Pullman's Eileen Macoll is Casting her vote for Clinton

FROM THE OLYMPIAN -Eileen Macoll, the Washington Democratic Party’s vice chairwoman, said this morning she is pledging her super-delegate vote to Hillary Clinton. This reverses a trend that saw several state super-delegates including the party chairman Dwight Pelz go with Barack Obama.

Macoll had intended to wait until after Montana and South Dakota Democrats vote Tuesday. But she had a change of heart during Memorial Day, which she said hits hard in small towns like Pullman, where she lives. She also has a military veteran father in hospice.

“I’m convinced that Sen. Clinton is the one that will end this war for us. It was an emotional decision. I think she’s the right one to have as our commander in chief for the next four years,’’ Macoll said in a telephone interview from Seattle, where she was readying to attend an event for U.S. Sen. Patty Murray tonight. “We need a Democrat in the White House and I think she is the electable candidate. We have to end this war.’’

Clinton’s campaign announced Macoll’s decision, quoting her in part as saying: “On the issues that matter most — from establishing universal health care to improving our schools to ending the war in Iraq — she has never backed down and never wavered. Hillary has what it takes to beat John McCain this Fall and win back the White House.”

Washington Democrats meeting in caucuses in February gave Obama 52 pledged delegates to 26 for Clinton. The super-delegate count now adds seven more for Obama, six for Clinton and leaves four unpledged.

The unpledged super-delegates are former U.S. House Speaker Thomas Foley and party officials Ed Cote, Sharon Mast, and David T. McDonald, according to a New York Times’ tracker. Macoll has said in the past that site’s list appeared accurate.

McDonald serves on a national Democratic committee that meets Saturday in Washington, D.C., May 31 to decide what to do about the Michigan and Florida delegations; McDonald has said he won’t take a side publicly until after that committee’s decision.

And here is the rest of it.

Read More...

Obama, Castro and Imperialism

I know I'm no good at this whole patriotism bit. That is why I always get filled with excitement when I see a new perspective on the United States (specifically on its treatment of Latin America). That's why I found this speech (translated to English, fyi) particularly exciting. Though I still support Sen. Obama, Castro presents a solid point that no candidate will ever be perfect. Though there are flaws, he also acknowledges how he's the best candidate. Here is Castro's statement:

The empire’s hypocritical politics

IT would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.

What were Obama’s statements?

"Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. (…) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair (…) I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba," he told annexationists, adding: "It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. (…) I will maintain the embargo."

The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the U.S. presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection.

José Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directors whom Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the Caliber-50 automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting on Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta.

Pepe Hernández’ group wanted to return to the pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa’s clan, who secured Bush’s electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States’ decadent and contradictory system.

Presidential candidate Obama’s speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.

How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world’s grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, the latter of which are getting smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by large trawlers which no international organization has been able to halt. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology’s potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advise him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did.

What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency? "For two hundred years," he said, "the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and

despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in

Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We

must do better. (…) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach." A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it. But, 200 years ago, Bolivar fought for Latin American unity and, more than 100 years ago, Martí gave his life in the struggle against the annexation of Cuba by the United States. What is the difference between what Monroe proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?

"I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people," he said near the end, adding: "Together, we can choose the future over the past." A beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the fear, that history makes figures what they are and not all the way around.

Today, the United States has nothing of the spirit behind the Philadelphia declaration of principles formulated by the 13 colonies that rebelled against English colonialism. Today, they are a gigantic empire undreamed of by the country’s founders at the time. Nothing, however, was to change for the natives and the slaves. The former were exterminated as the nation expanded; the latter continued to be auctioned at the marketplace —men, women and children—for nearly a century, despite the fact that "all men are born free and equal", as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The world’s objective conditions favored the development of that system.

In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban Revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don’t want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.

An armed revolution in our country might not have been needed without the military interventions, Platt Amendment and economic colonialism visited upon Cuba.

The Revolution was the result of imperial domination. We cannot be accused of having imposed it upon the country. The true changes could have and ought to have been brought about in the United States. Its own workers, more than a century ago, voiced the demand for an eight-hour work shift, which stemmed from the development of productive forces.

The first thing the leaders of the Cuban Revolution learned from Martí was to believe in and act on behalf of an organization founded for the purposes of bringing about a revolution. We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90% of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50% of voters. No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbor has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.

I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?

Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?

Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn’t the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific?

Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?

Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States?

Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?

You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?

Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?

Is it honorable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?

Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little. Not even our closest ally, the Soviet Union, was able to achieve what we have.

The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consist in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.

We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when Hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba’s sovereignty in our first war of independence.

Our Revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people’s rights or take possession of raw materials.

The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.


Fidel Castro Ruz
May 25, 2008
10:35 p.m.
Translated by ESTI

Read More...

Fox News Classic

I can't believe she really said that.

What am I talking about? Of course I believe it.


And here is the rest of it.

Read More...

Clinton Offers YDA a Million Dollars for Superdelegates

ARTICLE FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST:
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.




Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

Contacted about the report, Saban, initially very friendly, became curt. "Not true," he said, "it's simply not true." He declined to elaborate. Did he talk to the YDA superdelegate? "I talk to many, many superdelegates. Some I don't even remember their names." Did he propose any financial transaction? "I have never offered them or anybody any money" in exchange for support or a vote, he said. The Clinton campaign did not return a request for comment.

Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban's call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group's 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were "emotional," one participant said. "It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them."

Another source said that Hardt and others were acutely aware of Saban's status within Democratic circles and were concerned that their organization would suffer long-term harm if they declined his offer or if news of the proposal became public.

"I said I thought that the appropriate response was to call Haim back and say thank you but we are not interested," said the source. "I also said that it was surely the case that this story would get out because it is too interesting not to and they should think about how to deal with it. It was a day or two [before they responded]. They felt afraid. They were like, 'Holy shit, this is Haim Saban.'"

Nevertheless, the group declined the overture. A YDA official cited moral reservations as well as the overwhelming consensus of its members to back Sen. Barack Obama.

The group had not directly solicited Saban's financial support prior to the call, the official said, and records show no money from Saban has been given since. He did donate $15,000 to the group's 2005 convention, a separate political entity, and is a natural benefactor for groups such as YDA, a 527 which describes itself as the "largest youth-led, national, partisan political organization."

Saban is the nation's largest political campaign contributor over the last decade, FEC records show, giving nearly $13 million since 1999 to dozens of candidates, PACs, and Democratic campaign committees.

This past week, Crystal Strait, a YDA superdelegate, publicly announced she was supporting Obama. Another YDA superdelegate from Puerto Rico, Francisco J. Domenech, endorsed Clinton several months ago. Hardt, the third superdelegate, remains uncommitted.

"Crystal made an independent decision for all the reasons that she stated and David has consistently stated his position of choosing who to support after the primary is done," Alexandra Acker, the executive director of YDA, said when asked about why the two individuals made their respective decisions.

Hardt also released a statement explaining his current neutrality: "With just five contests left, I will wait to declare my superdelegate vote until every young voter has made their voice heard. The Young Democrats of America will proudly unite behind our nominee." Strait did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Saban's offer, which was hinted at last week by John Aravosis, publisher of AmericaBlog, underscores the heightened pitch of the Democratic primary.

Those familiar with campaign finance rules say that monetary promises for superdelegates are "problematic," but may not, in the end, be legally out of bounds.

"This is not an FEC issue," said Jan Baran, a Republican campaign finance attorney. "There are federal and state laws that bar 'vote buying' but I'm not sure they apply in this situation since this involves a convention delegate and not a voter in an election. In short, I don't know whether this is illegal or just hardnosed political horse-trading."

While no other accounts of direct financial offers have surfaced, both Democratic campaigns have attempted to use the power of the check to recruit the support of influential party insiders.

In March, high-ranking donors for Sen. Clinton, including Saban, sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi chastising her for suggesting that superdelegates had a responsibility to support the candidate who finished the primary process leading in the pledged delegate count.

"We have been strong supporters of the DCCC," they wrote. "We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August."

And in February, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that Sen. Obama's political action committee had given $694,000 to superdelegates in the previous three years. Of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama at the time, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Read More...

Live for the Present

Being home is always a mixed bag for me. High school was miserable, and college has always been my escape. But recent events in my home town have taught me to think about the future while concentrating on the present. A junior boy from my high school was killed on Mother's Day when he slipped getting out of a truck, accidentally shooting himself in the head with the gun he held in his hand. Because the truck was stuck in the snow, the person he was with (a senior from my high school, and a pretty good friend of mine) had to run for over a mile to look for help. The poor boy died 10 minutes into the drive to the hospital.

