Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
marmar
marmar's Journal
marmar's Journal
March 10, 2013
Reader Supported News / By William Boardman
Famed Watergate Reporter Is Losing His Marbles, Says Obama Should Threaten Iran More
What's up with Bob Woodward's war-mongering?
March 9, 2013 |
When a veteran Navy intelligence analyst gets his knickers in a loud public twist over the number of U.S. nuclear-strike capable aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, one might first enjoy the spectacle – but then wonder: why such carryings-on to raise the military threat against Iran?
When the veteran Navy intelligence analyst turns out to be Bob Woodward, who has a national audience from his platform at the Washington Post, serious observors might well wonder what the motive for this misleading war-mongering might be (beyond apparent editorial policy at the Post).
But overt war-mongering quickly became a non-issue for most of what passes for the American journalistic intelligentsia, as twitter-heads of all persuasions were promptly distracted by the shiny objects of alleged and imaginary “threats” from the White House (gasp!). Finding the “threat” hidden in an apology failed to fool the mainstream media majority.
The actual news behind this empty-headed media kabuki about fake “intimidation” of the press was actually reported (and largely ignored) on February 6, when NBC ran with this false headline: “Navy to pull aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf over budget worries.” The text quickly revealed that the Navy wasn’t pulling an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf, it was simply NOT sending a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, under a two-carrier policy ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2010. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/famed-watergate-reporter-losing-his-marbles-says-obama-should-threaten-iran-more
Famed Watergate Reporter Is Losing His Marbles, Says Obama Should Threaten Iran More
Reader Supported News / By William Boardman
Famed Watergate Reporter Is Losing His Marbles, Says Obama Should Threaten Iran More
What's up with Bob Woodward's war-mongering?
March 9, 2013 |
When a veteran Navy intelligence analyst gets his knickers in a loud public twist over the number of U.S. nuclear-strike capable aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, one might first enjoy the spectacle – but then wonder: why such carryings-on to raise the military threat against Iran?
When the veteran Navy intelligence analyst turns out to be Bob Woodward, who has a national audience from his platform at the Washington Post, serious observors might well wonder what the motive for this misleading war-mongering might be (beyond apparent editorial policy at the Post).
But overt war-mongering quickly became a non-issue for most of what passes for the American journalistic intelligentsia, as twitter-heads of all persuasions were promptly distracted by the shiny objects of alleged and imaginary “threats” from the White House (gasp!). Finding the “threat” hidden in an apology failed to fool the mainstream media majority.
The actual news behind this empty-headed media kabuki about fake “intimidation” of the press was actually reported (and largely ignored) on February 6, when NBC ran with this false headline: “Navy to pull aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf over budget worries.” The text quickly revealed that the Navy wasn’t pulling an aircraft carrier from the Persian Gulf, it was simply NOT sending a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, under a two-carrier policy ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in 2010. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/famed-watergate-reporter-losing-his-marbles-says-obama-should-threaten-iran-more
March 9, 2013
from Dissent magazine:
Dresden, Nazi-Free: The New Politics of German Civil Disobedience
By Moritz Wichmann - March 8, 2013
This year the anti-fascist alliance Dresden Nazifrei (Dresden Without Nazis) can look back on three years of successful campaigning against the largest annual Nazi demonstration in all of Europe. In these years, the eastern German city and capital of Saxony became the site of an intense political struggle over civil disobedience and how to adequately respond to thousands of neo-Nazis marching annually in the streets. It also became the site of an ongoing authoritarian-conservative backlash against social movements and against the national discourse about Germany’s National-Socialist past.
Turning the Tide
February 13 marks the date of the 1945 Allied bombings of Dresden. In their demonstrations on the weekend following the anniversary, Nazis would “mourn” the loss of “innocent lives” among the population of a cultural city—the “Florence at the Elbe River,” as Dresden is sometimes called. This provided them with an opportunity not only to establish a positive connection with the population of Dresden in the 1940s and affirm the National-Socialist identity of neo-Nazis (stopping the infighting in the fascist scene for a day), but also to engage in some historical revisionism and relativize the Holocaust. To wit, Juergen Gansel, representative of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD), proclaimed in 2005 that the Allied bombing of Dresden was not only unnecessary and a war crime, but a “bombing holocaust.”
The first march in Dresden around February 13 was organized by the Junge Landsmannschaft Ostdeutschland (Youth Corps of East Germany) in 1999 and was attended by 150 local neo-Nazis. From 2008 on, local neo-Nazis organized a second, locally mobilized march on the evening of February 13. By 2009, the march had become Europe’s biggest gathering of Nazis, with delegations of far-right parties from other European countries attending the national rally on the weekend after February 13.
