that we use."
Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and a leader in the sustainable food movement, said Obama will not make progress on climate change or energy independence or health care, for that matter unless America's food system is included in the plan.
"The food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gases," Pollan told NPR's Renee Montagne. "It is responsible for the catastrophic American diet that is leading 50 percent of us to suffer from chronic disease, and that drives up health care costs."
A secretary for food, Pollan said, could put the focus on diversifying America's farms and using local food sources around the nation.
But those topics weren't in the spotlight when Obama chose Vilsack to be agriculture secretary, said Pollan, who also wrote The Omnivore's Dilemma and The Botany of Desire.
"I was very disappointed in that news conference," he said, "not to hear Vilsack use the word 'food' " or 'eaters.' And the interests of everybody except eaters was discussed: farmers, ranchers, people concerned about the land."
And so, he said, it's difficult not to see Vilsack's selection as "agribusiness as usual."
In the months before Vilsack was named to the post, Pollan wrote an article urging the president-elect to rename the Department of Agriculture as the Department of Food, led by a secretary of food. That did not happen Wednesday.
Pollan also saw "reasons to be cautiously hopeful" about Vilsack, pointing to his suggestion to cap subsidies and use the money gained to fund conservation efforts. Vilsack also has urged more food production on the local level.
But under the former governor, Iowa's feedlots expanded â€" and some localities lost the power to control where those feedlots are located, Pollan said.
"I'm hoping that now he will take a broader view," Pollan said.
As for the possibility that a change in America's agriculture priorities could raise the cost of food, Pollan said that other factors can also lead to higher prices.
"It's the embrace of corn-based ethanol that has driven up all food prices," Pollan said. "It's not making agriculture more sustainable."
And changing the food system could bring savings, he noted, citing Obama's recent mention of federal subsidies that are paid to wealthy farmers.
"I think if we could back off on ethanol, that will buy us a lot of wiggle room," Pollan said.
Although Obama and Vilsack have supported corn-based ethanol production in the past, a challenge may come from elsewhere within the new Obama administration, Pollan said. "The new secretary of energy, Steven Chu, is a pretty fierce critic of corn-based ethanol," he said, "and I would imagine will be arguing for moving away from corn as a feedstock for ethanol, toward other crops.
Pollan says he hopes those crops won't compete with food crops. Viable alternatives to corn-based ethanol could include trees and crop waste" even grasses, he said.
"And whether Vilsack and Obama are ready to go there remains to be seen," Pollan said. "But certainly, Steven Chu will be pushing them that way."
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:24:29 PM
Tom Vilsack is the wrong man for leading the USDA. Progressive thinkers know that the role and mandate of the USDA should change and that food and food safety should be its primary focus. It disserves the country have the USDA's focus be on the continued expansion and development of big agriculture at the expense of smaller farms, organic farms, and the food safety needs of our country and the world at large. He will be the "Secretary of Agribusiness" and subordinate the role of food to the production of commodities and monocultures.
Tom Vilsack is a firm believer in genetically engineered plants and seeds and has staked out numerous positions favoring Monsanto-led economics. He endorses the thinking of the BIGMAP herd and believes in a limited government role as related to GE crops. He has been inconsistent on the regulation of CAFOs and would likely continue the subsidies of our corn-based economy.
Tom Vilsack may not be the right person for head of the USDA.
He is a probably good man who has been on the right side of many issues. He served as the governor of Iowa from 1998 to 2006 and currently is of counsel in the Dorsey Trial group in Des Moines. As part of his bio at the firm, he boasts being a Distinguished Fellow of the Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (aka BIGMAP) at Iowa State University. BIGMAP generally opposes laws and regulations what would trigger regulatory oversight for acts of genetic engineering, and believes that government regulation in and of itself may "close the door" on future innovations that might benefit society and the environment. In other words, BIGMAP prefers that the biotech and genetic engineering industries self-regulate. Vilsack is also widely thought of as a friend of Monsanto.
He showed courage several years back when as governor or Iowa he vetoed a law passed by Iowa's legislature that would have prohibited Iowa's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from establishing air quality standards for CAFOs stricter than the federal government's standard. That law would have also precluded the Iowa DNR from establishing standards for airborne substances for which the federal government had left a legal void.
Vilsack did the right thing. He vetoed the law, but then he recommended a weak 30 part per billion (ppb) one-hour standard for hydrogen sulfide as a compromise; a standard weaker than states surrounding Iowa. Although Minnesota also had a 30 part per billion standard, it was for a 30-minute exposure time, not an hour.
Also, in 2001,when the EPA proposed changing the definition of a CAFO by decreasing the number of animal units that triggers an NPDES permit, Vilsack (writing for the National Governor's Association) opposed that re-definition because of the burden on states in issuing, monitoring and enforcing NPDES permits. He gave no concern for health or environmental issues.
Vilsack also challenged the EPA's authority to regulate CAFOs in areas that might not discharge into waters of the United States, in effect permitting CAFOs in arid parts of the country to avoid EPA regulations.
He also has a history of supporting other CAFO-related laws, and has not always been on the right side of the issue. As a corn-state governor, he may have a pre-disposition toward continuing corn state subsidies, and may be less than zealous in slowing the growth of the corn-based food economy.
Finally, Vilsack needs to disclose where he stands on GMO foods and genetically engineered plants and seeds. Does he support mandatory labeling of GM foods? Will he support pending legislation to ban Terminator Seed (GURT) technology where plants yield sterile seed so that they can not be replanted for future harvests? Will he support legislation that voids retrictions on seed saving by farmers? Will his relationship with Monsanto color his judgment on these issues?
David Axelrod helped run Vilsack' gubernatorial campaign in 1998, and was VilsacK's long-time media consultant. Perhaps he is not the right person to screen the candidate? Perhaps food activists can play more of a role in Vilsack's vetting? Perhaps Obama can avoid making his first big blunder?
That was November 17th. Today, I cannot help but feel disappointment.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 1:38:59 PM
For myself the word "disappointment" is so meager as to appear as a waft of smoke.
My feeling is that of utter rage, a bonfire of burning rage. Rage against the criminal enterprise posing as "government", rage at the idoit population that accepts it.
Has anyone here heard the term, "Too Late"?
The Maximum Security State is here, the clock ran out. Now it's all over for America but the screaming.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:25:15 PM
Reply: William, it is really not that bad. We will scrutinize this
appointment for some time, and one thing is for sure: the level of scrutiny has quadrupled after the Bush/Cheney/Neocon disasters.... I don't feel anything resembling rage, but a lot of apprehension and alarm, if this truly portends that Monsanto is gaining strength and leverage in the Obama administration.