My whole town is in shock over this. In a town of 3,000, young people are the center of the community. To lose somebody so horribly and suddenly has made everybody reevaluate their priorities in life as well as appreciate what they have.

I'm writing this because I think that we all have a tendency to take ourselves out of our present situations, focusing instead on our lives after college, next month, or even next weekend. By not taking time out of our days to say hello to our old friends while making new ones, or putting off that phone call to an elderly family member, we forget about the small joys that make life so wonderful.

Don't procrastinate on spending time with the people you love. Eat what you want. Don't feel guilty for saying no to doing something you don't want to do. Forget about the trivial shit life likes to throw at you. I have a problem with this myself, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go through life miserable and missing every minute of it.

Read More...

Learn More about GMO's

I have been skeptical of the whole organic trend. I felt that government regulations and and scientific testing would protect me for anything harmful. I thought that those CoOp crazies were just jumping on a bandwagon, just like many do with fad diets, to create an upper class of food. After doing some research after watching the documentary called, "Future of Food" it turns out that the the rabbit hole is deep when it comes to food production. I realize that I one of the last to learn about all this but just in case there are other stubbern people like me out there I have complied this list of just a few reasons why you should pay attention to what you eat.

REASON #1: The Cooperate ownership of nature.

For centuries—millennia—farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.
An article in Vanity Fair sums up the history of how cooperations are able to own a seed. 

Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. “It’s not like describing a widget,” says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto’s activities in rural America for years.

Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover “a live human-made microorganism.” In this case, the organism wasn’t even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

To date, Monsanto Corp. has filed 90 lawsuits in 25 states involving 147 American farmers and 39 small businesses or farm companies.

Monsanto has set aside an annual budget of $10 million and 75 full-time staff devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers.

The largest recorded judgment favorable to Monsanto documented by the report was $3,052,800

Monsanto has received $15,253,602.82 in total recorded judgments to date.
According to the report, Monsanto's efforts to prosecute farmers fall into three categories: investigations of farmers; out-of-court settlements; and litigation against farmers accused of patent infringement or "breach of contract."

Companies that patent genetically engineered seeds own the right to the technology contained in each seed. Farmers who purchase genetically engineered seeds must sign Technology Use Agreements that specifically shield the patent company from liability for accidental contamination or other adverse impacts. The effect of these agreements is to pit farmer against farmer when conflicts arise.

The Farmer Protection Act (SB 218) aims to shield Montana wheat farmers from undue liability for genetically engineered wheat damages. The bill would also prevent patent-holding companies from suing farmers for patent infringement if genetically engineered wheat drifts across property lines and is found on the land of farmers who did not intentionally grow it. [January 13, 2005]


REASON #2: Cooperate Greed and Monopolies

Monsanto genetically engineered seeds called Roundup ready seeds. This allows those seeds to survive being spayed with the herbicide Roundup.

Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.


REASON #3: Small Farmers



This radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in farm country. Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don’t use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It’s certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn’t buy G.M. seeds and doesn’t want them on his land, it’s a safe bet he’ll get a visit from Monsanto’s seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields.

Examples:
Monsanto Sues Midwest Farmers for Saving Soybean Seeds
Monsanto Prevails in Patent Fight


REASON #4 Genes Designed to Protect Intellectual Property .



The terminator gene is a specific genetic sequence inserted into a seed's DNA. Once activated by a synthetic chemical catalyst of the manufacturer's choosing, the sequence renders the seed and crop it produces sterile. Patented by the USDA and Delta and Pine Land Co., now owned by Monsanto, this terminator technology has no agricultural or economic benefits for farmers or consumers. The only motivation is to protect intellectual property rights, according to owners of the technology. They claim that it allows them to be able to recover investments on research, and produce profits from their technology, as planters must re-purchase seeds every year. Opponents claim that corporations will only use this to squeeze more money out of dependent farmers, and begin a monopoly of chemically saturated suicide seeds.

Possibility of Transfer.

