Michelle Obama says internet access should be 'universal right'
Source: The Guardian
Michelle Obama has declared that access to the internet should be a universal right, in a rare and controversial foray into the world of international politics during a cultural visit to China.
The US first lady, who is on a week-long trip to the communist state with her daughters and mother, risked upsetting her hosts in Beijing by declaring access to information as a birthright. During a speech at Peking University's Stanford Centre, she called for greater freedoms while refraining from a direct attack on the controls over information in China.
.......
Obama told a crowd of about 200 students, most of whom were from the US: "It is so important for information and ideas to flow freely over the internet and through the media. My husband and I are on the receiving end of plenty of questioning and criticism from our media and our fellow citizens, and it's not always easy. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world."
She added: "When it comes to expressing yourself freely, and worshipping as you choose, and having open access to information we believe those are universal rights that are the birthright of every person on this planet."
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/22/michelle-obama-internet-access-universal-right
TBF
(32,121 posts)Why You Should Care
TPP raises significant concerns about citizens freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internets global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the worlds citizens.
The US Trade Rep is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the US entertainment and pharmaceutical industries agendas, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)"Look over here, at my pretty organic garden that I am planting."
And "Don't look over there, at the men my husband is appointing this week, Vilsack, and Mike Taylor. (Both men were cloned from the loins of Monsanto's death crops.)
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)"First Lady Has Food Industry in a Frenzy" - http://NationalJournal.com http://bit.ly/Otchvo
First Lady Has Food Industry in a Frenzy
Michelle Obama's push for better nutrition is bringing sweeping changes to agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, schools, and American homes.
By Jerry Hagstrom
March 16, 2014
By many accounts, the Obama administration is leading the most aggressive campaign to improve the nation's eating habits in many decades. If the President and first lady have their way, the American people will cut down on sugar and sodium and eat more whole grains, lean meat, low-fat dairy products, and fruits and vegetables by the time he leaves office and in the years to come.
Many of those changes could result in multibillion-dollar shifts in how the government and consumers spend their money on food. Perhaps just as important, the efforts to reduce sodium, sugar, and fat will force companies to make changes in how they prepare, store, and ship food. But many of those initiatives are under pressure from food companies and from members of Congress.
On Friday, in a speech to the Partnership for a Healthier Americaa private-sector group set up to push the administration's nutrition objectivesthe first lady said:
"Because of what we have all done together, today, 32 million kids are getting healthier school meals. Tens of thousands of schools are removing junk food ads from their classroom. Fifteen thousand child-care centers will be providing healthier snacks and getting those cute little kids up and moving. Food and beverage companies have cut 6.4 trillion calories from their products. We will soon have better nutrition labels on 700,000 food items. Hundreds of new or renovated grocery stores are reaching millions of people in underserved communities."
But the very same day, at a House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, the opposition surfaced.
<>
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)This Administration from being remembered as the Admin that will be forcing our grand kids having to eat the fusarium and vomitoxin contaminated foods that this president's appointees are allowing to flourish.
The first lady can cancel every activity but her promotion of healthy eating, but those speeches are not two percent as effective in terms of real results in the nation's farmlands as her husband making decent choices regarding the top posts at Agriculture department, and the top positions at the FDA.
Two things to point out:
One: Our nation's ability to be protected from lasting harm from GM foods is time sensitive. Already so many millions of acres of cropland have been contaminated, that in the event of a Presidency where the GM stuff is outlawed, the pollen will exist in such extreme quantities that the GM stuff will continue to flourish, even without being directly planted.
Although the public is getting the jist of the meaning of GM foods, all Industry needs at this point is to keep someone like Obama in office for another year or two. Then there is no turning back. Pollen could care less about the laws we re-write. Once GM pollen is out there, game over.
Two: Many people will say, "Well you need to tell the President and have the scientists, like Don Huber, tell the President about the dangers of Gm foods."