A very key question: who would you all like to see more than Vilsack get this job?and why? Name some names; spell out some reasons, please.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 3:30:19 PM
You can scrutinize until your eyeballs dry up in their sockets.
Why would you expect me to sit here and list names for people to take up posts in the illegal and totally illegitimate criminal enterprise that YOU call the "Federal government"?
I don't buy into this lollipop fluff passed off as information and history in this psychotic society.
Discuss the "fine points" of your BS with your TVZombie friends.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:09:54 PM
I am not repying to the fluff, I am identifying it.
Again, this is nothing personal or directed at you specifically. I think your heart is in the right place.
There is a deep current that runs through history that cannot be detected by watching the reflections on the surface. You will see and be baffled by posts from Mr. M, from Richard, and Jersey Girl, as well as myself. You may be thinking, "where does this stuff come from?"
It comes from reading deeper into history, reading deeper into the works on propaganda such as Bernays, and Lippman, the history of the Federal Reserve, the history of the national security state; on such topics as MKUltra, MockingBird, the search for the Manchurian Candidate, the hidden history of Mind Control, and etc., etc., etc.
There is a wealth of information to be had if one stops sucking on the lollipop du jour.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:02:14 PM
This dialogue above is very interesting. The USDA's responsibilities must include Mad Cow Disease, improved controls, higher importation standards [especially any food product from China], and, although many may not like it, I want to see each animal get a chip for tracking and be serum checked and have a tracking chip.
Unless you prevent diseases like that, you are just chasing a bubble and then trying to quell and calm the public with smooth words and sophistry.
Steadfast and vigilant regulation: that is what the USDA should be doing.
As to the public clamor against Vilsack, Obama would be well advised to ponder the old adage: WHERE THERE IS SMOKE, THERE IS FIRE.
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 3:39:05 PM
The same corporations which caused Mad Cow and Bird Flu and are weakening poultry standards through the good ole, the USDA, are the ones pushing NAIS (the National Animal Identification System - the chipping system). It's their filthy animal factories, feedlots, slaughterhouses - which the USDA won't inspect. What's more, the small farmers ASKING for inspections from the USDA are refused. The constant use of "terrorism" is to the constant use of "food scares" as NSA-spying is to NAIS, only NAIS is even more fascist. It has NOTHING to do with food safety just the Patriot Act and NSA-spying have nothing to do with making us more secure and everything to do with a police state using fear to establish control over a population.
NAIS is so much worse, it is frightening.
For just a small window onto part of its threat, read this:
click here spent the last year working like a dog to reach the left to warn them what was going on and to encourage them to stop being jerked around by food scares while condemning conservatives for buying into terrorism scares. The left is amazingly naive in its trust of food agencies, missing that they are as corrupt as the Pentagon and the Energy Department and the EPA. Corporations in the USDA and FDA are taking control over food and healing natural substances world wide and NAIS is a major part of that effort.
I am particularly disturbed to see the left trust "science" in the way that the right trusts "patriotism." Both are used to manipulate.
How short a memory do we have that the left forgets that "hygiene" was used to handle "contamination" and "disease" only very recently by the NAZIS. We are dealing with totalitarianism and to hand these people ANY MORE control over us (and our farmers are us and critical to us) is blind to what they are doing. The plans do not just include control of seeds but much more.
Kissinger said "control food and your control populations." Take it from that NAZI, that's what they are doing. Don't let "food safety" let you buy into accepting ANY MORE digital spying systems applied to anything, especially not food. Believe me, those in charge are not going to use those systems to hurt themselves and the chipping is worthless since the chips are cut off in the slaughterhouses.
Don't sacrifice even one more civil liberty over this.
click here trust these agencies anymore than you trust Bush who is pushing for NAIS, it being just one more regulation being manipulated before leaves. If it were good for you, do you think he would want it? Where is there ANY overlap between what he wants and what you as a human being want? So, do the math and figure out who is pushing this (Monsanto is one) and who is opposed (every single small, local, sustainable farming farmer in the country) and realize you are being jerked around by fear of disease (the fear for the left, terrorism and Muslims being the fear on the right) to push for USDA/corporate surveillance over farmers on the brink of extinction. USDA/corporate connection is fascism. Oppose it, don't jump to promote it.
click here am exhausted from trying to warn the left about their own misguided trust in "science," and naivete about its being manipulated.
Two links to show you have serious the government is about food safety and how it handles "science."
click here hate to say but the left has been had and they are being used to destroy farmers now.
Sorry for my being so blunt but I know these farmers and I know what they are suffering and I can't seem to get through to the left and tell them, stop being played. You are helping set up a worldwide fascist system to give them utter control over food (and our farmland).
I am scared by the left's complete disconnect from what they are doing and how their Achilles' heal is that trust in food agencies and "science." Even the scientists there are revolting against what is going on.
The same corporations which caused Mad Cow and Bird Flu and are weakening poultry standards through the good ole, the USDA, are the ones pushing NAIS (the National Animal Identification System - the chipping system). It's their filthy animal factories, feedlots, slaughterhouses - which the USDA won't inspect. What's more, the small farmers ASKING for inspections from the USDA are refused. The constant use of "terrorism" is to the constant use of "food scares" as NSA-spying is to NAIS, only NAIS is even more fascist. It has NOTHING to do with food safety just the Patriot Act and NSA-spying have nothing to do with making us more secure and everything to do with a police state using fear to establish control over a population.
NAIS is so much worse, it is frightening.
For just a small window onto part of its threat, read this:
click here spent the last year working like a dog to reach the left to warn them what was going on and to encourage them to stop being jerked around by food scares while condemning conservatives for buying into terrorism scares. The left is amazingly naive in its trust of food agencies, missing that they are as corrupt as the Pentagon and the Energy Department and the EPA. Corporations in the USDA and FDA are taking control over food and healing natural substances world wide and NAIS is a major part of that effort.
I am particularly disturbed to see the left trust "science" in the way that the right trusts "patriotism." Both are used to manipulate.
How short a memory do we have that the left forgets that "hygiene" was used to handle "contamination" and "disease" only very recently by the NAZIS. We are dealing with totalitarianism and to hand these people ANY MORE control over us (and our farmers are us and critical to us) is blind to what they are doing. The plans do not just include control of seeds but much more.
Kissinger said "control food and your control populations." Take it from that NAZI, that's what they are doing. Don't let "food safety" let you buy into accepting ANY MORE digital spying systems applied to anything, especially not food. Believe me, those in charge are not going to use those systems to hurt themselves and the chipping is worthless since the chips are cut off in the slaughterhouses.
