My Letter to President Obama

Mr. President (and administration),

Twelve days ago I received an email with the subject line of Gas Prices that told of your goal to reduce oil imports. I missed the deadline for the Advise the Advisor feedback, but I wanted to share this with you.

It seems clear to me that we have focused too much on consolidation of resources and activities with catastrophic results like "too big to fail". It seems to me business models need to look more like the internet, which is lots of small computers connected to a large network. With businesses growing larger and larger and becoming more and more consolidated, we are creating more and bigger problems.

Two examples of this are directly connected to this energy policy.

1) Solar farms. Why do we feel we must create large solar farms that take up real estate? The sun shines in different areas at different times and we currently have networks of buildings already connected to the power grid all across the country.

Why don't we let the people build new jobs in solar energy and a new "solar internet" of power by creating incentives to make solar affordable to individuals, families, and businesses in the current market and make requirements for new construction to include solar collection? This would reduce power consumption and feed any extra solar power back into the grid.

2) Agriculture. Right now our industrial model of agriculture uses an unbelievable amount of energy that goes into growing, fertilizing, pesticides, packaging, processing, storing, and distribution from a small number of industrial sources to all over the world. This practice is both unsustainable and unsafe (how many eggs had to be recalled last August?). Concentrated agriculture has proven to be an environmental hazard as well.

Why do we not encourage networks of smaller and more diverse farms that are not a burden on nature, closer to the people they feed, and thereby more sustainable? This model can drastically reduce agricultural energy dependence.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Political Labels

   I just read something asking about the "constitutional right" of a federal government to impose national healthcare. I know this is a huge debate and everyone is all up in arms on one side or the other.

   That's the design. Obama ran for President on a platform promising healthcare so the opposition attacked it. Never mind all of the balls that were dropped in the pursuit of what ended up being a fairly meager healthcare deal. Whatever -- that's how the system works now: one side finds a hot topic to exploit, the other cries to the other side ("save the kitties" - "what about dog rights?!" -- how do you think the rich people got the people who support a man who ran money changers from the Temple on their side? It goes both ways -- what liberal doesn't want "The Man" out of his business?).

   Political labels only mean one thing at this point: "I don't have time to think for myself, therefore I vote the Party Line".

   Genius! Party voters have proven the need for an electoral system. I think Bill Engvall has something for you...

   Back to my original thought, where does The Constitution of The United States of America grant the government to impose healthcare? I don't think it does and I'm not even going to look over The Constitution a couple more times to try and find it because I don't think it matters. Why? Because 12 years before The Constitution was ratified, and 15 years before the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights were ratified, 56 leaders of the 13 colonies signed a document that said this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

   "Healthcare" was not in the lexicon of the late 18th century, but it seems to me that some important men were willing to risk treason (i.e. hanged, drawn and quartered) for the idea that we all have "an unalienable" right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". This meant that it was intrinsic and did not require anything more than it's own self-evidence.

   Today we have all kinds of access to life against any number of medical conditions, liberty from debilitating disease, and the pursuit of Happiness beyond anything those 56 men could have imagined.

   Not only that, but governments are subject to the governed.

   But if the governed do not want everyone to have The Right of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" unless they have the ability to pay for it, then what?

Dear Mr. President

   The White House just posted this on facebook:

   "Advise the Advisor is a new program to help senior staff at the White House stay connected to the American people. Think of this as your direct line to the senior staff at the White House. Visit http://wh.gov/Advise to give us your advice, feedback and opinions about key issues."

   Here is my message to the senior staff:

I feel the approval of GMO alfalfa and beets has the potential of destroying the organic farming community and contaminating the food supply irrevocably.

It seems obvious at this point that this administration is more interested in big business than in the average American.

In 2008 I voted for change, hoping that corporations like Monsanto and DuPont might be kicked out of the food industry. Instead I feel that I was sold out.

Organics Supporting GMOs or No?

Last week the news hit that Obama and Vilsack were giving the green light to Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa which will in turn be used for cattle feed. That means the beef and dairy industries will have a difficult time keeping their products organic.

Some articles said, "A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto."

There was even a quote from Whole Foods: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." (Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011)

Now Organic Valley has released a statement that includes this: "We stand united in opposition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decision to once again allow unlimited, nationwide commercial planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa, despite the many risks to organic and conventional farmers."

