Full Version: Rural Red/Urban Blue/Suburban Purple Battleground
I have some guesses as to what it means, but I want to hear your thoughts first.
Party affiliation by geography (as you put it, Rural Red/Urban Blue/Suburban Purple) is old school. Progressives are as outraged about so-called health care reform as teabaggers. Where do they live? Here are two other examples of new wedge issues arising and changing definitions of so-called red and blue affiliations.
Watch the documentary FOOD, INC. Was Iowa's vote in the '08 Democratic presidential primary all about rural voters' rejection of candidates having known ties to the agri-business corporations known to be persecuting farmers and waging a covert war against them? Did Clinton lose Iowa because farmers there knew about her ties to Monsanto (via Burson-Marsteller's Mark Penn and multiple industry appointments made by her husband's administration) and wanted 'change'? At that point in time, I personally knew nothing about any of those topics. Now I am outraged, not because of the money, but because of the health implications of these business practices.
A more recent example remains invisible unless you know where to look. Will anyone investigate the validity of these claims regarding New Jersey's last election? Again, this issue is red hot because it pivots on the health implications of policy. Did some or many NJ voters override their natural inclinations to cross party lines because of this important health issue?
The old paradigm is broken.
Watch the documentary FOOD, INC. Was Iowa's vote in the '08 Democratic presidential primary all about rural voters' rejection of candidates having known ties to the agri-business corporations known to be persecuting farmers and waging a covert war against them? Did Clinton lose Iowa because farmers there knew about her ties to Monsanto (via Burson-Marsteller's Mark Penn and multiple industry appointments made by her husband's administration) and wanted 'change'? At that point in time, I personally knew nothing about any of those topics. Now I am outraged, not because of the money, but because of the health implications of these business practices.
QUOTE
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
FOOD, INC
.
FOOD, INC
In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, herbicide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won’t go bad, but we also have new strains of E. coli—the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.’
.
A more recent example remains invisible unless you know where to look. Will anyone investigate the validity of these claims regarding New Jersey's last election? Again, this issue is red hot because it pivots on the health implications of policy. Did some or many NJ voters override their natural inclinations to cross party lines because of this important health issue?
QUOTE
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/200...s-christie.html
MEDIA ADVISORY
Louise Kuo Habakus
louise@lifehealthchoices.com
917-553-4634
Citizens Demanding Vaccination Choice Carry Republican Chris Christie To New Jersey Governorship
November 3, 2009, Middletown, NJ –
In an unprecedented and historic move, Chris Christie put pen to paper last week and made an official campaign promise to citizens of New Jersey in support of vaccination choice. He further cemented his position on live radio with Don Imus, by becoming the first gubernatorial candidate to utter the words vaccines, autism and parental choice in the same sentence. Vaccine choice supporters showed up in record numbers tonight to cast their vote for Christie.
“Tonight, vaccine choice advocates in New Jersey are proud to announce that vaccination choice is officially a voting block,” says Life Health Choices Founder, Louise Kuo Habakus, who met with campaign leaders last December and kept the lines of communication open. “This election is a wake-up call to politicians nationwide. Vaccine choice belongs in the parents’ house, not the Statehouse or the White House.”
After receipt of the official Christie campaign promise on Friday, vaccination choice and autism advocates mobilized in force on the internet. They alerted tens of thousands of supporters, who in turn took to Facebook, Twitter, and their own support group networks to reach hundreds of thousands more. News of Christie’s now famous statement spread like wildfire through the state and across the country:
“I stand by them now, and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children… Ending waste in government in order to improve care and services for these unique children and adults, as well as giving parents the choice they deserve in their children’s health care decisions, will be top priorities.”
Anger towards Governor Corzine has been building. It is well known that New Jersey, Autism Capital of the world, is also Ground Zero for mandated shots for school. Many parents and grandparents blame environmental causes, including the state’s ultra-aggressive vaccine schedule. The “Freedom of Choice” rally in Trenton last fall garnered national media attention and catapulted this issue into the mainstream dialogue. On the heels of Corzine’s 2008 decision to add four additional vaccine mandates to the state’s already crowded schedule, thousands of parents have lined up to attend vaccination choice seminars and protests across the state.
In August, Christie and running mate, Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guagdano, met with parents and received an unvarnished assessment of New Jersey’s position on this issue from Habakus: “Fifty percent of Americans in 18 U.S. states including the highly populous, corridor states of California and Texas have vaccination choice. We deserve it here, in the state that leads the nation in autism incidence and the number of mandated shots for school attendance.”
“We look forward to Governor-elect Christie’s leadership and working with the new administration,” says Habakus.
For more information, go to http://www.lifehealthchoices.com/
.
MEDIA ADVISORY
Louise Kuo Habakus
louise@lifehealthchoices.com
917-553-4634
Citizens Demanding Vaccination Choice Carry Republican Chris Christie To New Jersey Governorship
November 3, 2009, Middletown, NJ –
In an unprecedented and historic move, Chris Christie put pen to paper last week and made an official campaign promise to citizens of New Jersey in support of vaccination choice. He further cemented his position on live radio with Don Imus, by becoming the first gubernatorial candidate to utter the words vaccines, autism and parental choice in the same sentence. Vaccine choice supporters showed up in record numbers tonight to cast their vote for Christie.
“Tonight, vaccine choice advocates in New Jersey are proud to announce that vaccination choice is officially a voting block,” says Life Health Choices Founder, Louise Kuo Habakus, who met with campaign leaders last December and kept the lines of communication open. “This election is a wake-up call to politicians nationwide. Vaccine choice belongs in the parents’ house, not the Statehouse or the White House.”
After receipt of the official Christie campaign promise on Friday, vaccination choice and autism advocates mobilized in force on the internet. They alerted tens of thousands of supporters, who in turn took to Facebook, Twitter, and their own support group networks to reach hundreds of thousands more. News of Christie’s now famous statement spread like wildfire through the state and across the country:
“I stand by them now, and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children… Ending waste in government in order to improve care and services for these unique children and adults, as well as giving parents the choice they deserve in their children’s health care decisions, will be top priorities.”