Don't sacrifice even one more civil liberty over this.
click here trust these agencies anymore than you trust Bush who is pushing for NAIS, it being just one more regulation being manipulated before leaves. If it were good for you, do you think he would want it? Where is there ANY overlap between what he wants and what you as a human being want? So, do the math and figure out who is pushing this (Monsanto is one) and who is opposed (every single small, local, sustainable farming farmer in the country) and realize you are being jerked around by fear of disease (the fear for the left, terrorism and Muslims being the fear on the right) to push for USDA/corporate surveillance over farmers on the brink of extinction. USDA/corporate connection is fascism. Oppose it, don't jump to promote it.
click here am exhausted from trying to warn the left about their own misguided trust in "science," and naivete about its being manipulated.
Two links to show you have serious the government is about food safety and how it handles "science."
I hate to say it but the left has been had. They are being used to destroy farmers, pushing for totatilarian systems that remove all civil liberties because they amazingly believe it will make their dinner safer. Only those real farmers will. The industrial side will never be safe for anyone but once they get rid of their competition, real local farmers, no one will have an option. Organic and grass fed will be on all the labels and prices will reflect it but it will be as real as WMDs in Iraq.
I believe Mr. Gould is completely wrong in his desire to see all animals "chipped". It is totally unnecessary in the case of animals under 30 months of age since the only disease that affects them is foot and mouth. ( We have not had an outbreak in this nation since 1929 and won't unless we move the national bio-lab from Plum Island to mainland USA. If we did there are protocals in place to stop all livestock movement within hours of determination of existance of the first case.)
The tracking necessary for Mad Cow, bovine TB and other diseases that take more than 3 years to manifest themselves need involve only the adult herd. This tracking can be accomplished by use of the old Brucellocus program and current brand laws.
Chips can and do move within the bodies of critters, can become sites for infection, and may stop transmitting data thus becoming useless. In horses, several animals have died from the "moving" chip in the animals body.
We have plenty of systems in place now to ensure the safty of the US beef supply without further enhancements. What "chipping" will do is not promote animal health, but resentment within the agricultural sector to the point of being unwilling to cooperate with any legitimate animal health trace back program.
Think about it. Would you put a "chip" in your child to help in tracing him/her in an abduction case? If you would not do this to protect your own child, why demand it of ordinary farmers and ranchers to monitor a very low risk occurance in every one of their production agricultural animals? Do you want the public to fund this system or do you want the producer to pay for it? Follow the money.
Respectfully,
Joel Gill
by
Joel Gill (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:17:13 PM
Anything and everything from China should be examined
by both the USDA and the FDA. Personally, I don't consume one single thing from China, and recently passed on buying dog chews in the organic grocery story because they were from China, and I don't believe anything the Chinese say about product integrity, absolutely nothing!
Is Vilsack up to this? Will he give carte blanche to Monsanto? Not if we object and stay on top of all policies and actions taken at the USDA!
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 3:44:31 PM
My god, why do you think Obama appointed Vilsack???? FOR MONSANTO. Are you and your amen Obama choir really that dense?
Is the paragraph below supposed to be taken seriously?????
Finally, Vilsack needs to disclose where he stands on GMO foods and genetically engineered plants and seeds. Does he support mandatory labeling of GM foods? Will he support pending legislation to ban Terminator Seed (GURT) technology where plants yield sterile seed so that they can not be replanted for future harvests? Will he support legislation that voids retrictions on seed saving by farmers? Will his relationship with Monsanto color his judgment on these issues?
Will Monsanto color his judgement on these issues ... DUH !!!!!! He is their spokesman for god sake.
To answer your question about who obama should appoint... how about DENNIS KUCINICH @! He is beholden to NO corporation. Yet, there is this good man, this REAL man of the people, not even in consideration.
I am so disgusted with, not only Obama as our next president, but with those that continue to believe he will lead all the black sheep he's chosen for his flock in the right direction. Unbelievable.
But I really don't know why I'm getting so upset. Like William, Mr M & Richard, I know it doesn't matter. The country is already gone.
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:56:19 PM
As for only buying things NOT made in China. Good luck. It's getting harder and harder to find products that don't come from China complete with melamine and lead based paint. Even Trader Joe's sells soup from China..
AND now they aren't even labeling a product that contains aspartame and they are putting it in everything. INCLUDING chewing gum that is NOT sugarless.
So yea, Vilsack fits in nicely. The poisoning of our food supply will continue unabated with him doing the work of his masters..... right according to plan.
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:10:39 PM
Reply: What some people seem to fail to understand ...
... is that corporations have no bounders, and no allegiances, and it is countries, identity itself, individualism, they are out to destroy. Still stuck in that patriotic box that is now no more than a by product of false manipulation by those that are dropping the bread crumbs for the masses to follow, leading right to the gates of the FEMA camps.
And those that are still hoping for a miracle they think Obama is will stand in line, take off their clothes and step into those showers with a smile on their faces thinking right-up until the gas is turned on that it's all for the common good.
We've just been pushed over the edge into the abyss and as some fall they talk positively of the breeze.
I'm more pissed at myself really, for I've known this time was coming for most of my life and I'm still wholly unprepared. But how does one prepare for Armageddon?
The elites have their underground cities, which is a good place for them, one can only hope that they never emerge from them and they become their tombs.
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:21:45 PM
Reply: Yes, yes, yes. And while we are what waiting to see ....
From Tasmania:
"An environmental group "still wild still threatened" locked themselves onto the woodchipping machinery at one of our chip processing plants, these trucks were only held up for 6 hours and you can see by the size of the logs they all come from our ancient forests (or whats left of them). The speed of destruction is massive and all for export for a miserly approx $10/tonne.
The only way it will stop is for the whole system to collapse, either that or the environment will."
by
Linn Cohen-Cole (76 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 189 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:37:24 PM
Reply: Mr M the only thing you could possibly do ..
is to get the sheeple to care that they are being led to the slaughter and get them to rise up and revolt. ANd you have been doing your damndest in that regard But the hour is late and too many of them are still too busy bleating their support for Obama. Even though the devil incarnate Cheney agrees with his choices.
Poor sad little lambs. They still think the president elect is one of them. They refuse to see him for what he really is. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:46:35 PM
Reply: Hi, I'm laughing at your fritzing over people not getting it
Thank you. Even your sputtering says it - maybe better than anything else can.
I'm with you. It is is major and total and incredibly significant betrayal of everything organic and of any chance of stopping Monsanto which is after complete control over food worldwide and is a totalitarian power already. In that sense, it is a betrayal of human beings and democracy itself.
It couldn't be more serious and this is not a case of waiting to see whether it will be bad. Look at who he is. Biotech awards for what he's done in Iowa, wiping out thousands of small hog farmers for industry, eliminating counties' rights to control what happens in them.