At its peak in 2009, up to 7,000 surviving Nazis and neo-Nazis dressed in black and gray coats filed in tight formation through the wintry streets of Dresden’s beautiful historical center, holding flags and burning torches in the half-light of the late afternoon, making their march a silent demonstration of power. Later in the evening of February 14, neo-Nazis attacked several counter-protesters while traveling home, including a forty-two-year-old union member who was brought to the hospital with a skull fracture after being kicked repeatedly. In those days, Dresden presented the world with an old, ugly Germany that some had hoped was gone forever. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/dresden-nazi-free-the-new-politics-of-german-civil-disobedience
Dresden, Nazi-Free: The New Politics of German Civil Disobedience
from Dissent magazine:
Dresden, Nazi-Free: The New Politics of German Civil Disobedience
By Moritz Wichmann - March 8, 2013
This year the anti-fascist alliance Dresden Nazifrei (Dresden Without Nazis) can look back on three years of successful campaigning against the largest annual Nazi demonstration in all of Europe. In these years, the eastern German city and capital of Saxony became the site of an intense political struggle over civil disobedience and how to adequately respond to thousands of neo-Nazis marching annually in the streets. It also became the site of an ongoing authoritarian-conservative backlash against social movements and against the national discourse about Germany’s National-Socialist past.
Turning the Tide
February 13 marks the date of the 1945 Allied bombings of Dresden. In their demonstrations on the weekend following the anniversary, Nazis would “mourn” the loss of “innocent lives” among the population of a cultural city—the “Florence at the Elbe River,” as Dresden is sometimes called. This provided them with an opportunity not only to establish a positive connection with the population of Dresden in the 1940s and affirm the National-Socialist identity of neo-Nazis (stopping the infighting in the fascist scene for a day), but also to engage in some historical revisionism and relativize the Holocaust. To wit, Juergen Gansel, representative of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD), proclaimed in 2005 that the Allied bombing of Dresden was not only unnecessary and a war crime, but a “bombing holocaust.”
The first march in Dresden around February 13 was organized by the Junge Landsmannschaft Ostdeutschland (Youth Corps of East Germany) in 1999 and was attended by 150 local neo-Nazis. From 2008 on, local neo-Nazis organized a second, locally mobilized march on the evening of February 13. By 2009, the march had become Europe’s biggest gathering of Nazis, with delegations of far-right parties from other European countries attending the national rally on the weekend after February 13.
At its peak in 2009, up to 7,000 surviving Nazis and neo-Nazis dressed in black and gray coats filed in tight formation through the wintry streets of Dresden’s beautiful historical center, holding flags and burning torches in the half-light of the late afternoon, making their march a silent demonstration of power. Later in the evening of February 14, neo-Nazis attacked several counter-protesters while traveling home, including a forty-two-year-old union member who was brought to the hospital with a skull fracture after being kicked repeatedly. In those days, Dresden presented the world with an old, ugly Germany that some had hoped was gone forever. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/dresden-nazi-free-the-new-politics-of-german-civil-disobedience
March 9, 2013
from Consortium News:
Neocons Escape Accountability
March 8, 2013
Nearing the Iraq War’s tenth anniversary, an overriding truth is that few of the key participants – in government, media or think tanks – have faced accountability commensurate with the crime. Indeed, many of these Mideast “experts” are still go-to people for advice, writes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar
One regularly hears much talk in Washington about accountability, but also regularly sees examples of how the concept of accountability gets applied in this town in an inconsistent and warped way. There are the inevitable calls for heads to roll after any salient untoward event, and huzzahs to senior managers who do roll heads in response.
I have addressed previously what tends to be wrong about how such episodes play out. Too often there is no consideration of whether the untoward event is or is not part of some larger pattern of malfeasance or incompetence, whether those at any one level in a chain of command could reasonably be expected to prevent all such events when the action is at some other level, and whether there is any reason to expect the changes in personnel to result in any change in institutional performance.
Nor is there consideration of why those who roll heads and collect the huzzahs but who also are part of the same chain of command should be allowed to determine — in a very un-Truman-like, the-buck-didn’t-get-to-me way — that accountability stops just below their own level.