Anger towards Governor Corzine has been building. It is well known that New Jersey, Autism Capital of the world, is also Ground Zero for mandated shots for school. Many parents and grandparents blame environmental causes, including the state’s ultra-aggressive vaccine schedule. The “Freedom of Choice” rally in Trenton last fall garnered national media attention and catapulted this issue into the mainstream dialogue. On the heels of Corzine’s 2008 decision to add four additional vaccine mandates to the state’s already crowded schedule, thousands of parents have lined up to attend vaccination choice seminars and protests across the state.
In August, Christie and running mate, Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guagdano, met with parents and received an unvarnished assessment of New Jersey’s position on this issue from Habakus: “Fifty percent of Americans in 18 U.S. states including the highly populous, corridor states of California and Texas have vaccination choice. We deserve it here, in the state that leads the nation in autism incidence and the number of mandated shots for school attendance.”
“We look forward to Governor-elect Christie’s leadership and working with the new administration,” says Habakus.
For more information, go to http://www.lifehealthchoices.com/
.
QUOTE
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/200...g-parental.html
From Louise Kuo Habakus of Life Health Choices:
A PERSONAL APPEAL TO VOTE FOR CHRIS CHRISTIE
I'm making a personal appeal to our community. Please join me in voting Chris Christie for Governor on Tuesday, November 3rd.
Whether you live in New Jersey or not, this e-mail is for you.
I'm asking you to forward this to everyone you know. This is a bona fide "get out the vote" from someone who has lived here for nearly two decades and seen firsthand how Trenton is failing the people of New Jersey.
It's time to stop wringing our hands about how bad things have gotten. In a democracy, we get the government (and the governor) we deserve. The election is close. If you know me, then you will know that my standards are high, my commitment to progress is deep, and I do not make this appeal lightly.
Here's why you must vote. For Christie.
CORZINE HAS BEEN BAD FOR NEW JERSEY
Speaking plainly, Corzine does not deserve to be re-elected. Here are the reasons I cannot vote for Corzine:
HE ISN'T LISTENING TO HIS CONSTITUENTS VACCINATION CHOICE
These are strong words chosen carefully to deliver a strong message.
A NATIONAL MESSAGE: WHAT HAPPENS IN NEW JERSEY MATTERS TO YOU
New Jersey is Ground Zero when it comes to the issue of vaccine mandates. No state in the country, no place in the world, mandates more shots for daycare and school than the Garden State.
Help us now. It's time for the country to get on with the task at hand:
BE VIGILANT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
These are historic times. The swine flu pandemic has reshaped the vaccination choice debate. If government can:
Vaccines are meant to prevent disease. They must be as safe as possible. If they are not safe, they should not be mandated. If they are safe, people will take them.
So give us choice. And give New Jersey a new governor that will prioritize this issue for us all. We can ill afford more of the same. Vote on Tuesday, Chris Christie for Governor.
LOUISE KUO HABAKUS
p.s. We'll have some news to share in the next newsletter. We're aligning and collaborating with likeminded organizations to increase our scope and reach
.
From Louise Kuo Habakus of Life Health Choices:
A PERSONAL APPEAL TO VOTE FOR CHRIS CHRISTIE
I'm making a personal appeal to our community. Please join me in voting Chris Christie for Governor on Tuesday, November 3rd.
Whether you live in New Jersey or not, this e-mail is for you.
I'm asking you to forward this to everyone you know. This is a bona fide "get out the vote" from someone who has lived here for nearly two decades and seen firsthand how Trenton is failing the people of New Jersey.
It's time to stop wringing our hands about how bad things have gotten. In a democracy, we get the government (and the governor) we deserve. The election is close. If you know me, then you will know that my standards are high, my commitment to progress is deep, and I do not make this appeal lightly.
Here's why you must vote. For Christie.
WHY WE MUST VOTE CHRIS CHRISTIE FOR GOVERNOR ON TUESDAYTo say this is a breath of fresh air is a massive understatement.
- Christie supports vaccination choice. He wrote the following letter of support on Campaign letterhead, to the vaccination choice and special needs communities. He states: "Many of these families have expressed their concern over New Jersey's highest-in-the-nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor, in the fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children."
- Christie has reached out. I met with Chris in August. He is the only candidate who approached us, offered his time, and said he wanted to learn more. His lead policy guy visited me on two separate occasions to open the dialogue, late last year, at the moment Christie had made the decision to run.
- Christie has gone on the record. He stated his support for vaccination choice early on, during the primary debate. He went on Imus in the Morning this past Thursday and said: "We need to look at all the different things affecting autism in New Jersey because we have the highest rate in the country. Not just the environmental concerns but vaccinations. Parents of children with autism need to be heard, they need a seat at the table to be talking about these issues. I met with a number of these parents, I've spoken to them about the awful time they've had. They need to have somebody who is going to them. And I'm going to listen to their concerns and try to make things better. But clean up the environment is one of the ways. Be more environmentaly sensitive in terms of the other toxins that we put into our environment. And also dealing with the vaccination issue is important..."
- Christie understands parents' concerns. He is a young parent himself. He sees that parents are desperately worried about very real world problems, such as autism and chronic disease. He sees that parents are being forced to vaccinate when they believe in their hearts that the shots are harming their children. He sees that the epidemic of sick and injured children in New Jersey is the pressing public health crisis of the day. And unlike the other candidates, he has shown us that he's willing to talk about it.
CORZINE HAS BEEN BAD FOR NEW JERSEY
Speaking plainly, Corzine does not deserve to be re-elected. Here are the reasons I cannot vote for Corzine:
HE ISN'T LISTENING TO HIS CONSTITUENTS VACCINATION CHOICE
- Last year, he added four new vaccine mandates to the most crowded schedule of any state in the country. And he did it completely outside the legislative process. Corzine pushed the mandates through the Public Health Council, a rubber-stamping formality. That's how NJ became the first state in the country, and the first jurisdiction in the world, to mandate the seasonal flu shot in 2008.