Puhlease. Watch and see? If Bush had appointed, would anyone be saying that? Watch because of Obama who is even talking biotech? Geez. The hand writing is on the wall. The CAFOs are on the ground. The hog sh*t has already hit the fan.
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1946
by
Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:31:05 PM
I prefer legislative influence to pounding sand, personally.
I am not at all alarmed so much about this cabinet pick, but it certainly raises serious questions, as the text above and the comments have pointed out: valid, serious, legitimate, concerned, and informed questions....
I thank almost all of you again for the dialogue. Every Cabinet pick has some pitfalls and always a few objectors. The underlying questions about Monsanto still remain, and nobody seems to have stepped forward with any clear alternatives to Vilsack. WE are not the President: Obama is!
And let me tell the last commenter bluntly: the Organic Consumers Association is one of the very few organizations that is always 100% right on, which I always have trusted, and which has sprung into action on one issue in New Mexico in an all out and sincere way that was unparalleled.
If you don't know that, sorry. You could always learn, instead of dismissing what you clearly don't understand at all.
We are trying to shape policy to protect hundreds of millions of people who are too dumbed down to protect themselves. We aren't pounding sand in the kid's sand box, I assure you.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:09:07 PM
So far Obama's selection seems to be about building a team of the best and the brightest not with diversity but also different opinions.
That said, I think Vilsack has done great job in IOWA and let's not forgot Iowa either. He's also known to be dealing with lobbyists even though he doesn't always comply with EPA law, he can bring a lot to the table.
We must be patient and give Obama a chance. I believe he's choosing highly qualified members for his cabinet and sometimes with strong opposite views for a reason. For example, he picked Lisa Jackson as his EPA Chief and Jackson is known for her ethics which doesn't seem to be Vilsack Strength.
The way I see it, these "rivals" will come up solutions that may be conflicting and they may clash among. In this case Jackson(ethics) and Vilsack(lobbyists) but in the end, the "catalyst", the decider is President-elect Obama. He said it himself, he's the one who will have the last decision when it comes to CHANGE.
So please let's NOT jump into conclusion too quickly. We in America everything must be fast, result must be immediate. I said it times and times again, let's stop, Observe and then only act after we've given this new administration a chance to design, build and operate before we can start judging.
by
Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 9:17:27 PM
So from the choices of definitions that you offer from the authoritive Wiki, shall I choose "divine" as the one you are refering to; as you went on to speak of perfection and divinity yourself in the same post?
So, to deconstruct this mythical tapestry you weave here, you mean to say that Obama will be the, "Divine Decider", as opposed to merely the earthly dictator of the Unitary Executive that Bush has played.
Is that our newly deposted "context"?
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:33:46 AM
Reply: Really Lydia ..."the best and the brightest"?
How so? How are they "the best and the brightest", who says? You? Who says that Lynda? Please, tell us.
For this is what we've gotten so far, a lot of people that have been around for a long time, many of them set the foundation for what we're currently experiencing, they mastermind, set into motion and have feed the very system of corruption that has corroded our basic principles of decency and honor, so please tell us by what measuring stick you go by? By what standard of decency do you dwell? A gutter? For a gutter is all that comes to mind. "Best and the brightest" indeed. Something tells me that somewhere along this journey your moral compass got broken, that is, if you ever had one to begin with.
A gutter only comes to mind when I look on what Vilsack's record says and whom he's worked for.
Tell us Lynda when you say "good job", just what do you mean by that? "Good" for whom? And what? Certainly you can't be talking about the "good job" he did in working to destroy small farmers, or spreading Monsanto's poison seed? Or maybe you are? Maybe that's exactly what you mean. It's just that your vague talk and empty rhetoric can be taken so many ways by those not schooled in Babble-speak, or is that Babylon?
Of course you tip your hand by admitting he doesn't "always" abide by the law, so I guess by your gutter standards he's one of the "brighter" ones? He couldn't be one of the "best", because, after all, even you know he breaks the law from time to time, or is that another one of your twisted standards? He openly breaks the law, but because people of your ilk still praise him, that, in you book makes him one of the "best" also.
You go on with your garbage speaking about how "rivals" will "come up with solutions".
What a crock of sh*t. These are the same thieves that colluded to get us into this mess to begin with, do you really think an entire country as big and powerful as America once was gets looted in just one administration and that this massive theft wouldn't take many, many years of careful planning? Are you that dense? Do you think we're that dense to believe such unmitigated tripe?
Who the hell do you think you're talking to around here? Fox Noise zombies?
Give them a chance, you go on ... a chance? They've had chances, again, let me remind you, because it's obvious your attention span doesn't last more than a sentence or two, that these cretins have been around for a long, long time, they've had their chances, and look what they've done with them.
So that's why we're bitching, Lydia. We've been paying attention.
You, on the other hand, I don't know what you've been doing, and frankly, I don't want to know.
No, I take that back, I would like to know, so as to avoid whatever it is that puts one in a gutter.
I view you as one of two things, both of which are bad. Naive as to be utterly stupid, or worse an agent that is purposely trying to quell any action or organization that would resemble resistance to the coming police state.
Stupid I could forgive, but not the latter.
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:55:45 PM
People who grew up all over the world with international parents sometimes use unusual language, so be tolerant. Anyway, what is wrong with OBAMA IS THE DECIDER. It is perfectly clear what Lydia means. Maybe not to carpers and kvetchers.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:48:01 PM
Let me just say this; as far as tolerance goes, there are only two things I am intolerant of:
>Jejune Naivety
>Duplicity
I will point out as well, that the use of the term “Decider” as dictator with Bush. That is where the term began and dictator is what it means. Anyone who understands the theory of the “Unitary Executive” understands this.
I understand language extremely well Mr. Fox, especially political language. Do you know what the term, “Buzzword” is Mr. Fox? Perhaps if the young lady does not appreciate that the term “decider” is a “buzzword”, it should be broken to her, so she is not left appearing to use innuendo that she did not intend.
However, and to be perfectly precise and up front with you; your use of the term cannot be fairly judged as merely naïve. You are obviously highly educated and well informed socio politically.
As I stated above, I am only intolerant of two things Mr. Fox, and one of those is duplicity.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM
Reply: Some people are sheep, and like being sheep
... so you will be sheared.
I'm real sorry, I was under the mistaken impression this was supposed to be a represenative form of government, you know, one is which people decide and representatives carry out those wishes. Please tell us when it was taken over by tyrants, and lambs such as yourself, gave your approval?
Because, if you had asked me, I would have said to go stick this form of "decider" government where the sun don't shine. But apparently you've been taking things up there for so long you just might enjoy something like that.