But the President already knows the arguments - after all, has Michelle never talked to him about the importance of organics?? (Of course, the totally cynical among us think she could care less about organics, and that both of them are CIA driven career people. Having one person in a partnership say X while the other states Not X is a CIA driven tactic.)
And repeatedly he has allowed himself, like in so many other areas of his decision making, to be persuaded by those with the Big bucks. He could have asked for face time with the activists, but he could care less about activists. (Unless they are from the Crimea!)
So that when the activists against Gm crops persuaded Dept of Ag head, Vilsack, that he should insist on a buffer zone between the alfalfa crops that are GM and the rest of the croplands of America. Vilsack was agreeable to this idea, so the industry-controlled WH immediately sent over a dozen WH staff members to twist Vilsack's arm!
So Obama is no innocent. He intends to get the going-away present similar to the one that Mr Clinton got from Monsanto and Big Banking Interests, the promise of $ 100,000 every time he appears before a corporate podium.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Or in actual foods derived from canola, cottonseed, corn (cooking oils, chips) or soy (tofu, soy milk) not specified as organic or non-gmo, plus any dairy containing rBGH. Easily avoided, all, especially following policies advocated in article above. Don't you get it? Indirect confrontation will work. That and consumers organizing and makin' noise about what they will no longer tolerate (like 'yoga mat' in Subway bread) or gmo salmon (below).
It's not reasonable to ask any one person to stand between a corporation and billions (above), but we can. Yes, we can. No cliche, rather an engaged informed public. Check it out.
Kroger, Safeway join trend away from GMO food
March 3rd, 2014
Largest U.S. grocery stores will not sell genetically engineered salmon
The two largest grocery stores in the United States, Kroger (NYSE: KR) and Safeway (NYSE: SWY), have made commitments to not sell GMO salmon, according to statements released today by Friends of the Earth and a coalition of more than 30 consumer, health, food safety and fishing groups, including Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch and Consumers Union. These stores join other leading supermarket chains -- now totaling over 9,000 stores nationwide -- that have already rejected the GMO salmon that is still under review by FDA.
<>
The total number of companies committed to not sell genetically engineered salmon now stands at more than 60 retailers, including Target, Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Aldi, H-E-B, Meijer, Hy-Vee, Marsh, Giant Eagle, and now Safeway and Kroger, representing more than 9,000 grocery stores across the country.
"This is good news, as FDA's human and environmental assessments of the safety of this genetically engineered fish are both seriously flawed, said Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumers Union, the public policy arm of Consumer Reports.
Nearly 2 million people -- including scientists, fishermen, business owners, and consumers -- have written to the FDA opposing the approval of genetically engineered salmon and in response to Aqua Bountys revised draft environmental assessment in 2013. Despite this outcry, the FDA is still considering approving GE salmon and has said it will likely not be labeled, so consumers will have no way of knowing if the fish they are feeding their families is genetically engineered. At least 35 other species of genetically engineered fish are currently under development, and the FDAs decision on this genetically engineered salmon application will set a precedent for other genetically engineered fish and animals (including cows, chickens and pigs) to enter the global food market.
"Today's announcement by major grocery retailers makes it even more clear that there is no demand for GE salmon," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "It's time for the FDA to deny the application for this unsustainable and unnecessary new genetically engineered food."
<>
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Where you list all the things that contain the additives from the GM crips, and then you say it is easy to avoid Gm.
Well yes and no.
Yes if you have switched your household to an all Gm free household,with only fresh produce, home made millet or rice bread, but who stays home all the time? (Wheat is usually not Gm, but it is heavily sprayed with RoundUp and so that should be avoided also.)
But am glad you reminded me of the website,a s connecting them will be worthwhile.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)It's ok for old farts to be as careless and clueless with their own health as they want after learning about the subject online, as this information is not in the MSM. Go for it if there's no concern about paying for it later with poor health. OTOH, other groups may reach different conclusions and act accordingly to the detriment of the 'food' industry. Tough break for them, that internet.