Transgenic plants have already been shown to transfer certain genes to wild relatives or bacteria. The possibility that the terminator gene could be transferred is not denied by anyone. In fact, the tendency of genetically manipulated plants to "leak" traits is greater than others. "They learned that the transgenic plants were 20 times more likely to outcross than the mutants-they were "promiscuous," as a headline in the journal Nature put it. "Nobody knows why," Bergelson says. "We're still trying to find the mechanism that drives the pattern we saw. There's a lot we don't understand, including how common it is." "It's inevitable that they will get out," says ecologist Joy Bergelson of the University of Chicago. "That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be negative repercussions. But there could be some. And right now we don't know enough about what they could be and when they could occur."' There is some speculation on the subject, however, despite the limited empirical evidence. Even if the terminator gene were to spread to wild weedy relatives, then it could help control the spread of genetic hybrids and accompanying artificial traits. "Moreover, if Terminator genes were packaged with other transgenic traits, they could help ensure that crop-weed hybrids would be sterile-potentially eliminating a difficult problem." In fact, some believe that an added attraction to use of the terminator gene is the possibility that it will prevent more genetic transfer from occurring.

While that maybe true. The sterile-seed technologies could spread to unsuspecting farmers’ lands through unwanted pollination. Communities that lose control over their seeds, adapted over centuries to their needs, risk losing control of their farming systems and becoming dependent on outside sources for seeds.

More than a billion people could be impacted by food shortages if poor farmers are not able to use their saved seeds. According to the international Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), poor farmers cultivate 15 to 20 percent of the world’s food. A recent FAO report estimated that farmers who save seeds feed at least 1.4 billion people in developing countries annually: 1 billion in China, 300 million in Africa and 100 million in Latin America.

The way a plant gene interacts with its environment cannot be completely controlled, according to many scientists. Every grain of pollen engineered with seed sterilization technology that gets picked up by the wind or an insect will carry with it the possibility of contaminating neighboring fields, said Rich Hayes, a spokesperson for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent nonprofit of more than 100,000 scientists and supporters.


REASON #5: Stand in Solidarity with those around the world


For the past six years, Indian farmers have experienced the stark realities of GM crop cultivation in the country in the form of Bt cotton. Reports continue to pour in from various districts of Andhra Pradesh including Adilabad, Warangal and Nalgonda on animal illnesses and deaths after grazing on Bt cotton fields. Farmers and shepherds have been reporting the toxic effects of Bt cotton on livestock since 2003 (see Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30). But the regulators continue to rubbish the reports. Farmers and workers experience allergic reactions during harvest of Bt cotton, with scores of victims in different states (see More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30). However, the governments have not even begun to acknowledge that.

To make matters worse, the ecology of cotton pests has altered drastically and Bt cotton farmers are dealing with newer pests and diseases. Last season’s infestation of mealy bug, a sucking pest, has resulted in pesticides sales shooting up steeply in several states including Punjab.

For farmers who wish to remain GM-free or organic, they find it almost impossible to get non-GM seed. Hundreds of organic farmers are placing special orders directly with seed companies for non-transgenic seed, as it is not readily available from retailers.

It is at this juncture that farmers’ unions, consumer organizations, environmental groups, development organizations and concerned scientists have stepped up their protests against Bt Brinjal, realizing that the experience with Bt cotton cannot be allowed to be repeated, especially with a vegetable crop that is directly consumed by people.



If you want to learn more:

Read More...

Democrats, We Have Our Nominee. Hear that, CNN?

After the primaries of North Carolina and Indiana, the debate is over. Sen. Barack Obama is our nominee for the 2008 presidential race. Now I think somebody just needs to tell that to Sen. Hillary Clinton.



Obama took North Carolina by a huge margin, with Clinton barely scraping by with two percentage points in Indiana. Somebody could scream "There are more votes out there! Just look at all the states that have yet to vote!" But that number is getting smaller and smaller. If you go here, you can look at the delegate counter on CNN. I played around with it last night, giving every state to Clinton by 75%. She was STILL behind, needing the super-delegates to put her in the lead. That is the problem with the delegate counter, having no idea where all the super-delegates currently stand. But it is a powerful image to see, without a doubt. Obama is our nominee.

Of course, don't tell that to CNN.

It is a year of record primary voter turnout, with the American people seeming to finally pay attention to what is going on in D.C. It is also, however, a year of record ratings. CNN does not want to go back to stories about polar bears in German zoos, but as they refuse to grow a pair of journalistic cahones that would be their only alternative after this primary horse race is finished. They have no interest in paying attention to McCain as closely as they have Clinton and Obama; after the story of the lobbyist/McCain relationship was published in the NYT, the story everywhere else was if that story was accurate! (Go to DemocracyNow to learn more about that story, it's worth checking out).

CNN, like Sen. Clinton, is enjoying the time in the spotlight. But there comes a time when what is needed is a graceful exit, not a never-ending encore. The people have spoken.