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM
Two-thirds of the Department of Agriculture budget goes to food assistance, with most of the rest going to crop subsidies, conservation, and biofuels.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The first priority within the Obama agenda should be on the focus of food stamp and food production safety. In that frame, and away from the catcall of corporate interest, the designate has quality credentials--and expectedly should work within the team.
right now, it seems team building, and choosing up side, then letting the designates and prospectives speak toward the address of their designation.
I would expect Gov Vilsack to publically speak several times before entering the office. It may well be good to speak toward the public trust that comes in serving the nation as the Agriculture choice, especially as families are being more and affected by choices of necessities--and many more will turn to food stamp and other assistance programs with needs to waivers (based income no longer exists as on record).
We as a nation shall see how this team spirit that is now forming, and tasking healthcare, agriculture, transportation, commerce, state and etc. will form in operation and administration.
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:53:17 PM
Agree with you Eliot in regards with prioritizing and controlling. I think with poverty increase right here in America and global poverty we should ensure that, whatever we need for biofuels, we provide for those the poor and the less fortunate.
As for safety, FDA would have to be more effective than the past years. Too many diseases and deaths could have be prevented with new responsibilities, rules and regulations to better protect consumers (animals included) for CHANGE!
by
Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:30:25 AM
Thank you for showing maturity and open mind by not jumping into conclusion.
No need to justify but for tolerant people Only: My apologies. I wrote these comments while waiting for my flight -currently out of town on business trip in SF- and I submitted them without reading myself as boarding started. Please note I meant "come up with proposals" instead of "solutions" but clash over proposed solutions instead of "clash among". Hope this helps those who want to get something out of this great article (avoiding distractions)
CONSTRUCTIVE comments are most welcome whether for or against, as long as we're constructive regarding the main subject and we "disagree without being disagreeable" (smile!)
by
Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:02:55 AM
Reply: "Getting along" is real important to you, isn't it?
"Constructive criticism", that's another biggy.
Yeah Lydia, we don't want to "rock that boat", make any waves, must "get along", even if it means getting along with murders and thieves, it's that important to you, huh, Lydia?
What's going to happen when that carefully constructed world you have built around you comes crashing down? You still going to be looking to "get along'? When there's no food, no money, you still going to be waiting to see what these geniuses are going to come up with next?
Of course, you don't think it will get that bad, your tag-team den-of-thieves and murders are going to magically transform into heroes and stop killing and robbing us and save the day and personally deliver Peperoni pizzas to all the hungry.
Tell us Lydia, what does it take for you to get mad? Apparently not the murder of 3,000 in broad day-light and the subsequent murder of over a million more. Not the destruction of your rights and country, not to mention an shred of honor it may have had left. Those things don't seem to bother you. Must "get along". Right?
Tyrants love people like you.
I'm not a tyrant.
"There are none so enslaved as those that believe they are free."
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:37:17 AM
Please excuse my gruff style, and please be assured that appearances aside, it does not reflect a lack of education. I simply have a completely different perspective of the moment we inhabit here and now. I see the iceberg ahead and look back to see Mr. Fox, yourself and many others rearanging the lounges on the deck.
I feel there is a sense of urgency that you and Mr. Fox seem to be missing.
If you are so blissfuly unaware that the term "Decider" is coined by George Bush, and is defined as dicator under the Federalist Society theory of "The Unitary Executive, let me illuminate that fact at this time.
If you have any understanding of Constitutional Law, you may appreciate that this issue spreads far beyond the use of some new Orwellian terms, and has been enacted into law and statute, in both covert [Executive Orders] and open [Legislative] ways. The so called "Homeland Security State" has designed the legal architecture for a panoptic Maximum Security State. With the introduction of the military, deployed on domestic soil this architecture is being put into material and physical practice. It is here, it is now.
Obama was selected President with a half a billion dollar price tag. This alone should cause at least a quiver in any thinking persons consciousness, when the status quo provides such a campaign chest.
I could mention many more reasons for my stance, but I am sure you probably already see where I am coming from.
I would ask you a question; What do you know of 'Communitarianism'?
And one other; Do you understand "construction/deconstruction" of language?
Thank you for your attention.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:57:43 AM
Ah....Ms. Patterson, how clever you are to pick up my typo...and even figure out what I might have meant by such a stupid mistake as leaving out an "O', perhaps even particularly stupid of me as we are so involved in discussing "O" in this thread. You must be a genius at "context" to have realized so quickly what I meant, but could not properly say.
Are we to have a spelling bee next?
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:16:00 AM
Now you've gone and done it ! Lydia will not be amused. One is not allowed to disagree nor be disagreeable with her. She appears to be the "decider" of this thread and also the spell checker !! tsk tsk. Don't be surprised if O's youth brigade shows up at your door to escort you to the "camp".
Lydia, if you and Stephen like the term "decider" than it's no wonder that both of you are so enthralled with Obama and his cabinet choices. (or is it chices William ? ;)
Lydia are you even aware that Dick Cheney and many other neo cons and right wingers are also onboard with those wonderous secretarys the big O has appointed? Guess you are happy to be in such illustrious company, huh?
You're very scary Lydia. Very reminiscent of so many others in history so ready to follow the dictator ..sorry "decider" wherever he may lead them.
When a man shows you who he is.. believe him. Obama has done just that.
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:32:14 AM
That is my reaction to many of the recent comments. Further, they become quite boring as the megalomania and self promotion makes everything some of these commenters have to say very dull and boring.
Of course, Democrats, especially well educated ones, just love to do the above, as if they were still in college and in a seminar class, despite the fact that such proclivities inevitably led to Democrats losing elections, as Republicans grasped the more central facts of MARKETING their candidate and their ideas, despite the mediocrity thereof.
There are huge issues at stake. I have an open mind. I trust Obama's judgements. Knock his ostensible ties to corporations all you want. I am not listening, truly. I am more focused on what these folks are going to do. Not one commenter has pitched any alternative to Terry Vilsack, as far as I can see.
I sent this article this morning to all of the Obama groups of which I was a member from Iowa, so we can hear directly from the Hawkeye's mouth, so to speak: WHAT WAS TERRY VILSACK LIKE AS GOVERNOR, and what kind of corporate bias and propensitites will he have as Secretary of Agriculture? That is the question.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM
Reply: The whole comment is what "says it all" not just 1 sentence.
You are drowning in your own semantic interpretations, which completely exemplifies my above point. If you could step forward with one original idea, it might be a brilliant idea. (I am presuming you have had an original idea or two in your lifetime?)
What is the greatest idea you have ever come up with? I see from your statistics under your name you vastly prefer comments to articles. Perhaps you prefer to comment on the works of others, rather than put forward your own ideas? That must be it...
