Whoever runs the FDA is banking.

In my classmate's commentary, new FDA laws, he responds to the November 30, 2010 decision to enforce new Federal Drug and Administration regulations to help get "safer" food to American's dinner tables. I am glad that he/she decided to write about agriculture in the U.S., because changing the world of agriculture is crucial to our country's future.


She said she is excited that, the FDA "is making more of an effort to protect us from the foods we eat because we can't all grow our own food." This amazes me. Although it sounds good that there will be more inspections and regulations on growing, what is that really saying?


In 2008 the FDA approved the sale of meats and milk made from cloned animals. If that doesn't make your stomach turn, maybe 50 years from now all this cloned meat will have harmful effects on your children, and their children, etc. All of our beef comes from a handful of slaughterhouses--a HANDFUL. All of our corn products (which is pretty much everything we can buy at a grocery store these days) is genetically modified. This bill claims that it's "intended to keep unsafe foods from reaching markets and restaurants, where they can make people sick..."


How about taking into consideration how the food even gets to us? Farmers and people who work in the fields, work to make the fertilizer, work in the slaugherhouses, whatever--are being exploited by the FDA. How about raising inspections on the humane treatment of animals and the workers? Farmers are forced to conform to the FDA's policies on growing crops, but they encourage genetically modified crops to enhance production flow and profit.


What about obesity in America? Sheesh, what an epidemic. I wish the FDA would make a no-nonsense law and require restaurants to offer nutritional information up front like caloric intake, fat intake, etc, but more importantly--where they got their stuff from.


All Americans deserve to have good and healthful food. It's not right that only the rich can afford to buy local, free range, and grass fed. I agree with her that we can't all grow our own crops or raise our own animals, but we can hold our government accountable and support those agriculturalists who are doing what they can to truly improve the health of America.


I just wish that the media would more openly expose Americans to the real problem with the ethics of agriculture in America--whoever runs the FDA is banking. And I just lost my appetite.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I know this may seem like I'm beating a dead horse because we have all heard so many arguments for and against the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding hiding the sexual orientation of those less accepted in the military: gays and lesbians, but I really have an urge to speculate and ask some questions!


The law forbidding openly gay men and women from serving in the military was passed in 1993, so it's been around almost 18 years. To alleviate some of the frustration caused with this law, they reinforced the concept of "don't ask, don't tell," meaning that you can be gay and serve in the military, just don't tell anyone about it, or ask anyone else about their sexual orientation. (yeah right, it is a topic of conversation all the time regardless of opinion)


So right now our court system has repealed the "don't ask don't tell" policy, but for some reason our country cannot overcome this. It's a battle between the Republicans and Democrats. Right now everyone is waiting for more Republican support, but the popular view is that they don't want to look at any more bills until some 'other guy's' tax cuts are extended. What happened to making decisions on behalf of the people you represent? Instead, they're waiting on another decision to be made to satisfy their agendas first. This is ridiculous, and familiar.


The Chiefs of Staff all support an "eventual repeal," just not right now for fear that it would disrupt wartime operations. I am not saying that I disagree completely with that, because like anything as old as our military and the military mindset--change is hard to adjust to. Very hard. In the military environment this change would come down from the top of the chain, but just how reinforced would it be?


I was in the military and I worked with men and women, gay and straight. I have seen truly talented and dedicated service members released from service because there were conflicts coming about at work because of their sexual orientation. Why was it such a concern? It was true there were conflicts at work because of it, but that's because other people are conditioned into a mindset that being gay in the military is unacceptable, so they find it unacceptable and are able to find faults in other areas just because they know someone is gay. We are afraid of change. 


It might "disrupt" war time efforts. I don't mean any disrespect to our Generals, but are they really being honest with themselves and with the public? There are so many gay people in the military and in Afghanistan, but does it matter? It doesn't matter if they are gay or straight or black or white, if they want to indulge in their lifestyle, they most certainly will, regardless of law. But should they have to do it in private? Well in my opinion, all of our personal lives should be private, but when you're stuck in a ditch in Saudi Arabia for three weeks just how much of your life gets to be private? I suppose this is why they have the mindset that it could be disruptive.


It doesn't matter what laws exist, there will still be gays and lesbians serving in the military. In our nation's current state, how could they be so selective? What are they implying about class distinctions to the youth and service family members in America? 