Obama 08!

Read More...

im in ur party, stealing ur votez

I got in a pretty heated discussion about third party presidential candidates last night, mainly centered around whether voting for them is good, pointless, or hurting the respective party from which they are often accused of “stealing” votes. Is voting for them when you’re genuinely unimpressed with the two main candidates a viable alternative, or are you just throwing your vote away, doomed to help the opposition? What are all of your thoughts?

Personally, I'm a pretty big Nader supporter. Come this November…if Obama doesn’t take the primaries, I’m voting Nader (assuming he’ll run…which he will, if Hillary gets the nomination). I’d vote for him, even if I lived in FLORIDA! HOLD UP…don’t kill me yet, let me explain why.

First of all...I don’t like the argument that Nader steals votes from Democrats, even though that’s partially why third parties are good (I’ll get to that later). In Nader’s specific case, I feel like he’s been made a scapegoat.

Take Florida in 2000, many claim it to be Nader's true rise to fame, having thwarted the Democratic party’s chance to win. But I think this is bull. Here's why: exit polls show that in Florida, 25% of his voters came from Republicans, 38% from Democrats, and the rest would not have voted at all (37%). However, people claim that the amount of Democrats who voted for him could have still swayed the election, since Gore only lost by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421. Unfortunately, sometimes this is the only part of the story people see. What many forget to realize, is that there were seven other third party candidates on Florida’s ballot! For example, Pat Buchanan received 17,412 votes, 4th runner up, and "stole" more than enough to break the gap coming from the conservative side. To blame the Democratic loss in 2000 on Nader is to use him as a scapegoat, pure and simple, because there were seven other candidates on Florida's ballots who ALL RECEIVED more than enough to swing the vote either way. If Dems are going to blame Nader for screwing us with Bush, then they should also blame the other seven third party candidates who ran in Florida that year (Well...or just the ones that they claim to attract liberal voters). I read somewhere once that 500 something people voted for Mickey Mouse in Florida in 2000. I personally blame him…damn you Mickey, you AND your cryogenically frozen anti-Semitic creator! (shakes fist)

I voted for Nader in 2004
and I'm proud I did.

Why? There were a combination of factors, the big one being that I lived in Idaho at the time, where ALL of the electoral votes are going to the GOP regardless of how I vote anyways, effectively nullifying my civic duty. So I said, “hey, why not give my vote so somebody who I think needs more recognition.” But, I also voted for Nader for another reason, he had some arms to flex this time around. Having "thwarted" the election four years prior, the Democratic party now saw him as a REAL threat, which is why Kerry met with Nader nearly four years ago on May 19, 2004.

Kerry MET with Nader, THAT'S the power of the third party! THAT’S why I voted for him! Third parties help scare the big ones into adopting policy. Now...if only Kerry wasn't so much of a tool, he could have won Nader's support. At the meeting, Nader gave a list of OVER 20 PAGES of issues he thought were important, then told Kerry that if he selected JUST THREE OF THEM and adopted them into his campaign policy, he would refrain from running for the presidency. Knowing Nader, those 20 pages touched on environmental issues, health care, tax reform, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM,...etc.

But, obviously Kerry passed up the opportunity to take a stance on something different, which is unfortunate. In today’s Washington, where lobbyists and corporate interests wash out real problems, we’ve come to expect this. But it hasn’t always been this way, and prior to the corporate worlds big money dump in the 1970’s into PACS (Corporate Political Action Committees), third party’s actually got stuff done. Back then, it wasn’t so unreasonable for candidates to listen and adopt policy.

Third Party Accomplishments (taken from About.com):

-Women's Right to Vote
Both the Prohibition and Socialist Parties promoted women's suffrage during the late 1800's. By 1916, both Republicans and Democrats supported it and by 1920, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote had been ratified.

-Child Labor Laws
The Socialist Party first advocated laws establishing minimum ages and limiting hours of work for American children in 1904. The Keating-Owen Act established such laws in 1916.

-Reduction of Working Hours
You can thank the Populist and Socialist Parties for the 40-hour work week. Their support for reduced working hours during the 1890's led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
-note* This one fits in with Geoff’s May Day article, which I enjoyed : )

-Immigration Restrictions
The Immigration Act of 1924 came about as a result of support by the Populist Party starting as early as the early 1890's.