The converse of this is that in some instances in which there is a proven pattern of error, and good reason to believe that if we trust the same people who led us into failure in the past we are likely to be led into failure again, no accountability seems to be taking place. Accountability in this instance would not necessarily mean losing a particular job; it could mean being discredited as a source of policy advice. ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/08/neocons-escape-accountability/
Neocons Escape Accountability
from Consortium News:
Neocons Escape Accountability
March 8, 2013
Nearing the Iraq War’s tenth anniversary, an overriding truth is that few of the key participants – in government, media or think tanks – have faced accountability commensurate with the crime. Indeed, many of these Mideast “experts” are still go-to people for advice, writes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar
One regularly hears much talk in Washington about accountability, but also regularly sees examples of how the concept of accountability gets applied in this town in an inconsistent and warped way. There are the inevitable calls for heads to roll after any salient untoward event, and huzzahs to senior managers who do roll heads in response.
I have addressed previously what tends to be wrong about how such episodes play out. Too often there is no consideration of whether the untoward event is or is not part of some larger pattern of malfeasance or incompetence, whether those at any one level in a chain of command could reasonably be expected to prevent all such events when the action is at some other level, and whether there is any reason to expect the changes in personnel to result in any change in institutional performance.
Nor is there consideration of why those who roll heads and collect the huzzahs but who also are part of the same chain of command should be allowed to determine — in a very un-Truman-like, the-buck-didn’t-get-to-me way — that accountability stops just below their own level.
The converse of this is that in some instances in which there is a proven pattern of error, and good reason to believe that if we trust the same people who led us into failure in the past we are likely to be led into failure again, no accountability seems to be taking place. Accountability in this instance would not necessarily mean losing a particular job; it could mean being discredited as a source of policy advice. ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/08/neocons-escape-accountability/
March 9, 2013
from truthdig:
An Unrepresentative Democracy
Posted on Mar 8, 2013
By David Sirota
Why are ideas widely supported in most of the country so often portrayed as controversial, polarizing and divisive once they are taken up by legislatures? Why does the professional political class seem like a wholly separate society that does not understand the constituents it is supposed to be representing? These are the existential questions at the root of America’s political dysfunction—and a new study marshaling reams of data finally provides some concrete answers.
Conducted by the University of California’s David Broockman and University of Michigan’s Christopher Skovron, the survey of nearly 2,000 legislators from across America documents politicians’ perceptions of their constituents’ views on hot-button issues like universal health care and same-sex marriage. It then compares those perceptions with constituents’ actual views.
The juxtaposition reveals a jarring truth: Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers hugely overestimate the conservatism of the very people they are supposed to represent. In all, the report finds that “conservative politicians systematically believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are by over 20 percentage points, while liberal politicians also typically overestimate their constituents’ conservatism by several percentage points.” Ultimately, that has resulted in a political system inherently hostile to mainstream proposals and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion.
The first obvious question is why: Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities? ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/an_unrepresentative_democracy_20130308/
David Sirota: An Unrepresentative Democracy
from truthdig:
An Unrepresentative Democracy
Posted on Mar 8, 2013
By David Sirota
Why are ideas widely supported in most of the country so often portrayed as controversial, polarizing and divisive once they are taken up by legislatures? Why does the professional political class seem like a wholly separate society that does not understand the constituents it is supposed to be representing? These are the existential questions at the root of America’s political dysfunction—and a new study marshaling reams of data finally provides some concrete answers.
Conducted by the University of California’s David Broockman and University of Michigan’s Christopher Skovron, the survey of nearly 2,000 legislators from across America documents politicians’ perceptions of their constituents’ views on hot-button issues like universal health care and same-sex marriage. It then compares those perceptions with constituents’ actual views.
The juxtaposition reveals a jarring truth: Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers hugely overestimate the conservatism of the very people they are supposed to represent. In all, the report finds that “conservative politicians systematically believe their constituents are more conservative than they actually are by over 20 percentage points, while liberal politicians also typically overestimate their constituents’ conservatism by several percentage points.” Ultimately, that has resulted in a political system inherently hostile to mainstream proposals and utterly unrepresentative of public opinion.
The first obvious question is why: Why do politicians—aka people who are supposed to be professional experts in representing others—so misunderstand their own communities? ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/an_unrepresentative_democracy_20130308/
March 9, 2013
Austerity: Another "Policy Mistake" Again
Friday, 08 March 2013 00:00
By Richard D Wolff, Truthout | Op-Ed
Capitalism prescribes the same policy mistakes over and over again - austerity, punishment for debtors (unless they are financial institutions), labor cost cutting – that exacerbate its inevitable crises. When will we attack the structural roots of crisis?