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18:40 PM
I think you said it all responding to those unproductive/futile. I didn't want to waste my precious time. No need to waste energy either responding to negative people. Anger is self destructive and I refuse to destroy myself getting into dirt with these guys hiding who are just "masquerading" behind their aliases –did you notice? They chose to not use their real names like you for a "purpose" – I just think they have nothing to offer.
As already mentioned, Change comes from within. We all have to do our part. I can't force anyone. A child has his/her personality after 3 years old, why waste time trying with anyone who's already reached adulthood unless that individual has a positive attitude to embrace change.
by
Lydia Kopere Patterson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 154 comments) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:35:22 PM
My name is William Whitten. I hide behind no moniker, no masks.
It is only your personal deconstruction of my words that leads you to believe that I am simply being negative.
From your responses here I can only assume you don't have any comprehension at all as to what is being said by those you frame as "nasty", you are not even trying to grasp what is being said by free thinking individuals.
I have to say that I am appalled at the thought of you being involved in the teaching of the young. You are no more aware than a child yourself.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:53:23 PM
Intelligent deconstruction of trivial commentaries that display cognitive dissonance and conditioned reflexive responses, are much more likely to focus the mind and reveal core societal issues.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:00:52 PM
"Excessive semantic hair splitting trivializes commentaries"--Mr. Fox
From my perspective, this comment by Mr. Fox illustrates his profound frailty on issues of logic and communication, his lack of respect for real and searching dialog, and ultimately a lack of respect for freedom of thought and speech.
I would counter the message he gives in the above quote thus:
Intelligent deconstruction of trivial commentaries that display cognitive dissonance and conditioned reflexive responses, are much more likely to focus the mind and reveal core societal issues.
Mr. Fox is upset because his agenda is derailed. What is at the core of this agenda? Is it the choice by Obama of Tom Vilsack for the office of Sec of Ag. as Mr. Fox asserts in his responses to those who disagree with him? I think not, the core issue of both Mr. Fox and Ms. Patterson is that they “Trust” President Elect Obama and are willing to give a pass to each successive tell tail appointment that he makes.
Every attempt by those who feel that such trust is misplaced is met with circular logic, dissemination and recrimination.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:34:39 PM
Reply: my agenda: Consumer Protection/FDA overhaul/Economy restoral
I have an open mind about what may occur, but I published this article originally because someone I highly esteem, Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, raised serious red flags months ago about Vilsack, and I felt that OpEdNews Readers deserved to be apprised of these matters.
Frail? I don't think so. Optimistic? Not really. Idealistic? Not after 8 years of Bush/Cheney/Neocons. Goals within reach? Depends on FDA Commissioner appointment. Obama has clarified through Daschle that his main concern is getting rapprochement and success with his Health Plans in Congress.
Prevention of major illnesses in hundreds of millions of Americans consuming aspartame/methanol/formaldehyde/diketopiperazine by having a decent FDA and not just corporate servant stooges out there in Rockville Maryland: that is my true agenda, and, again: OBAMA'S FDA PICK IS GOING TO BE VITAL IN DETERMINING MY PROGNOSIS FOR THE NEXT 4-8 YEARS.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:14:49 PM
Some of us have enough insight to see that placing someone like Vilsack in his cabinet speaks volumes on where Obama intends to go with gmo food & farming issues. One doesn't need to be a genius to get his drift. One only needs to be able to think critically and logically and see the handwriting on the flippin' wall. Do you have to jump off a cliff onto the rocks belong to know the fall will kill you?
How many times does big O have to betray you and your pretend liberal friends before you say enough and scream bloody freakin murder?
There are none so blind as those that will not see surely applies here.
by
jersey girl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1201 comments [734 recommended, 12 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:06:26 PM
Is the FACT that Obama came with a price tag of MORE that half a BILLION dollars, really deserve the term "ostensible" when referring to his connections with corporate interests?
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM
Mr. Obama is a bought and paid for politician from one of the most corrupt and flagrant areas of the country. Just what did you in reality expect from him? Lip service and window dressing, more money for the rich thieves and mega corps and no meaningful economic, civil rights, health care or food relief is in sight and will not be.
Forget him, he won't do any good for anyone except large corporations and wealthy people in the long run.
I voted for Cynthia McKinney and am very proud of it. You didn't and you got what you asked for, dummies!
by
MITYOJAB (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:08:09 PM
Reply: Oh, my! and how many electoral votes did Cynthia get?
She has great intelligence and courage, indeed. Was she re-elected to the House? I wish Obama could include people like her and Cindy Sheehan in his government, even though they lost.
I think it is neither sane nor credible for you to have determined that the majority of Americans and an overwhelming majority of states' electoral votes are all just "dummies." You might want to rethink that!
Besides, such childish name calling has no place in a truly collegial forum like this one at OpED News....I don't expect people like you to ever rise to the level of courtesy in which you would see the merit of an apology or even so much as a clarification.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:24:30 PM
Reply: Cynthia McKinney didn't get the votes because ...
... people like you remained stuck in the fantasy of the false left/right paradigm when anyone that looks objectively at both major parties has to know that voting for either one is a fool's game.
What have either major party done for us lately? By what measure can anyone say that they represent us? To whom do they listen to?
You've been conditioned to believe you have no choice, so you choice nothing. Contrary to anyone that voted for a 3rd party candidate, it is you that wasted your vote. For when you voted for either one of the major candidates you voted for your own suppression.
But you won't see it this way. You'll believe that by just putting enough pressure on our so-called representatives they'll suddenly start doing the right thing.
They won't.
Because unless you can promise them riches beyond our scope, perversions only the sickest minds can imagine and a health threat of death they won't even conciser us.
You seem to fail to understand that we don't have a government, we have a criminal organization with two opposing crime families that work in collusion against a common enemy - us.
When you placate to them, give them any credibility, either with your vote or voice, you're cutting your own throat, you're making your their job easier for them. As long as you keep playing their game, you will lose.
You're one of the many that are so entrenched in the lie as to not recognise the lie for what it is. Don't feel bad, because you're not alone, because, as you've pointed out, you are in a majority, but just because you're in a majority doesn't mean you're right. So I wouldn't be so smug, if I were you.
by
Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:38:49 PM
I find it amazing that not one single one of the above critics who have harshly denounced what they surmise is the corporate influence in Obama's choices (a point of view with which I really don't agree, in the first place): not one has proposed an alternative to former Governor Vilsack. I am curious to see what Iowans have to say about this appointment. There was a fascinating and upbeat editorial about him and his prospects in today's New York Times on the Editorial page. You all should read it, or is the NY Times also too suspect and too much of a corporate manipulator for your rarified and exacerbating political sensibilities?