-Income Tax
In the 1890's, the Populist and Socialist Parties supported a "progressive" tax system that would base a person's tax liability on their amount of income. The idea led to ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913.

-Social Security
The Socialist Party also supported a fund to provide temporary compensation for the unemployed in the late 1920's. The idea led to the creation of laws establishing unemployment insurance and the Social Security Act of 1935.

-Tough on Crime
In 1968, the American Independent Party and its presidential candidate George Wallace advocated "getting tough on crime." The Republican Party adopted the idea in its platform and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was the result. (George Wallace won 46 electoral votes in the 1968 election. This was the highest number of electoral votes collected by a third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt, running for the Progressive Party in 1912, won 88 votes.)

So in terms of third parties, some may say they don't have merit, people don't listen to them, they don't hold any influence, the media doesn't pay them any attention, etc. But to me, it seems like they've historically held a lot of merit, drawn MORE ears into the political arena, have held "enough" influence to get us the 16th amendment...
and as for the media's attention, well I suppose it's always going to focus on how "disruptive" they are being, because that's going to be the story. But...there's no such thing as bad press right?

History shows that when Third Party candidates really TRULY start "stealing" big chunks of the vote, the GOP and Dems SHIFT their policy! Imagine that...helping the party by going against it. Third parties keep politics dynamic, and help deviate from the "us and them" attitude of contemporary politics (something Obama has spoken much about), and although I wish they did it more, they really DO bring topics to the table, but only if they are a “legitimate threat.” Imposing this threat is my new civic duty should Hillary take the primaries.

Sadly, corporations got their shoes on in the 1970’s, changed their policy, changed their budgets, walked to Capitol Hill, and put forth massive lobbying efforts. When Nixon finally withdrew from Vietnam, the activism and civic engagement of the public lost steam, and apathy ensued. During the 1980’s, true progressives were pushed out of Congress and replaced by corporate/conservative Democrats who called for what they called the “necessary move to the center.” We were left with the state of politics as they are today: corrupt, money driven, and out of touch with the people.

Much of the public tends to think in the short term though, and we see third parties as ruffians messing up the two-party system. But when you step back and look past the next 4 years, 8 years…20 years, is it more important to settle for a short term lesser evil, electing yet another president that has their pockets full of lobby money? Or should we hold our votes hostage, put greater value on them and say, “No, not this time. I’m tired of the status quo. This time, my support goes to somebody who can rattle a cage.” Democrats like HRC have taken steps to the center of politics, and I’m tired of telling myself that it’s the best option if I want something to change. Because the fact is…I’m not changing anything, I’m keeping politics the same as it’s been since the 1970’s, and gee look what progress we’ve made…we’re trying to put the same family in the White House that we had 15 years ago, one that’s policy still revolves around dirty lobby money, double talk, and a “necessary move to the center.”

Just for fun: adjusted for inflation, average American wages peaked in 1973. America’s GNP (real gross national product) has nearly doubled since then. So why are wages lower? I have an inkling that part of it might be because the dems lost the motivation to fight for viable initiatives to better worker’s compensation. That kind of reform is hard when all your campaign supporters are completely against it.

Another example: The rich are getting richer. Everybody knows this, but what’s scary is by how much they are spreading the gap. In 1980 the richest 10% of the world's population was 79 times higher than the poorest 10%. In 2004, it was 117 times higher. (source, introduction written by Robert Weissman for the Multinational Monitor, a magazine founded by Nader)

What do these statistics have to say about the global economy and spread of wealth? Why is Obama the only Democrat who seems to see the source of this problem? The party that is supposed to fight for reform in these areas has been hijacked by the richest businessmen in the world, who love those statistics, and hope to see their patterns continue.

Hate me for it I suppose, but Hillary is not my candidate, and I won’t vote for her should she get the nomination. I really don't feel like she's going to implement the policies she preaches. She was bought out of her universal health care plan in 2006 for $854,462. This link is an interesting read, and gives you an insight to how much of a stranglehold lobbyists have in Washington. WE NEED OBAMA...otherwise nothing has changed. Casting a vote for Hillary would be casting a vote for the puppet on the left. McCain...puppet on the right. Big business interests are throwing cash down Hilary and McCain’s pockets, and getting priority over US, the PEOPLE, the ones who will inevitably elect one of them.

I'm sick and tired of settling for the lesser evil, I don’t want a shift from Halliburton running the show to Pfizer. The former is a war profiteer, the latter a drug cartel. What a trade off…

I want a candidate that puts the people first.