Shoddy political theater distracts people with vague demons called debt ceiling, fiscal cliff and now, sequester. Party leaders posture for major donors, media boosters and the faithful. They claim to save us from the demons. Meanwhile, backstage they all agree on austerity as the "necessary" response to "our major problem," namely federal budget "imbalance." "We" are spending "beyond our means," accumulating "government debts." So "we" must raise taxes and cut spending - impose austerity - to regain balance.
On January 1, payroll taxes rose (from 4.2 to 6.2 %) for 150 million Americans. Their checks shrank as that regressive tax became more so. Obama's hyped "tax increase for the rich" was comparatively trivial. It affected only the very few Americans earning over $450,000, raising their top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Our leaders hope we forgot the 1950s and 1960s, when the top tax rate was 91 percent. On March 1, the sequester hit, unleashing federal spending cuts.
Higher payroll taxes cut personal spending on goods and services; that worsens unemployment. That reduces income and sales taxes while requiring more unemployment compensation, thereby also worsening Washington's budget imbalance. By cutting federal spending on goods and services, the sequester also worsens unemployment, reduces tax revenues and increases unemployment compensation outlays. No wonder critics scream that austerity now is crazy and counterproductive. Europe's three-year austerity program pushed its unemployment rate in February 2013 to 11.9 percent.
Why do "our leaders" agree on austerity (and disagree only on its details)? Why ignore that austerity not only undercuts the economy, but risks the government's budget too? Why ignore alternatives to austerity? For example, tax the largest corporations and richest 3 percent to fund a bottom-up stimulus program. That could help balance the federal budget, directly aid most people and likely outperform the failed top-down (trickle down) policies of Bush and Obama. FDR's policies in the 1930s provide one example to start from. ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14917-austerity-another-policy-mistake-again
Richard Wolff: Austerity: Another "Policy Mistake" Again
Austerity: Another "Policy Mistake" Again
Friday, 08 March 2013 00:00
By Richard D Wolff, Truthout | Op-Ed
Capitalism prescribes the same policy mistakes over and over again - austerity, punishment for debtors (unless they are financial institutions), labor cost cutting – that exacerbate its inevitable crises. When will we attack the structural roots of crisis?
Shoddy political theater distracts people with vague demons called debt ceiling, fiscal cliff and now, sequester. Party leaders posture for major donors, media boosters and the faithful. They claim to save us from the demons. Meanwhile, backstage they all agree on austerity as the "necessary" response to "our major problem," namely federal budget "imbalance." "We" are spending "beyond our means," accumulating "government debts." So "we" must raise taxes and cut spending - impose austerity - to regain balance.
On January 1, payroll taxes rose (from 4.2 to 6.2 %) for 150 million Americans. Their checks shrank as that regressive tax became more so. Obama's hyped "tax increase for the rich" was comparatively trivial. It affected only the very few Americans earning over $450,000, raising their top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Our leaders hope we forgot the 1950s and 1960s, when the top tax rate was 91 percent. On March 1, the sequester hit, unleashing federal spending cuts.
Higher payroll taxes cut personal spending on goods and services; that worsens unemployment. That reduces income and sales taxes while requiring more unemployment compensation, thereby also worsening Washington's budget imbalance. By cutting federal spending on goods and services, the sequester also worsens unemployment, reduces tax revenues and increases unemployment compensation outlays. No wonder critics scream that austerity now is crazy and counterproductive. Europe's three-year austerity program pushed its unemployment rate in February 2013 to 11.9 percent.
Why do "our leaders" agree on austerity (and disagree only on its details)? Why ignore that austerity not only undercuts the economy, but risks the government's budget too? Why ignore alternatives to austerity? For example, tax the largest corporations and richest 3 percent to fund a bottom-up stimulus program. That could help balance the federal budget, directly aid most people and likely outperform the failed top-down (trickle down) policies of Bush and Obama. FDR's policies in the 1930s provide one example to start from. ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14917-austerity-another-policy-mistake-again
March 9, 2013
Published on Friday, March 8, 2013 by Common Dreams
Jack Lew, Citigroup and the Ugland Truth
by Michael Winship
Along with its sandy beaches and quality snorkeling, the Cayman Islands’ reputation as an offshore tax haven for corporations, banks and hedge funds has become so well-known its financial institutions now are featured in travel brochures as yet another tourist attraction.