- Despite the Trenton "Freedom of Choice" rally that drew national press and widespread attention... despite the many thousands of requests from parents begging for vaccination choice... Corzine has categorically refused to support passage of the Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization bill, A260/S1071. Corzine admitted to us that he gets more calls and letters on this issue than any other except tolls.
- And perhaps most egregious of all, he promised to support both vaccination choice and removal of the mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, from our vaccines when he was running for governor. And he never followed through. There's a less kind way to say the same thing.
These are strong words chosen carefully to deliver a strong message.
- Zero leadership. New Jersey is Ground Zero when it comes to the autism epidemic in the United States. There has been no official statement of concern, no think tank sessions, no roundtables, no convening of leading scientists, doctors and toxicologists. We're not even sure he's concerned.
- Corzine has refused to err on the side of caution. His failure to send a strong message of concern about the rising incidence of autism has been a profound disappointment. But he has taken his neglect one terrible step further. He could have just held firm. Completely ignoring the existing and emerging science that links vaccines and their ingredients to the symptoms and hallmarks of autism and chronic illness, Corzine chose instead to add even more vaccines to the schedule, including shots that no other state in the country has dared to mandate. We mandate 36% more shots than the next highest state. Why? Why indeed.
- Waste and abject failure under his watch. A devastating audit of the Division of Developmental Disabilities revealed a shocking degree of waste and callous indifference to the plight of New Jersey's affected families.
- It is a form of insanity to re-elect him and expect progress. Corzine has demonstrated little interest in developing innovative answers to the problems facing NJ's parents, both those with and without special needs. I have no reason to believe this would change, if he is elected for another term. We expected the former Wall Street CEO to clean up Trenton. We expected him to do a lot more than deploy his millions in support of his own re-election. Imagine if he had taken $120 million of his own money, the money that he spent on his three campaigns, and instead created real solutions, that real money can buy, to the real problems facing New Jersey?
A NATIONAL MESSAGE: WHAT HAPPENS IN NEW JERSEY MATTERS TO YOU
New Jersey is Ground Zero when it comes to the issue of vaccine mandates. No state in the country, no place in the world, mandates more shots for daycare and school than the Garden State.
Help us now. It's time for the country to get on with the task at hand:
- Finding solutions for the real public health catastrophe in our country: an epidemic of neurological, autoimmune and chronic illness facing our children, including asthma, diabetes, ADHD, allergies, peanut anaphylaxis, seizures, palsies, arthritis, OCD, autism and learning disabilities. One in six American children is learning disabled.
- Setting Big Government straight, that fake pandemics, massive and expensive vaccine campaigns, and the systematic erosion of personal, health care freedom and parental rights has got to stop now.
BE VIGILANT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
These are historic times. The swine flu pandemic has reshaped the vaccination choice debate. If government can:
- change the definition of an epidemic to mean something non-virulent,
- mobilize billions of dollars to fight something that's not remotely deadly, and
- mandate unproven, insufficently tested vaccines...
Vaccines are meant to prevent disease. They must be as safe as possible. If they are not safe, they should not be mandated. If they are safe, people will take them.
So give us choice. And give New Jersey a new governor that will prioritize this issue for us all. We can ill afford more of the same. Vote on Tuesday, Chris Christie for Governor.
LOUISE KUO HABAKUS
p.s. We'll have some news to share in the next newsletter. We're aligning and collaborating with likeminded organizations to increase our scope and reach
.
The old paradigm is broken.
what a bunch of lies and cras
chris christie is clueless and NJ always for the last 40 years elects a governor from the opposite party of the president
christie did not win he just was there
and of course, our taxes have not dropped a penny from any republican ever
sleight of hand
every person MUST get a flu shot...it is akin murder to go without one,like someone having sex with AIDS while not telling anyone. One and the same.
the important election was NY23 and CA10.
2 more votes for health insurance reform
chris christie is clueless and NJ always for the last 40 years elects a governor from the opposite party of the president
christie did not win he just was there
and of course, our taxes have not dropped a penny from any republican ever
sleight of hand
every person MUST get a flu shot...it is akin murder to go without one,like someone having sex with AIDS while not telling anyone. One and the same.
the important election was NY23 and CA10.
2 more votes for health insurance reform
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/...Yes-Vote-on-HCR
Blue Dogs afraid to vote yes on a popular healthcare reform bill, take note. Your newest colleague, from a purple district, is going to make his first vote a significant one.
Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) can be counted on as a "yes" in this weekend's expected vote on the House Democrats' health care bill, announcing his support in a press release.
"This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go," said Owens. "There are still changes I would like to make, including raising the payroll exemption for small businesses, but like I said last week, there is a fundamental need for reform and we must act with a sense of urgency."
Blue Dogs afraid to vote yes on a popular healthcare reform bill, take note. Your newest colleague, from a purple district, is going to make his first vote a significant one.
Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) can be counted on as a "yes" in this weekend's expected vote on the House Democrats' health care bill, announcing his support in a press release.
"This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go," said Owens. "There are still changes I would like to make, including raising the payroll exemption for small businesses, but like I said last week, there is a fundamental need for reform and we must act with a sense of urgency."
It's not just red state farmers transcending geography and pary, it's blue state MBA's (Louise Kuo Habakus, above, from NJ) and red state MBA's (Robyn O'Brien from TX):
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...st&p=972735
Product Description
Robyn O'Brien is not the most likely candidate for an antiestablishment crusade. A Houston native from a conservative family, this MBA and married mother of four was not someone who gave much thought to misguided government agencies and chemicals in our food—until the day her youngest daughter had a violent allergic reaction to eggs, and everything changed. The Unhealthy Truth is both the story of how one brave woman chose to take on the system and a call to action that shows how each of us can do our part and keep our own families safe.
O'Brien turns to accredited research conducted in Europe that confirms the toxicity of America's food supply, and traces the relationship between Big Food and Big Money that has ensured that the United States is one of the only developed countries in the world to allow hidden toxins in our food—toxins that can be blamed for the alarming recent increases in allergies, ADHD, cancer, and asthma among our children. Featuring recipes and an action plan for weaning your family off dangerous chemicals one step at a time The Unhealthy Truth is a must-read for every parent—and for every concerned citizen—in America today.