Study suggests potential association between soy formula and seizures in children with autism
March 13, 2014 by David Tenenbaum
More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4669069
Status - Completed Legislative Action
Status: Passed on June 7 2013 - 100% progress
Action: 2013-06-25 - Signed by the Governor
Text: Latest bill text (Chaptered) [HTML]
Summary
To require any infant formula or baby food sold or intended for sale in the state of Connecticut to include clear and conspicuous labeling if the infant formula or baby food contains any genetically engineered materials.
Backstory: http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2013/mar/12/labeling_of_gmo_baby_food_and_baby_formula/
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)don't see the diversions. I wonder if Xi Jinping was rolling his eyes in his head. When TPP comes it will be all over but the shoutin'. And it is coming. There will pretty much be nowhere left to hide. Course, with the US Navy now getting information on parking tickets via LinX is there really anywhere to hide now.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I'll be waiting for the battle carrier to come steaming into my driveway to collect on those tickets!
But the reason for the diversion - people like upbeat news, and it is fun, I guess, for many Democrats to focus on Missus Oval Office, rather than the deplorable control the One Percent holds on the President.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)get older and compare the world in 1957 to now, I wonder what happened and it steers my thought. I voted for Obama twice. Maybe part of the reason for her food talks is that Dad now works at Target selling laundry detergent rather than P&G doing 5-year plans. Now all Dad can afford is cheap food and tap water.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Right?
call me when that happens. 12D chess or something means we have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and meet the transnationals half way and deal with the extremists in our party. The excuse is in there somewhere.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)does.
We would be HOT! , wait...not that funny
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)dang I wish that was funny
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)If there is anyone more American and patriotic than her, I can't honestly think of who that would be. K&R
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Might feel good, but I would rather have a couple in the WH who realized that their Monsanto supporting appointments and their TPP supporting activities cause terrible harm to real people.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)and you'll dump into more patriotic people in five minutes than she is. Geeze!
Cha
(297,935 posts)on rw boards.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)before putting words in my mouth. OK? The key phrase was "more Patriotic". The word "more" is a comparative modifier. Also, the insinuation that I am a right winger for challenging your superlative statement about the first lady's patriotism is an ad hominem fallacy. Look it up at the same time you check out the definition of "more." You might also want to compare the differences between nationalism, patriotism and cultism.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)patriot-o-meter somewhere, and if Mrs. Obama can be show to be the most patriotic American, I'll be happy to retract my rebuttal of that claim implied by the post I originally responded to. Otherwise, I'll remain skeptical.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)To suggest that someone is the most (fill in the blank) based upon opinion is subjective bullshit.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)The way you put it, it definitely came off as an insinuation that Michelle Obama is lacking patriotism.
Aside from that, I'm not even sure why you bothered to comment. The post in question didn't say anything that justified that kind of response.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)because conferring sainthood on politicians (and the First Lady is a politician) substitutes personality for critical thinking about policy. However well intentioned, such attitudes are a threat to political objectivity and deserve a response. My response was a simple analogy, was civil and short. What I find disturbing is all the rude fuss it stirred up.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...is normal and it doesn't equate to conferring sainthood. And no, it isn't a threat to political objectivity, that's nutty. People who are interested in having a politically objective discussion will do so regardless of what kind of praise or criticism others heap on certain public figures.
There is nothing wrong with being a fan.
Cha
(297,935 posts)you jump right in with shit about her on the net.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)as you do. You started with the Obama worship. Your sort of raging fan idolatry is why political messaging is fashioned for low information chumps.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)And now you bust out the "Obama worship" dog whistle. Why don't you just get off everyone's ass? The poster that initially was praising Michelle Obama didn't say anything that justified your dickish attitude towards them.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)Enough! I apologize. I'll say anything if you will just STFU. OK?
Cha
(297,935 posts)thinks they know shit about the First Lady.
I'm someone who knows he knows no more or less about the First Lady than any other peasant. It is absurd to propose that someone who praises the First Lady for a trait she may or may not possess knows more about her than someone who doesn't. Try and grasp that concept.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...radar of concerns is what is absurd.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Truther?