So as we traveled across the Caribbean this week — including a stretch paralleling the south coast of Cuba past Guantanamo Bay and the Sierra Maestra mountains, where Castro and his revolutionaries once hid out — we made a stop in George Town on Grand Cayman Island. A short walk along the shore took us to 335 South Church Street, a location made famous by Barack Obama a few years ago and more recently, Jack Lew, during his confirmation hearings to become Secretary of the Treasury.
There you’ll find Ugland House, a five-story office building that, according to a 2008 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), houses 18,857 corporations, about half of which have billing addresses back in the States. It’s the business world equivalent of one of those circus cars that’s packed with more clowns than you thought possible. In 2009, Obama said of Ugland House, “either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world.”
In Foreign Policy magazine in January 2012, Joshua Keating wrote that in reality Ugland is neither but, “… the building makes a mockery of the U.S. tax system.” .......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/08-6
Michael Winship: Jack Lew, Citigroup and the Ugland Truth
Published on Friday, March 8, 2013 by Common Dreams
Jack Lew, Citigroup and the Ugland Truth
by Michael Winship
Along with its sandy beaches and quality snorkeling, the Cayman Islands’ reputation as an offshore tax haven for corporations, banks and hedge funds has become so well-known its financial institutions now are featured in travel brochures as yet another tourist attraction.
So as we traveled across the Caribbean this week — including a stretch paralleling the south coast of Cuba past Guantanamo Bay and the Sierra Maestra mountains, where Castro and his revolutionaries once hid out — we made a stop in George Town on Grand Cayman Island. A short walk along the shore took us to 335 South Church Street, a location made famous by Barack Obama a few years ago and more recently, Jack Lew, during his confirmation hearings to become Secretary of the Treasury.
There you’ll find Ugland House, a five-story office building that, according to a 2008 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), houses 18,857 corporations, about half of which have billing addresses back in the States. It’s the business world equivalent of one of those circus cars that’s packed with more clowns than you thought possible. In 2009, Obama said of Ugland House, “either this is the largest building in the world or the largest tax scam in the world.”
In Foreign Policy magazine in January 2012, Joshua Keating wrote that in reality Ugland is neither but, “… the building makes a mockery of the U.S. tax system.” .......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/08-6
March 9, 2013
John Cornyn was against the Violence Against Women Act, before he faked being for it
WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) was among those celebrating President Barack Obama signing the Violence Against Women Act into law on Thursday. Except he voted against the bill -- and tried to gloss over that fact even as he praised one of the law's provisions.
Shortly after Obama signed the VAWA reauthorization, Cornyn released a statement titled, "Cornyn Bill to Eliminate Nationwide Rape Kit Backlog Signed Into Law." He hails the passage of the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting (SAFER) Act, which helps to reduce the number of rape kits in the possession of law enforcement authorities but not yet tested. The SAFER Act was rolled into the VAWA bill before it passed the Senate.
"An unacceptable national backlog of untested rape kits has compounded the pain for too many victims of sexual assault over the years. Today, we take a significant step toward reducing that backlog," Cornyn said. "I'm pleased with the wide bipartisan support the SAFER Act received and with the President's signature today, law enforcement can begin working immediately to test outstanding kits and see that justice is served."
The press release goes on to give background on the SAFER Act and all the groups who support it. But Cornyn, who has been a leading voice on the SAFER Act as a standalone issue, never mentions that he actually voted against the measure he had championed when he cast his vote against the VAWA bill. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/john-cornyn-violence-against-women-act_n_2839282.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
March 9, 2013
Whole Foods has announced that by 2018, all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the first national grocery store to set a deadline from GMO labeling.
“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a press release. “The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”
Genetically modified organism have been manipulated through genetic engineering by introducing changes into DNA structure.
This announcement comes at a time where interest in GMO labeling is at an all-time high. During the November election, a mandatory GMO labeling initiative -- Prop 37 -- was introduced in California. Millions of dollars poured in from various corporations such as Monsanto and PepsiCo against the ballot measure, which was ultimately defeated. ..........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?ir=Business&ref=topbar
Whole Foods GMO Labeling To Be Mandatory By 2018
Whole Foods has announced that by 2018, all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This is the first national grocery store to set a deadline from GMO labeling.
“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said Walter Robb, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, in a press release. “The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”
Genetically modified organism have been manipulated through genetic engineering by introducing changes into DNA structure.