About the Author
Robyn O'Brien is the founder of AllergyKids. She has been featured in the New York Times and has appeared on CNN, Good Morning America, and the CBS Early Show and Evening News. She lives with her family in Boulder, Colorado.
Rachel Kranz is a novelist, nonfiction writer, and playwright who lives in New York City. Her most recent novel is Leaps of Faith (2000).
http://www.amazon.com/Unhealthy-Truth-Food...2808&sr=8-1
QUOTE(believe_it @ Feb 6 2009, 02:03 PM) 
http://allergykids.wordpress.com/2008/06/1...cience-collide/
A Ripple of Hope: When Courage and Conscience Collide
June 10, 2008
I was raised on capitalism and the Wall Street Journal. As a child, my family celebrated the birth of Reaganomics the way one would have celebrated the birth of a child. There was prosperity to be had by all – if only we believed. My father, like so many of his era, fully supported deregulation and the notion of trickle down economics. If we loosen the regulatory purse strings that government tightly controls, we will all prosper. The system works.
In our house, the Reagans had an almost royal status – to watch them dance, with Nancy in her red dress, gave me the feeling, as a child, that I was watching some magnificent combination of Frank Sinatra and a foreign prince with his graceful companion on his arm.
I trusted my political values would serve me well – I was loyal, patriotic and supported the system.
And then one of my children got sick. With a blood condition that no one could pronounce and a pediatric mandate requiring immediate enrollment at a Children's Hospital. And I awoke.
Suddenly, everywhere I turned, there were sick children. Children with diabetes, children with cancer, children with obesity, children with asthma and children with allergies. What had happened?
As headlines in the paper warned me of environmental dangers, I began to pay attention. What was in the food? Wasn't organics a left-leaning thing? And what about the plastics and the baby bottles and the vaccines? Should I worry? Doesn't our system protect us from these dangers?
And without realizing it, an internal battle had silently begun.
I lay awake at night as I tried to reconcile the loyalty I had to my father with the loyalty I had to my children. Had a generation of grandfathers failed to recognize the health risks associated with capitalism's profits, unintentionally jeopardizing the well being of their grandchildren?
I had been raised to support the system, to believe in it, to never question it, and certainly to never speak out. Activism was something that "radicals" did, certainly not conservative soccer moms.
But I couldn't shake the internal dialogue. And armed with an MBA in finance and my four children, I began to investigate the expanding role that corporations had taken in the system in which I was raised to believe. And I was stunned.
There were insecticidal toxins engineered into crops to increase profitability for the world's largest agrichemical corporation – a company whose former employees included Donald Rumsfeld and Clarence Thomas. There were petroleum based chemicals in my children's toys and shampoos that were a product of an oil corporation that had recruited me in business school. How had this happened? Had we forsaken our physical health for financial wealth?
As I struggled with the responsibility that I felt for betraying my own children, I realized that it was now my responsibility to act. But the internal battle raged on – as the call from my conscience collided with the familiar comfort of conformity – and I was paralyzed.
But with sick children, paralysis was not an option.
I realized that I had to find the courage, on behalf of my children and others, to speak out against the very system in which I was raised.
And I reluctantly stepped forward.
With the words of another crusader in hand, I found my voice: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls." (Robert F. Kennedy).
It is with that hope, and holding the hands of my four children, that I took a stand.
Our world is changing. Our children's voices are not being heard; there is no "show of hands" to gauge their reactions to the impact that our environment is having on them.
It is our turn to engage, to help our fathers recreate the world that their grandchildren deserve. We must not be daunted by the enormity of the task at hand, nor fear political "activism". For the sake of our children, it is our political responsibility.
If you take just one step forward, it might send forth that tiny ripple of hope that will touch your daughter's life years later or your son's health in ways you might never foresee.
If we dare to dream that it is possible to affect this change for our children, we will be inspired by hope and find the courage and capacity to act. Together.
EXPLOSIVE
http://allergykids.wordpress.com/2008/05/0...ergy-to-labels/
Politics and Profits: Price Inflammation and Monsanto's Allergy to Labels
(MBA in finance, remember?)
Website http://allergykids.com/
A Ripple of Hope: When Courage and Conscience Collide
June 10, 2008
I was raised on capitalism and the Wall Street Journal. As a child, my family celebrated the birth of Reaganomics the way one would have celebrated the birth of a child. There was prosperity to be had by all – if only we believed. My father, like so many of his era, fully supported deregulation and the notion of trickle down economics. If we loosen the regulatory purse strings that government tightly controls, we will all prosper. The system works.
In our house, the Reagans had an almost royal status – to watch them dance, with Nancy in her red dress, gave me the feeling, as a child, that I was watching some magnificent combination of Frank Sinatra and a foreign prince with his graceful companion on his arm.
I trusted my political values would serve me well – I was loyal, patriotic and supported the system.
And then one of my children got sick. With a blood condition that no one could pronounce and a pediatric mandate requiring immediate enrollment at a Children's Hospital. And I awoke.
Suddenly, everywhere I turned, there were sick children. Children with diabetes, children with cancer, children with obesity, children with asthma and children with allergies. What had happened?
As headlines in the paper warned me of environmental dangers, I began to pay attention. What was in the food? Wasn't organics a left-leaning thing? And what about the plastics and the baby bottles and the vaccines? Should I worry? Doesn't our system protect us from these dangers?
And without realizing it, an internal battle had silently begun.
I lay awake at night as I tried to reconcile the loyalty I had to my father with the loyalty I had to my children. Had a generation of grandfathers failed to recognize the health risks associated with capitalism's profits, unintentionally jeopardizing the well being of their grandchildren?
I had been raised to support the system, to believe in it, to never question it, and certainly to never speak out. Activism was something that "radicals" did, certainly not conservative soccer moms.
But I couldn't shake the internal dialogue. And armed with an MBA in finance and my four children, I began to investigate the expanding role that corporations had taken in the system in which I was raised to believe. And I was stunned.