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM
Reply: Maybe "we" should reject the bad situation.
I will repeat a portion of what I said above:
Mr. Fox is upset because his agenda is derailed.
What is at the core of this agenda? Is it the choice by Obama of Tom Vilsack for the office of Sec of Ag. as Mr. Fox asserts in his responses to those who disagree with him?
I think not, the core issue of both Mr. Fox and Ms. Patterson is that they “Trust” President Elect Obama and are willing to give a pass to each successive tell tail appointment that he makes.
Perhaps you can reassess the reasons that we may not have been interested in joining in on the "naming game".
Why propose another candidate for this position if we see the fuitility of the entire issue?
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:45:19 PM
New York Times will not even use the word "torture" except "when a neighbor plays his stereo too loudly in the apartment next door." Discussing actual torture is simply verboten, and in fact just the opposite is the case - its opinion pages are reserved for apologists like Reuel Marc Gerecht. Note that in Gerecht's reading the United States uses "aggressive interrogation" but engaged in "the extrajudicial rendition of terrorist suspects to countries that practice torture". In other words, other countries torture - not us.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:19:02 AM
Tom Vilsack, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Agriculture Department has the merit of being unsatisfactory to both extremes of the farm-policy debates.
Zealous advocates of sustainable agriculture question his support of biotechnology, while partisans of the status quo find him insufficiently loyal to the system of farm subsidies. That leaves him with a very large center of support. He’ll need it to move this country’s broken agricultural policy in a new direction.
During his days as governor of Iowa, Mr. Vilsack embraced innovation — encouraging the use of farmland to produce energy from ethanol and wind power, while promoting better treatment of migrant workers. He has the additional advantage of having governed a state where small, innovative farms are emerging.
The department he will inherit, while responsible for extraordinary gains in research and productivity, has long favored the biggest farmers. That has produced a sterile landscape of factory farms, broken towns and endless miles of row crops like corn and soybeans.
Last year’s terrible farm bill left the old subsidy system essentially intact. But Mr. Vilsack can prepare the ground for the next one. He should endorse a modest cap on price supports so that they would benefit small farmers. He also has expressed a welcome desire to end the vertical integration in the packing industry that allows giant meatpackers to own the animals they process.
He also must take an impartial look at corn ethanol. Congress has mandated a big increase in production as a prelude to more advanced biofuels. But first the country needs an honest assessment of corn ethanol’s pluses and minuses, its effect on climate change and food prices and its reliability as a source of income for farmers.
The Agriculture Department also houses the Forest Service, which means Mr. Vilsack will be responsible for the national forests. The Bush administration has waged an eight-year assault on President Bill Clinton’s roadless rule, which offered permanent protection from commercial development to about 60 million roadless acres. Mr. Vilsack should reaffirm that rule and expand its protections to include Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
The department’s programs influence many critical issues — conservation, nutrition, rural development and, through the food-stamp program, the well-being of lower-income Americans. These are powerful tools for change and equity. The next secretary must use them wisely.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:36:56 PM
On Vilack's watch, police corruption and collusive "local control" have gone unchecked and remain to this day. As far as the demise of GOOD local control when it comes to farming, its loss is nothing new. Ethanol is neither clean for cars nor the environment, but does support farming. So, of course, I support it and Monsanto, since they provided me with a job detassling when I could find no other. Furthermore, they will bring more IA jobs once the new plant comes to my town. To say it's all big-business designed to shut down the little guy is redundant. This is already proven by the select way seed corn is generated and sold. You buy their strain, or from Pioneer, or you're not in the (corn) farming business. It's been this way for years. It's nothing new. Additionally, Communism, Totalitarianism, and Terrorism are all a lie, in the grand scheem, unless you are talking about the USA, itself. Our job as the next generation of globally-minded citizens is to try and make it all better. A national generation, knowing nothing other than poverty, has nothing to lose but try and fix things. Our souls cannot be bought and sold like the previous generation. We've had no hope up to this point, only a stifled desire for a brighter future. Our desire may differ from the money-oreinted past (of our predecessors), but equality, in every way, with actual choices for opportunity, is far better than the mere subsistence living for the masses we've known until now. We can all have a stake in our futures and even a chance to be productive, beyond an unquestioning servitude to a society that appears to hate true freedom for its people without cause. To achieve an beneficial outcome for all of us, we must combine our energies and efforts in a positive, uplifting way. ~s IA 50644
by
STEVE RISK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 8:22:56 PM
Reply: Steve, thanks for this comment!This was what I hoped for
when I wrote to some of the Obama groups in Iowa of which I was a member. Although we have a different perspective and different concerns and a very different conclusion from a different overview and a different perception of Monsanto's history, I respect your vantagepoint, too.
I recall Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormones and the suits they used to crush organic dairy farmers in Vermont and New Hampshire and Wisconsin and Maine, who put "rgbh free" on their milk cartons, the guys in grey suits who sue you for challenging them, the dirty tricks of their lobbyists in every state capitol in the United States and in many national capitols, the dozens of cotton farmers in India who committed suicide when their crops failed that were next to Monsanto experimental plots, their manipulations in Hawaii, their bribes to keep certain cases out of court, the long tenure as manufacturers of aspartame, all along knowing full well it was metabolized as methanol and then formaldehyde: these are hard for me to get past.
Glad you had a job detasseling, Steve; I am sure you realize how much is at stake in this question of Vilsack and Monsanto. The pronouncement today from Obama HQ defending Vilsack was interesting. Will try to post it as a comment on this article, in due course.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:07:54 PM
I am not "for" Monsanto or it's big-business buy-out of Dekalb, I am just for having a job after a year of no employment. I have a record--all from the same cop, who would rather ask out my girl (& minors), letting people get raped and killed rather than do his job right. All this in the interest of pursuing his usual suspects/ targets, like me.
Currently, I work for a plastics factory who makes parts for semis and tractors. Thankfully, China buys John Deere and Semis can, at least, carry food to market. I assume eating won't go out of style any time soon:)
Steffen from Germany is my favorite Obama.com person!! He's the solar-man from Duetchland as I like to call him. His views are as progressive as his job description. Neat guy.
People like their meat. I think, they should shoot cows, hogs/pigs, horses in the head with a 22 rifle. That's how I'd want to go out in their situation vs. Tyson's shocking while cutting throats of pigs. This was described to me by a former employee even within the last 6 months--although air guns are the latest format for killing cows anyway.
In Mexico, they paralize horses with a knife before they kill them. This and ramming cows with forklifts, in America, are things I just could not do. And, sick pigs (any animals) that don't respond to medicine end up getting stomped (or 'kicked') in the end. The result being they don't get up again ever again.