This announcement comes at a time where interest in GMO labeling is at an all-time high. During the November election, a mandatory GMO labeling initiative -- Prop 37 -- was introduced in California. Millions of dollars poured in from various corporations such as Monsanto and PepsiCo against the ballot measure, which was ultimately defeated. ..........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?ir=Business&ref=topbar
March 8, 2013
CRESTVIEW – A 21-year-old man who told officers he loved cocaine and needed more cocaine was arrested after he was caught running naked through an apartment complex.
On Feb. 24 the Crestview Police Department received numerous reports from Bel-Aire Apartments about a man running naked and yelling through the complex. At one point he tried to get into a car of a woman and her young child.
When lawmen arrived the man, now wearing pajama pants, leaped onto the hood of the patrol car and wouldn’t get down until ordered. He lay down on the grass nearby, where he made several comments about loving cocaine and needing more cocaine.
Then, he got up and tried to run away. When the officer ordered him to stop, he ran back toward the officer and dove head-first in a slide to the officer. The officer tried to handcuff him but he got away. The officer gave chase. .........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/crime/police-blotters/naked-man-declares-he-loves-cocaine-and-needs-more-1.106369
Naked Florida man professes his love for cocaine
CRESTVIEW – A 21-year-old man who told officers he loved cocaine and needed more cocaine was arrested after he was caught running naked through an apartment complex.
On Feb. 24 the Crestview Police Department received numerous reports from Bel-Aire Apartments about a man running naked and yelling through the complex. At one point he tried to get into a car of a woman and her young child.
When lawmen arrived the man, now wearing pajama pants, leaped onto the hood of the patrol car and wouldn’t get down until ordered. He lay down on the grass nearby, where he made several comments about loving cocaine and needing more cocaine.
Then, he got up and tried to run away. When the officer ordered him to stop, he ran back toward the officer and dove head-first in a slide to the officer. The officer tried to handcuff him but he got away. The officer gave chase. .........(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/crime/police-blotters/naked-man-declares-he-loves-cocaine-and-needs-more-1.106369
March 8, 2013
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x711928689/Medford-man-pretends-stolen-Somerville-beer-is-his-genitals#axzz2MsVtuw1I
Somerville, Mass. — Police arrested a 26-year-old Medford man after he reportedly stole two cans of beer, told a woman that the cans were his penis and then threw one of the cans at her. Jonathan Scull of 50 Newbern Ave. was charged with threat to commit a crime, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, shoplifting by concealment and resisting arrest.
Police responded on Feb. 26 at 6:57 p.m. to Woody’s Liquors on Broadway for a report of assault. A female employee told police she saw a man, later identified as Scull put two cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon down his pants and leave the store. She followed him onto Broadway and asked him why he had a bulge in his pant leg around his ankle. He replied, “It’s my [genitals]!” The woman said she pointed out that the bulge around his ankle was clearly not his genitals. The man then threw a beer can at her head and fled down William Street into Medford.
Police caught up with Scull in Medford, where Scull reportedly told them that since they weren’t in Somerville, his actions at the liquor store were none of their business and they should “f--- off.” Police said Scull refused to be handcuffed and screamed obscenities as three officers tackled him. He reportedly told officers that if they removed his handcuffs he would “kick the s--- out of them,” and that he would have killed them if they didn’t have badges.
Man pretends stolen beer is his member, ends up charged with assault
http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/x711928689/Medford-man-pretends-stolen-Somerville-beer-is-his-genitals#axzz2MsVtuw1I
Somerville, Mass. — Police arrested a 26-year-old Medford man after he reportedly stole two cans of beer, told a woman that the cans were his penis and then threw one of the cans at her. Jonathan Scull of 50 Newbern Ave. was charged with threat to commit a crime, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, shoplifting by concealment and resisting arrest.
Police responded on Feb. 26 at 6:57 p.m. to Woody’s Liquors on Broadway for a report of assault. A female employee told police she saw a man, later identified as Scull put two cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon down his pants and leave the store. She followed him onto Broadway and asked him why he had a bulge in his pant leg around his ankle. He replied, “It’s my [genitals]!” The woman said she pointed out that the bulge around his ankle was clearly not his genitals. The man then threw a beer can at her head and fled down William Street into Medford.
Police caught up with Scull in Medford, where Scull reportedly told them that since they weren’t in Somerville, his actions at the liquor store were none of their business and they should “f--- off.” Police said Scull refused to be handcuffed and screamed obscenities as three officers tackled him. He reportedly told officers that if they removed his handcuffs he would “kick the s--- out of them,” and that he would have killed them if they didn’t have badges.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Detroit, MI
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 77,074