Come on. . .Townhall.com is that way --------------------->
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)or just name calling? The Townhall folks live in the same all is black or all is white reality you do. They're also just as infantile. There was a time when most Democrats actually had 3 digit IQs. Sadly, those days are past.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Spare the lectures about rational thought when that's your idea of rational discourse. You simply have no place to talk.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)of anything. But when someone begins confusing their own opinions for facts, I have plenty of room to talk. To have suggested that no one is more patriotic than Michelle Obama was ridiculous. That in and of itself is no big deal unless it becomes a substitute for critical thought. A democracy can only function when policy supersedes personality.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I seriously doubt the poster posting that meant it in a literal sense. Normal people use exaggerations like when complimenting people they like. Its pretty standard human communication.
"So and so is the nicest person I ever met"
"That guy/girl is the hottest guy/girl on the planet"
"This is the worst day of my life"
"I don't think you can find anyone better than such and such than so and so"
This is just how people talk. We normally say these kinds of things for effect and most people know to not take those kind've statements literally.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)In case she hadn't noticed.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Really, the only difference between a great deal of the far left and the far right is that the left tries to pretend their hatred for Obama isn't real.
TBF
(32,121 posts)say this while TPP is out there in the background. If POTUS does not support the provisions of TPP that may limit access to the Internet then I wish he'd come out and say so. If you or Pro have something to offer on that I'd be happy to read it. Thanks.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I've read every post here, and I still don't get why she's being so heavily criticized here on a board that is supposed to be at least SOMEWHAT partisan, except that some people just enjoy complaining.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You transformed 'there are lots of people more patriotic' into 'she's unpatriotic'.
Now personally, I think 'patriotism olympics', whereby you go around comparing how 'patriotic' people are is silly, but it's disingenuous to change people's words and claim they said what you want them to have said, rather than what they actually did.
The only one who explicitly said 'unpatriotic' was you.
It's as bad as the logic in that car insurance commercial where the woman says 'then how did I get this safe driving check?' after the guy says 'men are better drivers'. Whether or not we agree that 'men are better drivers', that statement has nothing to do with whether one individual (the woman) is 'good enough a driver' to get a safe driving check. (And the guy is probably wrong anyway, but you'd check with someone who knows the stats to prove it, not introduce one anecdote.)
I also think 'patriotism' is overrated. I'd rather have people doing what's 'right' for humanity as a whole and the environment we depend on, rather than spending all of their energy worrying about one specific geopolitical unit.
I consider the current FL probably the best since Roosevelt, btw, but I'm not going to go twisting the words of people who disagree with my assessment so that I can insult them.
Cha
(297,935 posts)genius there that she's only less patriotic than 5 random people on the street.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Kild the Radio Star
(30 posts)But not for my 9-year-old daughter.
alp227
(32,073 posts)such universal access would empower bad ideas. look how many Alex Jones and Freeper and ant-vaccine and kook types pollute the blogosphere and comments sections of news sites. that's the trade-off in a first world nation with widespread literacy and information access: the stupidity outweighs the reasonable.
TBF
(32,121 posts)ok. So you are against freedom of speech? That's the very first amendment.
alp227
(32,073 posts)Free speech is an inalienable right. The means of speech in this case an internet connection...whole different story.
Do you think the conspiracy nut types who pollute the web were as empowered in the time before electronic communications, as they are now?
TBF
(32,121 posts)access to the Internet. Period.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)That's how we discover the truth, she said to the crowd of about 200, which included a handful of officials from major universities in the U.S. and China. Thats how we learn whats really happening in our communities, our country and our world. And thats how we decide which values and ideas we think are best by questioning and debating them vigorously.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'd rather have a declared universal right to food and clean water, and work on things like 'universal internet access' after we've got things people actually have to have to stay alive taken care of.
The internet is a great resource, but Maslow's Hierarchy says you need to address survival before anything else...
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I'm so glad you're here on DU.