There were insecticidal toxins engineered into crops to increase profitability for the world's largest agrichemical corporation – a company whose former employees included Donald Rumsfeld and Clarence Thomas. There were petroleum based chemicals in my children's toys and shampoos that were a product of an oil corporation that had recruited me in business school. How had this happened? Had we forsaken our physical health for financial wealth?
As I struggled with the responsibility that I felt for betraying my own children, I realized that it was now my responsibility to act. But the internal battle raged on – as the call from my conscience collided with the familiar comfort of conformity – and I was paralyzed.
But with sick children, paralysis was not an option.
I realized that I had to find the courage, on behalf of my children and others, to speak out against the very system in which I was raised.
And I reluctantly stepped forward.
With the words of another crusader in hand, I found my voice: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls." (Robert F. Kennedy).
It is with that hope, and holding the hands of my four children, that I took a stand.
Our world is changing. Our children's voices are not being heard; there is no "show of hands" to gauge their reactions to the impact that our environment is having on them.
It is our turn to engage, to help our fathers recreate the world that their grandchildren deserve. We must not be daunted by the enormity of the task at hand, nor fear political "activism". For the sake of our children, it is our political responsibility.
If you take just one step forward, it might send forth that tiny ripple of hope that will touch your daughter's life years later or your son's health in ways you might never foresee.
If we dare to dream that it is possible to affect this change for our children, we will be inspired by hope and find the courage and capacity to act. Together.
EXPLOSIVE
http://allergykids.wordpress.com/2008/05/0...ergy-to-labels/
Politics and Profits: Price Inflammation and Monsanto's Allergy to Labels
(MBA in finance, remember?)
Website http://allergykids.com/
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...st&p=972735
QUOTE
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/18567384/index.html
Martha Herbert MD PhD, "It frustrates me that we are not focusing a massive quantity of energy like a Manhattan Project type of energy on what is going on in an entire generation." Herbert, a child neurologist at Mass General Hospital, says nothing in her training prepared her for the number of kids coming in with autism, ADD, ADHD and other developmental disorders..." (part 1, minute 5:54)
Excerpt from ABC's Chronicle: Toxic Kids (4 parts)
What is making American children sick? Cancer rates are climbing. Cases of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma are through the roof. Is the answer all around us " in the food our kids eat, the air they breathe, and the clothes they wear?" Tonight, Chronicle investigates a provocative thesis about the American lifestyle and its effects on children's health.
Martha Herbert MD PhD, "It frustrates me that we are not focusing a massive quantity of energy like a Manhattan Project type of energy on what is going on in an entire generation." Herbert, a child neurologist at Mass General Hospital, says nothing in her training prepared her for the number of kids coming in with autism, ADD, ADHD and other developmental disorders..." (part 1, minute 5:54)
Excerpt from ABC's Chronicle: Toxic Kids (4 parts)
What is making American children sick? Cancer rates are climbing. Cases of autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma are through the roof. Is the answer all around us " in the food our kids eat, the air they breathe, and the clothes they wear?" Tonight, Chronicle investigates a provocative thesis about the American lifestyle and its effects on children's health.
QUOTE
http://marthaherbert.com/
This site, a work in progress, houses my writings and my interests. I am a pediatric neurologist and a brain development researcher. My main focus is autism. After much thought, I have come to the formulation that autism may be most inclusively understood and helped through an inclusive whole-body systems approach, where genes and environment are understood to interplay...
This site, a work in progress, houses my writings and my interests. I am a pediatric neurologist and a brain development researcher. My main focus is autism. After much thought, I have come to the formulation that autism may be most inclusively understood and helped through an inclusive whole-body systems approach, where genes and environment are understood to interplay...
QUOTE
Product Description
Robyn O'Brien is not the most likely candidate for an antiestablishment crusade. A Houston native from a conservative family, this MBA and married mother of four was not someone who gave much thought to misguided government agencies and chemicals in our food—until the day her youngest daughter had a violent allergic reaction to eggs, and everything changed. The Unhealthy Truth is both the story of how one brave woman chose to take on the system and a call to action that shows how each of us can do our part and keep our own families safe.
O'Brien turns to accredited research conducted in Europe that confirms the toxicity of America's food supply, and traces the relationship between Big Food and Big Money that has ensured that the United States is one of the only developed countries in the world to allow hidden toxins in our food—toxins that can be blamed for the alarming recent increases in allergies, ADHD, cancer, and asthma among our children. Featuring recipes and an action plan for weaning your family off dangerous chemicals one step at a time The Unhealthy Truth is a must-read for every parent—and for every concerned citizen—in America today.
About the Author
Robyn O'Brien is the founder of AllergyKids. She has been featured in the New York Times and has appeared on CNN, Good Morning America, and the CBS Early Show and Evening News. She lives with her family in Boulder, Colorado.
Rachel Kranz is a novelist, nonfiction writer, and playwright who lives in New York City. Her most recent novel is Leaps of Faith (2000).
http://www.amazon.com/Unhealthy-Truth-Food...2808&sr=8-1
I should clarify. I'm talking about districts, not states. And the pattern is not perfect. It's not hard to find specific examples of suburb districts that are consistent and solid as either red or blue. There is plenty of rural blue, but I'm sure that there is still more rural red than blue.
The pattern is not as obvious for presidential elections because there is more party line crossing. It's more obvious for House of Rep votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=H
The pattern is not as obvious for presidential elections because there is more party line crossing. It's more obvious for House of Rep votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/main.results/#val=H
NY23 was the district of the year
a red state bloody since the civil war was won by one of the biggest liberals running and a much needed vote for health care was won
the warning for 2010-
those that DON'T DO what was elected to do in 2008, like all dino's demlites will be ousted
I don't know which color represents the liberals, but that is what won in 2008, unfortunately the rightwing/moderate spin wins the day in the media
as always
give Obama a better press agent
a red state bloody since the civil war was won by one of the biggest liberals running and a much needed vote for health care was won
the warning for 2010-
those that DON'T DO what was elected to do in 2008, like all dino's demlites will be ousted
I don't know which color represents the liberals, but that is what won in 2008, unfortunately the rightwing/moderate spin wins the day in the media
as always
give Obama a better press agent
Obama is most often center-left in rhetoric and center-right in actions...