RE: growth hormone. I knew there was a reason I grew to 6'2" 270 lbs. from drinking all that milk:) I am trying to stay just below that enlarged heart realm, just the same. What can I say, I was one of those all-district defensive end thingys back in high school. Glory days. I am not fat-looking, if that's believable...
I have worked at Tyson, Burger King, and Pizza Hut. If you've ever pulled mold shrapnel out of a ham, once through a metal detector, or saw a fast food back room--or considered its food is prepared for as long as the $5-6 per hour employee has it dropped in the fryer grease--the low end of the process might scare ya, as well. I've pulled corn-tops for 7 years and it's no less degrading than any job as a cook, or telemarketer, or factory worker I've held. Real wages mean people could save for their own businesses one day vs. a life of total servitude.
Now, I work with industrial glue. It's similar to cancerous welding jobs where no respiratory procautions are even mentioned. The corn cob plant I worked at provided dust masks, at least. It's a little harder to gloss over visible clouds in the air during peak times, I imagine.
I don't mind Obama's Clinton-esque appointments, for the most part; even with the Whitewatergate troopers "falling out" and everything next to Hillary's supposed involvement. Bill Clinton years were still slightly better years for me, at the very least.
Like Reagan's as a kid. If Bush Sr. was head of the CIA for 20 years and in office for 12 years, what's that tell ya as far who's really running the show? Sometimes, the Dad's are the 'smart' ones; it's just the way it is. Mine was an engineer, after all. But, I think I got him beat on the enlightenment angle. He's one of those who scoff at teachers for being poor. ~s
by
STEVE RISK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:00:34 PM
You, Linn Cohen Cole, and Pamela Drew all wrote on Vilsack!
In excellent articles, all over the past two days, all 3 of you raised very valid concerns, but is Obama listening to anyone other than Tom Harkin? Maybe he liked Vilsack from the campaign trail. Personally compelling biography aside, the question of Monsanto's and other agribusiness concerns is a vital one. There was even a fourth one, on an Iowan's point of view, which I have yet to read.
Seems clear Obama was largely listening to Tom Harkin hammering him for Vilsack to get the job! Lots of Senatorial input, maybe too much?
I don't know the answers, but I have the feeling that Obama could shift gears and change policies in many areas if the American people communicate their approval or disapproval. Let's not forget the oblivious folks he replaced and how they did and didn't do things!
Certainly, this obsession with ethanol is no good for anybody except those who manufacture it. We will see what Vilsack and the new Cabinet members get done and how fast and when and for whom....
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:30:36 PM
The concerns aren't going to go away, either, but will grow in importance. In my estimation, the FDA job is for me the most important for my "agenda," and the Agriculture Secretary is a close 3rd in importance.
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 9:37:28 PM
a matter of life and death for many other nations, also!
Obama was supposed to have been about change, but a lot of vested interests don't want change, and you compound that by the natural and involuntary stasis and resistance to change resulting from a long overdue rotten economy, and maybe change and reform become more distant prospects!
by
Stephen Fox (96 articles, 3 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 802 comments [33 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:59:55 PM
You make the point that I am long winded and yet don't seem to have read or comprehended a word I said--for if you had, and did comprehend you would know perfectly well where my anger comes from.
Do you find anger frightening? Do you quiver and quake at the thought of confrontation?
I am not speaking to violence.
I am speaking to a confrontation that doesn't necissarily lead to "compromise", where truth actually wins over lies.
You don't speak to a single point I have made. You merely whine that I am angry. If you want to debate the merits of what I have said, fine, but this whining about anger is just another plop of BS left on the pile.
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:09:35 PM
My post, "WHY" was in response to Mr. Gould, who said that I seemed to be angry. I answered just under his question, but the post ended up here at the bottom, as if a new post--it is not, it is an answer post.
It is only fair that I not be insulted by your last patronizing comment here.
When I say, yes, I am angry, I do not mean that I am sitting here with my teeth grinding and my fists clenched. I am speaking to a well defined and justifiable anger.
Now there are several who have posted here trying to make the point that there is a situation here that you seem to overlook. Rather than have the slightest curiousity of what it is that we may be talking about, you are simply confounded by our "attitudes", and concerned with our "anger" or our lack of decorum.
You will not address, nor will you even acknowledge the concepts that several of us have expounded in quite clear language. You seem incapable of response, as all you have said thus far is that we annoy you.
I have made several statements of fact here, none of which have been challenged. I have asked several questions here, none that have been answered. Bu it is I whom you dismiss as,unreasonble, angry; a rebel without a cause.
If the gentleman would claim it is a trivial matter to point out that we at this moment live under tyranny and that, that which is portrayed as "reality" by government and media is a hoax, as in all tyrannies, then what would the gentleman propose is more important?
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:32:28 PM
My post, "WHY" was in response to Mr. Gould, who said that I seemed to be angry. I answered just under his question, but the post ended up here at the bottom, as if a new post--it is not, it is an answer post.
It is only fair that I not be insulted by your last patronizing comment here.
When I say, yes, I am angry, I do not mean that I am sitting here with my teeth grinding and my fists clenched. I am speaking to a well defined and justifiable anger.
Now there are several who have posted here trying to make the point that there is a situation here that you seem to overlook. Rather than have the slightest curiousity of what it is that we may be talking about, you are simply confounded by our "attitudes", and concerned with our "anger" or our lack of decorum.
You will not address, nor will you even acknowledge the concepts that several of us have expounded in quite clear language. You seem incapable of response, as all you have said thus far is that we annoy you.
I have made several statements of fact here, none of which have been challenged. I have asked several questions here, none that have been answered. Bu it is I whom you dismiss as,unreasonble, angry; a rebel without a cause.
If the gentleman would claim it is a trivial matter to point out that we at this moment live under tyranny and that, that which is portrayed as "reality" by government and media is a hoax, as in all tyrannies, then what would the gentleman propose is more important?
by
William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1686 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 20, 2008 at 9:32:31 PM
So much venom and unhappiness in Whitten's 27 comments
Most baffling indeed. This has devolved from a comments forum into a chatroom for one person, whose remarks jump out like an obvious sore thumb, or is it just ordinary malcontentness? I don't expect an answer: just making an observation.....
by
Eliot Gould (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 200 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:42:56 AM
Reply: Malcontents? No problem but mindless repitition I don't like
What compulsion is satisfied by posting the same comment twice? That is what I find strange.
Anyway, a lot of good ideas nonetheless came out of this article, but, sadly, I don't think anyone in the Obama Brass is reading any of this, even though opposition to Vilsack is popping up all over, in many states and among many widely divergent groups.
2
2
2