Why settle for less? Why does my vote have to be strategic?

We have to get Obama…
nobody else will do...nobody else will come close to what is needed in American politics. If this doesn’t happen, my only hope is to vote for Nader, not because I think he can win (he can’t). Not because I feel hopeless (I don’t). But for the sake of rattling the cage. I want the Dems to adopt policies I care about, and I’m not going to do that by doing what they expect me to, and just “voting for her anyways.”

"'Freedom is participation in power,' said the Roman orator Cicero. By this deep definition, freedom is in short supply for tens of millions of Americans," - Ralph Nader

Read More...

History Of May Day - Everyone Should Know.

Most people living in the United States know little about the International Workers' Day of May Day. For many others there is an assumption that it is only a holiday celebrated in communist countries like Cuba or the former Soviet Union. Most Americans don't realize that May Day has its origins here in this country and is as "American" as baseball and apple pie.
In the late nineteenth century, the working class was in constant struggle to gain the 8-hour work day. Working conditions were severe and it was quite common to work 10 to 16 hour days in unsafe conditions. Death and injury were commonplace at many work places and inspired such books as Upton Sinclair's The Jungle and Jack London's The Iron Heel. As early as the 1860's, working people agitated to shorten the workday without a cut in pay, but it wasn't until the late 1880's that organized labor was able to garner enough strength to declare the 8-hour workday. This proclamation was without consent of employers, yet demanded by many of the working class.

At this time, socialism was a new and attractive idea to working people, many of whom were drawn to its ideology of working class control over the production and distribution of all goods and services. Workers had seen first-hand that Capitalism benefited only their bosses, trading workers' lives for profit. Thousands of men, women and children were dying needlessly every year in the workplace, with life expectancy as low as their early twenties in some industries, and little hope of rising out of their destitution. Socialism offered another option.

A variety of socialist organizations sprung up throughout the later half of the 19th century, ranging from political parties to choir groups. In fact, many socialists were elected into governmental office by their constituency. But again, many of these socialists were ham-strung by the political process which was so evidently controlled by big business and the bi-partisan political machine. Tens of thousands of socialists broke ranks from their parties, rebuffed the entire political process, which was seen as nothing more than protection for the wealthy, and created anarchist groups throughout the country. Literally thousands of working people embraced the ideals of anarchism, which sought to put an end to all hierarchical structures (including government), emphasized worker controlled industry, and valued direct action over the bureaucratic political process. It is inaccurate to say that labor unions were "taken over" by anarchists and socialists, but rather anarchists and socialist made up the labor unions.

At its national convention in Chicago, held in 1884, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which later became the American Federation of Labor), proclaimed that "eight hours shall constitute a legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886." The following year, the FOTLU, backed by many Knights of Labor locals, reiterated their proclamation stating that it would be supported by strikes and demonstrations. At first, most radicals and anarchists regarded this demand as too reformist, failing to strike "at the root of the evil." A year before the Haymarket Massacre, Samuel Fielden pointed out in the anarchist newspaper, The Alarm, that "whether a man works eight hours a day or ten hours a day, he is still a slave."

Despite the misgivings of many of the anarchists, an estimated quarter million workers in the Chicago area became directly involved in the crusade to implement the eight hour work day, including the Trades and Labor Assembly, the Socialistic Labor Party and local Knights of Labor. As more and more of the workforce mobilized against the employers, these radicals conceded to fight for the 8-hour day, realizing that "the tide of opinion and determination of most wage-workers was set in this direction." With the involvement of the anarchists, there seemed to be an infusion of greater issues than the 8-hour day. There grew a sense of a greater social revolution beyond the more immediate gains of shortened hours, but a drastic change in the economic structure of capitalism.

In a proclamation printed just before May 1, 1886, one publisher appealed to working people with this plea:

Workingmen to Arms!

War to the Palace, Peace to the Cottage, and Death to LUXURIOUS IDLENESS.
The wage system is the only cause of the World's misery. It is supported by the rich classes, and to destroy it, they must be either made to work or DIE.

One pound of DYNAMITE is better than a bushel of BALLOTS!

MAKE YOUR DEMAND FOR EIGHT HOURS with weapons in your hands to meet the capitalistic bloodhounds, police, and militia in proper manner.