Either Organic Valley is playing both sides of this issue or someone is flat out lying.

Regardless, with all of the opposition to GMOs, why would Obama and Vilsack agree to let Monsanto do this? Understand, once the genetically modified alfalfa is out, it's going to be next to impossible to put the genie back in that bottle. Monsanto is an agribusiness giant and I'm guessing that they just have a lot of money to get this passed.

What a sad state of affairs that our government will bow to corporations despite the will of the people.

This is absolutely contrary to what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

November Bane

   Argh!

   Elk season is over and my freezer has a void for another year. The first freeze is coming and the garden needs to be prepped. What should have been a simple project at work has turned into a full-blown pressure cooker. What's really bugging me, though, is reaction to the most recent election...

   For starters, Obama actually said that he believes the election went as it did because we the people don't feel like the economy is recovering fast enough. SERIOUSLY? Has Obama completely forgotten that he was elected by people who believed that he was going to change things? People who voted for Obama were tired of politics-as-usual. Everyone -- EVERYONE -- knows he has only two years to make a mark. After that, even if the mid-terms go strangely well, the campaign for 2012 is going really influence and affect year three on. And what happened? Politics as usual, bailouts, and a health care bill that should have been put on the back burner in favor of real progress. It's not the economy, Mr. President; people expected more from you and now they've lashed out in frustration that they have been fooled yet again.

   On the other side, this chest-beating crap by the recently elected saying that the administration is going to have to bow down or there's going to be gridlock has got to stop. These politicians don't get it -- IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU OR EVEN YOUR PARTY, DUMBASS! IT'S ABOUT WE THE PEOPLE! And we the people are tired of the petty crap keeping real, positive change from happening. How about everyone take a step back, realize that you were elected because we want government to work better, swallow your stupid pride, and try to actually make things better?!?

   Just a thought.

   For myself, I have a solid game plan for next elk season. There's still the late season for bowhunting deer. The chickens seem to bee adapting to the cold and are laying more regularly again. There's wood for the stove and a supply of canned goods in the pantry. This week is going to be rough, but the job should get back to something resembling normal after that.

   It will be interesting to see how things happen from here...

Despite problems with superweeds, Obama and USDA firmly support GMOs

From Food Integrity Now by Matt Spaeth on October 11, 2010:


Superweeds, a side-effect of growing Roundup-Ready genetically modified (GM) crops, are a growing problem. Roundup-Ready crops, engineered to tolerate weedkiller, are the most popular variety of GM crop today. However, many native weeds have evolved their own defense to weedkiller and now occupy 10 million acres of US farmland. Despite this issue being a direct result of growing GM crops, the Obama administration and USDA recently made it clear, they firmly stand beside biotechnology.

Ann Wright, a deputy undersecretary at the USDA, told a House oversight subcommittee last week:

This administration and USDA see biotechnology as being a very important tool for farmers to use in addressing some very important issues, globally and domestically. All the options we look at have to be supportive of that.

Yes, you read that right. In finding a solution, the Obama administration and USDA will only consider options supporting the same technology that created the problem.

Wright also stated the USDA did not have authority to regulate weedkiller-tolerant crops leading to superweeds.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Ohio democrat and former presidential candidate, corrected her by stating the department can impose restrictions on weedkiller-tolerant crops under its authority to control noxious weeds. Kucinich advocates creating a moratorium on genetically modified organisms and is holding a series of hearings on the superweed issue.

The USDA statement came amidst reports that Monsanto’s shares are down 42% and on the eve of the first official Non-GMO month.

Monsanto, the creators of Roundup (a weedkiller also known as glyphosate), is the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds. They alter the DNA of crops to resist weedkiller, then sell both the seed and weedkiller to the farmer. It is supposed to make a farmer’s life easier, as it allows an entire field to be blanketed with weedkiller. The GM crops survive, and the weeds die. It was touted to be more environmentally friendly than the old method of tilling weeds under. But as the years went on, the weeds around the crops grew resistant to weedkiller as well, erasing the benefits of the GM crop.