Sexual orientation should not effect your job. I understand men and women have separate jobs in the military, some jobs women simply cannot or should not do. However, how does one's sexual orientation dictate their integrity, honor, compassion, patriotism, or even work ethic? Why is this taking so long to be resolved? 


I'm not saying that there won't be problems if this law is repealed, but we don't know until we try. A team is only as strong as its weakest link. 

Will there ever be a solution?

I completely agree with my classmate, Sara, that the government needs to heavily crackdown on border patrol between Mexico and the United States in her blog Border Security. But what's the solution, or a solution?


She brings up good points, the new law in Arizona allowing the government to racial profile essentially, and also about the American family who was fully within their rights being completely violated on their own land. The focus in Arizona is to aid in border security and protect our country, but it's so controversial, and hardly compassionate (which is something that I feel everyone should be regardless of who you are and where you come from and what you believe). So, this is a proposed solution, but just how functional is it? 


We spend so much money on wars, but it seems we forget about this war right here in our own country! Is it because Washington D.C. is 2000 miles away? How would the Mexican drug cartel and illegal immigrants be handled differently if it was in our country's leaders' backyards instead of ours? This topic is so familiar and so popular there is a television show about it now. I can't even watch it. It makes me sad, and scared--for them, for us, for the future of humanity. 


Obviously (by my rants), Sara's work got a point across to the audience, that this is important. I do wish, however, that she stated her idea of a solution. My idea may seem really silly, but many of techniques used in America to handle and proportion our nation's priorities are, too. I think that instead of 2012 Presidential hopefuls spending millions on campaigning, they should donate half of it to finding a better solution on the border. That would be a lot more impressive than any speech, fancy suit, killing flies, or trying to humble Americans by telling the stories of average Joes. 


And, if not that, then maybe they could at least be truthful about our border security and illegal immigration, instead of worrying about how many votes they will or will not get because they see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Don't be a Kermudgeon

One of our recent class discussions got me thinking about the U.S. Census Bureau; it's purpose and how it's received by the American public. Filling out the census form once every 10 years per household is important, no--it's crucial to having prosperous communities and receiving federal funding in our local communities among many other things that effect all of us.

I understand there is a popular mistrust in our government and it's policies, and I am one of those people, too. I also understand how it can be perceived as an invasion of privacy. Is it really necessary for them to know, even indirectly, that my brother came to live with me for a few months because he had no where else to go? Many of us are just plain scared of why this information is needed, scared of repercussion. 

Honestly, if the government wants information about us, then they'll find a way to get it. We basically give out more information to our cell phone provider than we're willing to give a form that is sent by the government. It's not difficult to look at pictures of our homes and yards via satellite maps, or just google our names on the internet and look at our social networking pages--there are tons of ways to get very personal information without ever asking us. 

We have to get over these insecurities and feelings of violation and be willing to grasp the bigger picture. The government needs to know where populations are growing to know where to construct new roads, build newer and bigger schools, provide more sources for jobs, and something else that I didn't realize until I looked into it--this information also helps distribute among states the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. How is this not important? I also started to wonder about natural disasters, and how vital the information on the census could be for emergency services to prepare and be capable of handling such distress--and guess what--the census is involved with that, too!

I know there is a lot of corruption when it comes to our government, but I really think that the census is important at this time especially. We need to track everyone, not to annoy them or invade their privacy, but to plan for our future (We know we have a "problem" with illegal immigration, we have for a very long time, it's not going to go away just because we are afraid of being truthful on our census forms). Just think of how many more jobs can open up for future generations with more information about the nation's people and economy.

 

Media Matters: Hate Fox News

With how twisted and poisonous our media-world has become in the U.S., I appreciate any acknowledgment of misinformation in our media, and I suspect exposing these falsehoods is the aim of many of the political blogs out there. Media Matters takes pride in "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," because to them, the media does matter.

In July, a 45-year-old man was caught by California police and charged with attempted murder of police officers. This article doesn't focus on that though, Tides CEO... focuses on the assassin's intentions and motivations of that day. The suspect admitted having a plan to kill "important members" of a low-profile non profit organization called Tides and the American Civil Liberties Union. Although the author, Media Matters Staff, doesn't say too much, it seems that this establishment supports the Tides CEO in his claim that Fox News' conservative, Glenn Beck-- fueled the assassin with motivation for the almost attempted murders.