Not surprisingly the entire city was prepared for mass bloodshed, reminiscent of the railroad strike a decade earlier when police and soldiers gunned down hundreds of striking workers. On May 1, 1886, more than 300,000 workers in 13,000 businesses across the United States walked off their jobs in the first May Day celebration in history. In Chicago, the epicenter for the 8-hour day agitators, 40,000 went out on strike with the anarchists in the forefront of the public's eye. With their fiery speeches and revolutionary ideology of direct action, anarchists and anarchism became respected and embraced by the working people and despised by the capitalists.

The names of many - Albert Parsons, Johann Most, August Spies and Louis Lingg - became household words in Chicago and throughout the country. Parades, bands and tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets exemplified the workers' strength and unity, yet didn't become violent as the newspapers and authorities predicted.

More and more workers continued to walk off their jobs until the numbers swelled to nearly 100,000, yet peace prevailed. It was not until two days later, May 3, 1886, that violence broke out at the McCormick Reaper Works between police and strikers.

For six months, armed Pinkerton agents and the police harassed and beat locked-out steelworkers as they picketed. Most of these workers belonged to the "anarchist-dominated" Metal Workers' Union. During a speech near the McCormick plant, some two hundred demonstrators joined the steelworkers on the picket line. Beatings with police clubs escalated into rock throwing by the strikers which the police responded to with gunfire. At least two strikers were killed and an unknown number were wounded.

Full of rage, a public meeting was called by some of the anarchists for the following day in Haymarket Square to discuss the police brutality. Due to bad weather and short notice, only about 3000 of the tens of thousands of people showed up from the day before. This affair included families with children and the mayor of Chicago himself. Later, the mayor would testify that the crowd remained calm and orderly and that speaker August Spies made "no suggestion... for immediate use of force or violence toward any person..."

As the speech wound down, two detectives rushed to the main body of police, reporting that a speaker was using inflammatory language, inciting the police to march on the speakers' wagon. As the police began to disperse the already thinning crowd, a bomb was thrown into the police ranks. No one knows who threw the bomb, but speculations varied from blaming any one of the anarchists, to an agent provocateur working for the police.

Enraged, the police fired into the crowd. The exact number of civilians killed or wounded was never determined, but an estimated seven or eight civilians died, and up to forty were wounded. One officer died immediately and another seven died in the following weeks. Later evidence indicated that only one of the police deaths could be attributed to the bomb and that all the other police fatalities had or could have had been due to their own indiscriminate gun fire. Aside from the bomb thrower, who was never identified, it was the police, not the anarchists, who perpetrated the violence.

Eight anarchists - Albert Parsons, August Spies, Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe, Michael Schwab, George Engel, Adolph Fischer and Louis Lingg - were arrested and convicted of murder, though only three were even present at Haymarket and those three were in full view of all when the bombing occurred. The jury in their trial was comprised of business leaders in a gross mockery of justice similar to the Sacco-Vanzetti case thirty years later, or the trials of AIM and Black Panther members in the seventies. The entire world watched as these eight organizers were convicted, not for their actions, of which all of were innocent, but for their political and social beliefs. On November 11, 1887, after many failed appeals, Parsons, Spies, Engel and Fisher were hung to death. Louis Lingg, in his final protest of the state's claim of authority and punishment, took his own life the night before with an explosive device in his mouth.

The remaining organizers, Fielden, Neebe and Schwab, were pardoned six years later by Governor Altgeld, who publicly lambasted the judge on a travesty of justice. Immediately after the Haymarket Massacre, big business and government conducted what some say was the very first "Red Scare" in this country. Spun by mainstream media, anarchism became synonymous with bomb throwing and socialism became un-American. The common image of an anarchist became a bearded, eastern European immigrant with a bomb in one hand and a dagger in the other.

Today we see tens of thousands of activists embracing the ideals of the Haymarket Martyrs and those who established May Day as an International Workers' Day. Ironically, May Day is an official holiday in 66 countries and unofficially celebrated in many more, but rarely is it recognized in this country where it began.

Over one hundred years have passed since that first May Day. In the earlier part of the 20th century, the US government tried to curb the celebration and further wipe it from the public's memory by establishing "Law and Order Day" on May 1. We can draw many parallels between the events of 1886 and today. We still have locked out steelworkers struggling for justice. We still have voices of freedom behind bars as in the cases of Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier. We still had the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people in the streets of a major city to proclaim "THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!" at the WTO and FTAA demonstrations.

Read More...