This news reinforces President Obama’s appearance as a politician determined to facilitate biotech world domination. Since winning the presidency, he has made it his mission to fill his administration with a team of biotech all-stars:

December 17, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama nominated Tom Vilsack, a politician well-known for his preference of large industrial farms and genetically modified crops, as US Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack originated legislation prohibiting local communities from regulating where GM crops could be grown. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership, and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

July 7, 2009, President Obama appointed Michael Taylor, Monsanto-man and poster boy for revolving door politics, as “senior advisor” to the FDA Commissioner. Taylor began his career as staff attorney for the FDA before moving to a law firm representing Monsanto. He later returned to the FDA as Deputy Commissioner for Policy, where he lead the approval for using Monsanto’s rBGH growth hormone in dairy cows without labeling. From there he moved to the USDA as Administrator of the Food Safety & Inspection Service, before becoming Monsanto’s Vice President for Public Policy.

September 24, 2009, President Obama appointed Roger Beachy, “the father of GM foods”, as Director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Beachy was the founding president of the Danforth Plant and Science Center, a non-profit arm of Monsanto, where he is still a trustee and member of its scientific advisory board. A part of the USDA, NIFA was developed as a result of a task force chaired by William H. Danforth and appointed by then Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman. Veneman herself has a history in biotech, having served on the board of directors for Calgene Inc, a biotech company later purchased by Monsanto.

November 10, 2009, President Obama nominated Rajiv Shah, GMO and vaccine proponent, as Administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Before this, Shah was Chief Scientist at the USDA (also appointed by Obama), where he worked on launching NIFA. Shah used his USDA position to promote genetic engineering to Congress and direct millions towards GMO research. Prior to his involvement in government, Shah was the agricultural programs director for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the Danforth Plant and Science Center, is one of Monsanto’s key non-profit partners.

January 13, 2010, President Obama re-appoints Michael Taylor, this time to Deputy Commissioner of Foods for the FDA.

April 2, 2010, President Obama appointed Islam A. Siddiqui, a registered biotech lobbyist, as Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Siddiqui is a former VP for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, a biotechnology industry consortium. His credentials include lobbying against mandatory labeling of GMO foods in Japan and criticizing the European Union’s precautionary rejection of importing GMOs. Siddiqui is the former Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the USDA, where he oversaw the National Organic Program’s standards. These standards initially allowed both irradiated and GM foods to be labeled as organic, but were later revised due to public opposition.

It’s no wonder 86% of US farmland is planted with GM crops, a good ‘ol boys network is writing our nation’s agricultural policy!

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the agricultural spectrum, the First Lady created an organic garden where she grows produce for the White House kitchen as well as local charities and soup kitchens. She also uses the garden to educate local elementary school children about organic gardening. In addition, the First Lady hosted diplomat spouses of world leaders at the UN General Assembly to a luncheon tour of a local NY farm specializing in seed diversity, local farming and sustainability.

You may be baffled, so am I. Is Michelle Obama just a front? Does the President really believe he is helping the world? Or, is he a puppet in the hands of wealthy campaign financiers?

Clearly, the government has ignored the growing number of studies which indicate GM food is unsafe for human or animal consumption. A paper released by The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) shows more than a causal association between GMOs and adverse health effects.

According to the AAEM,

…several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

Another study, lead by Professor Andrés Carrasco of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School, demonstrated that glyphosate (Roundup) causes birth defects at far lower doses than those used in agricultural spraying and well below maximum residue levels in products approved by the European Union. The study was initiated because of widespread reports of human malformations in Argentina beginning in 2002. This was two years after farmers began widespread aerial spraying of Roundup on their GM soy crops.

Even the President’s own Cancer Panel suggests reducing your risk of cancer by “giving preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones.” In other words, eat organic.

We are faced with a mountain of problems linked to genetically modified organisms and they continue to build: South African farmers were devastated in 2009 when genetically modified maize from Monsanto failed to produce kernels; GM soy has been linked sterility and infant mortality in hamsters; and insecticide-producing GM corn is polluting streams, lakes and rivers. What will be next?

The biotech lobbyists have succeeded in preventing GM foods from being labeled thus far, but many are seeking for that to change. This Washington Post public poll clearly shows the public wants to know if they are eating GMOs. But, the biotech industry knows they would have no industry if that was the case. Watch for this issue this coming election and ask your candidates where they stand on GMO Food Labels.

Congressman Kucinich seems to be one of the only people in Washington taking a stand for integrity and common sense. Let’s hope he still has a job come November.