Even though this article is very short and is dominated by a letter written by Tides CEO, Pike Drummond, I thought it important to critique because of what this blog stands for and how it effects readers. I feel the website is taking a stance on the issue by printing the letter written by Drummond to large companies like Geico, and JP Morgan Chase, asking them to stop their advertising with Fox News, hoping to put a stop to Glenn Beck and his power to motivate hate crimes.

I think the intended audience is very broad, but foremost it is for liberals, and those who watch news on television, and unfortunately those who for whatever reason, watch Fox News. Media Matters' primary focus is to "systematically monitor...news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible..."  yet there is no credibility behind the author of this article, it only says "staff." It does not correct any misinformation that Glenn Beck or Fox News put out there, it only suggests a way to stop Fox News, and it's is to stop them with the influence of money and power. They also completely ignore the fact that this man, Byron Williams, is insane and psychotic. To think that murder will start a "revolution" is sick, so he is obviously sick. I can't ignore the part where William's says he looked to Beck as more of a teacher than a newscaster, but is this hard and fast evidence of Beck condoning mass murder?

There may not have been much of an argument on Media Matter's side in this article, so I'll ask--what is its purpose other than adding more fuel to the fire and adding to the political polarization in our country? (Those who spend their time hating one news organization for being partial to a specific party are only adding to the problem). I don't know that money and a heart-felt letter from an organization seeking social change, fairness, and equality will give Glenn Beck a soul, or stop Fox News from producing. 

(And for the record, I do not like Glenn Beck, and I do not like Fox News, but I do love Subaru and they advertise on Fox. So what does that make me?)

Critique of Taking On China

     I never thought about whether it is a good or bad thing for the American public to have opinion sections in our "news" before. Some people say I am an opinionated person, but when it comes to topics of which my knowledge is minimal, I do not pretend to have an opinion, and I like to hear other's arguments to better understand the situation, but now I am not so sure that is the best idea. I chose Taking On China, an article evaluating the current economic conflict concerning China on The NY Times website. I chose to critique this article being as I am not an economist I thought I could hold back my instinctual opinions and look at it objectively.

     At first I thought this article's intended audience was strictly economists or those interested in international/domestic trade balance, but now i see that any American with some regard to our economy can read this and evaluate for themselves given the hands-on experience with the outsourcing of American jobs. 

     The author's main argument is that China's "predatory currency policy" is not only toying with their citizens, but ours, too, and that China is "flaunting its contempt" with the U.S., thus further effecting our economy. His choice of words clearly attacks China's policies and conveniently, they lend to his claim that U.S. officials need to initiate sanctions against China. He claims that U.S. policy makers have been "incredibly, infuriatingly passive in the face of China's bad behavior..." 

     I think that the author shows a good display of logic in his outlook of the American economy, and also the concept that you can scare or force others to do what you want them to do. We all know that though. However, I do not think he is logical when he says that emerging nations (China in this case) "could and should" help get the world economy out of its slump (I think he means to give us back the upper hand). He doesn't touch on corporate-government team player, and whether they benefit from ties with China, whether it's investments or taking advantage of their cheap economy. 

     I am glad that you have to search for this article under the opinion section because I do not think it presents a very balanced argument. If someone is looking to be pointed in one direction or the other, or someone is seeking reaffirmation of their own sharp economic standpoints, then this article effectively could handle both, but that's about it. 

     This article was posted on The New York Times website on September 29, 2010 by author Paul Krugman, American economist, and winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in economics for his work with the New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

Taking On China

Breyer Makes Case for Justices' Adherence to Constitution

I think this particular article or argument is interesting because it addresses the important issue in which many Americans believe that our nation's highest court is a "partisan battlefield," but protested from the perception of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. I do not possess a great deal of knowledge about the Supreme Court or even historical cases, but based on what I have been around for I definitely feel that the Supreme Court Justices are more concerned with their own political agendas than securing justice based off the Constitution. Justice Breyer claims that roughly only one-fourth of the court's cases end up with a split decision, he defends the justices saying that all of them "think" they are following the same Constitution. The Supreme Court is one the oldest and most influential links in our political system today, and it is appalling to realize the amount of citizens who have a growing distrust in the court. I think that you should read this article because not only have we been learning about our country's foundation and evolution, but this article shows that an understanding of American government is important when learning about the past, existing in the present, and hoping for a future.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704285104575491760911732100.html?KEYWORDS=Breyer+makes+case+for+Justice%27s+adherence+to+constitution