Traditional red, blue or purple affiliation doesn't matter in the context of this, either.
Link from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x6994767
QUOTE
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business...agewanted=print
November 11, 2009
Breakingviews.com
American Wages Out of Balance
By EDWARD HADAS, MARTIN HUTCHINSON and ANTONY CURRIE
American workers are overpaid, relative to equally productive employees elsewhere doing the same work. If the global economy is to get into balance, that gap must close.
Of course, workers in the United States should earn more than their peers in China, Moldova or Vietnam. Americans take advantage of the higher productivity that makes their country rich: better education and infrastructure, abundant capital and a strong work ethic. But how much higher should American wages be?
The answer depends in large part on two measures: the difference in productivity in making goods that can be traded across borders, and the quantity of such goods. Both measures point to a narrowing wage gap.
Many factors are raising productivity in poor countries. Fast development, cheap capital and more efficient shipping all help. Cheap communication via the Internet reduces costs and makes it easy to trade many more goods and especially services.
The global wage gap has been narrowing, but recent labor market statistics in the United States suggest the adjustment has not gone far enough.
One indicator is unemployment, which has risen unexpectedly rapidly. The 7.3 million jobs lost are more than triple the 2 million during the 1980-82 recession. Some of that huge increase reflects the sharp decline in gross domestic product, but there could be another factor: the recession shows that many workers are paid more than they’re worth. Another possible sign is the huge surge in reported productivity, which has begun while output is declining. That suggests that some production is being outsourced, often to lower-paid foreign workers.
The big trade deficit is another sign of excessive pay for Americans. One explanation for the attractive prices of imported goods is that American workers are paid too much relative to their foreign peers.
Global wage convergence is great for the poor but tough on the overpaid. It’s possible to run the numbers to show that American manufacturing workers should take average real wage cuts of as much as 20 percent to get into global balance.
The required cut may be smaller. But if American wages get stuck above global market-clearing levels, as in the 1930s, the result could well be something approaching Depression-era levels of unemployment.
Anything would be better than that. Both moderate inflation to cut real wages and a further drop in the dollar’s real trade-weighted value might be acceptable.
.
November 11, 2009
Breakingviews.com
American Wages Out of Balance
By EDWARD HADAS, MARTIN HUTCHINSON and ANTONY CURRIE
American workers are overpaid, relative to equally productive employees elsewhere doing the same work. If the global economy is to get into balance, that gap must close.
Of course, workers in the United States should earn more than their peers in China, Moldova or Vietnam. Americans take advantage of the higher productivity that makes their country rich: better education and infrastructure, abundant capital and a strong work ethic. But how much higher should American wages be?
The answer depends in large part on two measures: the difference in productivity in making goods that can be traded across borders, and the quantity of such goods. Both measures point to a narrowing wage gap.
Many factors are raising productivity in poor countries. Fast development, cheap capital and more efficient shipping all help. Cheap communication via the Internet reduces costs and makes it easy to trade many more goods and especially services.
The global wage gap has been narrowing, but recent labor market statistics in the United States suggest the adjustment has not gone far enough.
One indicator is unemployment, which has risen unexpectedly rapidly. The 7.3 million jobs lost are more than triple the 2 million during the 1980-82 recession. Some of that huge increase reflects the sharp decline in gross domestic product, but there could be another factor: the recession shows that many workers are paid more than they’re worth. Another possible sign is the huge surge in reported productivity, which has begun while output is declining. That suggests that some production is being outsourced, often to lower-paid foreign workers.
The big trade deficit is another sign of excessive pay for Americans. One explanation for the attractive prices of imported goods is that American workers are paid too much relative to their foreign peers.
Global wage convergence is great for the poor but tough on the overpaid. It’s possible to run the numbers to show that American manufacturing workers should take average real wage cuts of as much as 20 percent to get into global balance.
The required cut may be smaller. But if American wages get stuck above global market-clearing levels, as in the 1930s, the result could well be something approaching Depression-era levels of unemployment.
Anything would be better than that. Both moderate inflation to cut real wages and a further drop in the dollar’s real trade-weighted value might be acceptable.
.
Link from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=389x6994767
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
or the opposite
rural areas do not take to change well, so make sure to make those not like them uncomfortable, though slowly
(taking the NYC area, as the years go by, more and more people from NYC area have moved into NJ and going further and further west (there are areas in North and Northwest NJ that used to be 100% repub, and are becoming more and more mixed in all ways. (religion too, when I moved into the town I am in, there were very few Jews, and now there is a big sized congregation here.
Big cities though bring togetherness, as people work, live, play together and find everyone is just a person.
eventually like parts of Florida, the mixture will encompass the entire country
Funny I am watching the Country Music Awards and Darius Rucker wins best newcomer and his first 3 singles hit #1.
Wonders never cease (he is black, a major oddity in country music). There is hope.(not so much for winning the award, but that country radio
stations accepted and played 3 songs enough to be #1).
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:25 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
or the opposite
rural areas do not take to change well, so make sure to make those not like them uncomfortable, though slowly
(taking the NYC area, as the years go by, more and more people from NYC area have moved into NJ and going further and further west (there are areas in North and Northwest NJ that used to be 100% repub, and are becoming more and more mixed in all ways. (religion too, when I moved into the town I am in, there were very few Jews, and now there is a big sized congregation here.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 09:50 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:25 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
or the opposite
rural areas do not take to change well, so make sure to make those not like them uncomfortable, though slowly
(taking the NYC area, as the years go by, more and more people from NYC area have moved into NJ and going further and further west (there are areas in North and Northwest NJ that used to be 100% repub, and are becoming more and more mixed in all ways. (religion too, when I moved into the town I am in, there were very few Jews, and now there is a big sized congregation here.