My first thought was no....shelter and food should be the absolute and inviolable birthright of everyone born on earth.
Access to technology is pretty much still a first world issue. When children and the elderly are starving and homeless, we simply can't focus on Internet access as equal to food and shelter.
ancianita
(36,207 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)certainly not before we protect people from persecution on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, etc. and ensure everyone has a decent roof over their head, nutritious food to eat and access to affordable health care. These in my opinion are "rights".
Technology, and specifically the Internet, facilitates the open exchange of ideas and access to information. I would consider it a very important commodity but don't know I would equate it with a right.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...a right?
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)TBF
(32,121 posts)these are critical. I think it goes right in hand with right to shelter, food & health care.
I would have no problem with proper taxation and minimum income either - those are good things.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And it would not be hard for concerned officials to see to it that our jobs are returned. For instance: If Sallie Mae wants to remain the privatized agency in charge of student loans, than Sallie Mae shouldn't have third world people working for the agency.
Akoto
(4,267 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)Guaguacoa
(271 posts)and I can see nobody said unpatriotic in that post. Saying "Bump into someone more patriotic" is nothing in the way of saying unpatriotic. I see it's not only the rw'ers that are dishonest.
Cha
(297,935 posts)anyone you bump into on the street.. according to some anonymous poster on the net.
Guaguacoa
(271 posts)not say ANYONE you bump into. It's not only right wingers that are dishonest. Twisting someone's words to insult them is hateful.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Guaguacoa
(271 posts)Cha
(297,935 posts)Guaguacoa
(271 posts)Lying to insult someone is pathetic.
Igel
(35,383 posts)I don't think she's saying it's a positive right, one that governments have to provide or ensure. That's one meaning of "open access". If I'm unable to afford access because I can't afford having cables strung across the Mojave or pay Cox or Comcast, I'm "denied" "open access."
She's expressed them as positive rights but they're negative rights. Governments shouldn't block access to the Internet. This is a different kettle of fish, makes sense in context, and doesn't make her husband out as a hypocrite. TPP and net neutrality don't come into play.
Think about it this way: If governments are forced to provide Internet access, that means they're responsible for the cables, routers, etc., etc. Why stop there? What if they can't afford Internet connections? Why, governments can provide that. What if they don't have browsers or equipment for browsers. Why not have governments provide those, either? Then there are Internet skills.
If governments simply shouldn't block access, easy-peasy. They don't have any laws in place that block access.
Does this jibe with the rest of what she said? Let's see ... Freedom of religion. If governments have to provide freedom of religion, then presumably they need to provide the locations for religious activity. Government-provided churches, mosques, temples, groves, etc. But what's a location without the accoutrements. Government-provides chalices and chasubles, crucifixes and washing stations are next on the list. And without the materials needed for services, what's the point? So the government becomes the biggest provider of Bibles, Tanakhs and Talmuds, Qur'aans and Ahadith. Etc.
And freedom of expression? I want my government-provided radio station, blog, and print media--at least a page of print, thank you, tabloid-sized, and 30 minutes of air-time (even split, radio/tv ... preferably satellite radio).
She may well want more of this kind of thing and think that ultimately it should be a universal right. But that's a far cry from declaring it a "universal right." Context matters.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)About the TPP and what will happen to the internet if it goes through.
Articles like this one:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
Sienna86
(2,150 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Finance, Healthcare, Pharma, and Energy.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Skittles
(153,261 posts)internet access is not a luxury, it is a necessity
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)We all need to have at least a minimal connection to do our banking and bill paying ...safely ...and it is a necessity for public education and an informed society.
Response to Redfairen (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)durablend
(7,467 posts)Can't have that "One Nation Under Comcast" (pat pending) if people can get on teh internets without paying for it, y'know.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)get on the internet.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)It's a secret.
agent m...
busy decrypting?
marshall
(6,665 posts)It just means being able to read. That content may or may not be filtered and otherwise controlled by agencies charged with maintaining approved social order.