Seems we are looking for a simple explanation for the complex relations between two complex and ill
defined constructs: Liberal vs conservative political philosophy and rural vs urban population densitity...
Good luck...
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 11 2009, 10:20 PM)
Seems we are looking for a simple explanation for the complex relations between two complex and ill defined constructs: Liberal vs conservative political philosophy and rural vs urban population densitity...
Good luck...
I'm not as concerned with liberal vs conservative in the pattern as I am concerned with urban vs rural. I'm also not looking for one factor to explain away all other factors. I'm just looking for the most important factor contributing to the pattern.
Good luck...
I just popped in and found this wonderful stream of ideas started by billmsd high bill!
In Nebraska the urban vs rural is a little more defined.
Business and Ag-Business in Urban.
Rural is Agriculture with middle Nebraska crops and western Nebraska cattle.
Bellevue which is now urban has SAC and Offutt Air Force Base
Due to Packing Houses and construction a lot of immigration.
Meth labs and use in rural Ne.
Due to the number of smaller towns and communities that were original settled by Nationality the religion followed so smaller towns and communities seem to be of the same religion where as their is diversity of religion in the Urban areas.
early migration from the south due to packing houses in Nebraska Omaha the racial diversity is more in the urban.
Farms family's and smaller towns get high military recruitment and enlisted family members.
Older people in small towns because young people seem to move away although may return later in life.
Ted Turner owns a lot of Ranch land in Western Nebraska.
Land diversity in Nebraska from River Cities to Sand Hills to ranch land in the pan handle.
Nebraska has land that is reservation of Native American.
Universities of Higher Education and Medical Centers are manly in the Urban areas which are Omaha, Bellevue and Lincoln which are in the Eastern part of the state.
Surrounding States can have influence as Western Nebraska bordered by Colorado and Eastern Nebraska border is Iowa.
So with all the above you throw in mores and ethics to the diversity and you can see in Nebraska why Douglas County is Democrat and the rest of the State Republican. I think as Bellevue and Lincoln keep growing the statistics may change.
The Big Money in Nebraska has always been Cherry County cattle country.
In Nebraska the urban vs rural is a little more defined.
Business and Ag-Business in Urban.
Rural is Agriculture with middle Nebraska crops and western Nebraska cattle.
Bellevue which is now urban has SAC and Offutt Air Force Base
Due to Packing Houses and construction a lot of immigration.
Meth labs and use in rural Ne.
Due to the number of smaller towns and communities that were original settled by Nationality the religion followed so smaller towns and communities seem to be of the same religion where as their is diversity of religion in the Urban areas.
early migration from the south due to packing houses in Nebraska Omaha the racial diversity is more in the urban.
Farms family's and smaller towns get high military recruitment and enlisted family members.
Older people in small towns because young people seem to move away although may return later in life.
Ted Turner owns a lot of Ranch land in Western Nebraska.
Land diversity in Nebraska from River Cities to Sand Hills to ranch land in the pan handle.
Nebraska has land that is reservation of Native American.
Universities of Higher Education and Medical Centers are manly in the Urban areas which are Omaha, Bellevue and Lincoln which are in the Eastern part of the state.
Surrounding States can have influence as Western Nebraska bordered by Colorado and Eastern Nebraska border is Iowa.
So with all the above you throw in mores and ethics to the diversity and you can see in Nebraska why Douglas County is Democrat and the rest of the State Republican. I think as Bellevue and Lincoln keep growing the statistics may change.
The Big Money in Nebraska has always been Cherry County cattle country.
Saw this as interesting:
"According to the dictionary, choice means both an act and a
possibility: the act of choosing between two or more
possibilities, and the right or possibility of choosing. In
other words, choosing is both about the choice of a
possibility, and the possibility of a choice."
http://www.giovannimoro.info/documenti/g.moro%20choice.pdf
Also saw another site. This is a subject worth discussing and investigating what research is out there.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/sub...lbehaviour.html
"According to the dictionary, choice means both an act and a
possibility: the act of choosing between two or more
possibilities, and the right or possibility of choosing. In
other words, choosing is both about the choice of a
possibility, and the possibility of a choice."
http://www.giovannimoro.info/documenti/g.moro%20choice.pdf
Also saw another site. This is a subject worth discussing and investigating what research is out there.
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/sub...lbehaviour.html
Thanks for your support cutecat. I see the pattern as obvious, and Nebraska is a good example.
Although I agree with the pattern, I tend to disagree with the reason for the pattern. But if you look at the highest educated people, they tend to be liberal. I think older people become conservative more often than not because most of them have trouble keeping up with an ever increasing pace of change in culture. Senior people like rla give middle-aged people like me hope that it's possible to keep up with social change in the senior years. Maybe it's his social science education that enables this talent.
QUOTE(cutecat @ Nov 12 2009, 12:00 AM)
Older people in small towns because young people seem to move away although may return later in life.
This too is a pattern according to Winston Churchill. His quote: "Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain."Although I agree with the pattern, I tend to disagree with the reason for the pattern. But if you look at the highest educated people, they tend to be liberal. I think older people become conservative more often than not because most of them have trouble keeping up with an ever increasing pace of change in culture. Senior people like rla give middle-aged people like me hope that it's possible to keep up with social change in the senior years. Maybe it's his social science education that enables this talent.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
Urban areas are where jobs are. That is why they attract the poor and minorities. It happens all over the world, not just in this country.
And, cities also attract because they are places where public transportation is more readily available.
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 15 2009, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
Urban areas are where jobs are. That is why they attract the poor and minorities. It happens all over the world, not just in this country.
And, cities also attract because they are places where public transportation is more readily available.
Urban areas would never become urban if they didn't have an overall higher degree of tolerance and acceptance of diversity.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 15 2009, 12:11 PM)
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 15 2009, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
Urban areas are where jobs are. That is why they attract the poor and minorities. It happens all over the world, not just in this country.
And, cities also attract because they are places where public transportation is more readily available.
Cities have always been melting pots. Differences are more accepted - and expected.
Why are you questioning this phenomenon? I would think it would be obvious what the reasons are for the differences in blue, red and purple areas.
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 15 2009, 02:16 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 15 2009, 12:11 PM)
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 15 2009, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
Urban areas are where jobs are. That is why they attract the poor and minorities. It happens all over the world, not just in this country.
And, cities also attract because they are places where public transportation is more readily available.
Cities have always been melting pots. Differences are more accepted - and expected.
Why are you questioning this phenomenon? I would think it would be obvious what the reasons are for the differences in blue, red and purple areas.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 15 2009, 01:11 PM)
QUOTE(Beamer @ Nov 15 2009, 01:37 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
Urban areas are where jobs are. That is why they attract the poor and minorities. It happens all over the world, not just in this country.
And, cities also attract because they are places where public transportation is more readily available.
Urban areas would never become urban if they didn't have an overall higher degree of tolerance and acceptance of diversity.
One difference is that cities have more ways of hiding slums that are frequently inhabited by minorities. Thus they are out of sight and out of mind of the upper middle class, the well to do and
visitors...
Without carefully reading the entire thread (time is short, sorry), I'm gong to jump in and add that the decision to build public housing in urban areas matters here. Many people living in blighted urban areas are there by necessity, not choice.
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 15 2009, 04:10 PM)
Without carefully reading the entire thread (time is short, sorry), I'm gong to jump in and add that the decision to build public housing in urban areas matters here. Many people living in blighted urban areas are there by necessity, not choice.
What's important is that the decision to build public housing is a choice.QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 6 2009, 02:18 PM)
I have some guesses as to what it means, but I want to hear your thoughts first.
Bill, I suggest you put a little more meat on these bones...
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
People grow up faster in the city
From my experience, kids where I am now are damn immature. An 18 year old acts like 14
Whereas in the big city, kids are older, on their own more, and have a way of maturing quicker
(In NYC there was no need for a car, when I was 12 I was routinely going from Queens to Manhattan on my own with no problem
In NJ, everyone needs a car and a parent for rides until they are old enough to think they can drive
In the big city, you walk out on the block and your friends are here
Instead of now texting and having a parent driving someone over to the other house
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 19 2009, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
I think you pretty much nailed it.
I was born and raise in the big city, but it is foreign to me now. I venture there on occasion for the ballgame.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 19 2009, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
People grow up faster in the city
From my experience, kids where I am now are damn immature. An 18 year old acts like 14
Whereas in the big city, kids are older, on their own more, and have a way of maturing quicker
(In NYC there was no need for a car, when I was 12 I was routinely going from Queens to Manhattan on my own with no problem
In NJ, everyone needs a car and a parent for rides until they are old enough to think they can drive
In the big city, you walk out on the block and your friends are here
Instead of now texting and having a parent driving someone over to the other house
Although not NY/NJ, my experience was the absolute same in Boston.
Jury's out on whether I would have wanted the same for my children had the opportunity presented itself. My kids were pretty much raised behind the gates of military installations until we hit San Antonio a couple of years ago and ventured onto the economy.
We are enroute to St Louis, a little bit more urban than Boise, ID...so we will see how they fare when I boot them out of the nest.
QUOTE(IDASpaceman @ Nov 19 2009, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 19 2009, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
People grow up faster in the city
From my experience, kids where I am now are damn immature. An 18 year old acts like 14
Whereas in the big city, kids are older, on their own more, and have a way of maturing quicker
(In NYC there was no need for a car, when I was 12 I was routinely going from Queens to Manhattan on my own with no problem
In NJ, everyone needs a car and a parent for rides until they are old enough to think they can drive
In the big city, you walk out on the block and your friends are here
Instead of now texting and having a parent driving someone over to the other house
Although not NY/NJ, my experience was the absolute same in Boston.
Jury's out on whether I would have wanted the same for my children had the opportunity presented itself. My kids were pretty much raised behind the gates of military installations until we hit San Antonio a couple of years ago and ventured onto the economy.
We are enroute to St Louis, a little bit more urban than Boise, ID...so we will see how they fare when I boot them out of the nest.
When I moved in, we had to immediately change all the locks, add locks to everything, and the person said, "you moved here from NY didn't you?
You don't need locks out here (but we went ahead and got em anyhow).
I would never want to live day to day in NYC itself again,
but there are many things I do miss day to day
The city is place to get revitalized
Out here, things are slower... I drive five minutes and there is a working farm with animals- and they have one giant Llama mixed in with the sheep and goats
I always sort of stop the car if no other car is around and just watch a few seconds
People all over drive to see the fall foilage
I just look out our window
But like Frenchy said above, when I wanna see the NY Mets destroy the Cardinals,(in my dreams) gotta go back to Shea ...Oops, mean the new Citi Field
Hey frenchy, do you think McGwire is going to get rehabilitated as coach next year, and have a chance for the HOF?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 19 2009, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE(IDASpaceman @ Nov 19 2009, 07:46 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 19 2009, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
People grow up faster in the city
From my experience, kids where I am now are damn immature. An 18 year old acts like 14
Whereas in the big city, kids are older, on their own more, and have a way of maturing quicker
(In NYC there was no need for a car, when I was 12 I was routinely going from Queens to Manhattan on my own with no problem
In NJ, everyone needs a car and a parent for rides until they are old enough to think they can drive
In the big city, you walk out on the block and your friends are here
Instead of now texting and having a parent driving someone over to the other house
Although not NY/NJ, my experience was the absolute same in Boston.
Jury's out on whether I would have wanted the same for my children had the opportunity presented itself. My kids were pretty much raised behind the gates of military installations until we hit San Antonio a couple of years ago and ventured onto the economy.
We are enroute to St Louis, a little bit more urban than Boise, ID...so we will see how they fare when I boot them out of the nest.
When I moved in, we had to immediately change all the locks, add locks to everything, and the person said, "you moved here from NY didn't you?
You don't need locks out here (but we went ahead and got em anyhow).
I would never want to live day to day in NYC itself again,
but there are many things I do miss day to day
The city is place to get revitalized
Out here, things are slower... I drive five minutes and there is a working farm with animals- and they have one giant Llama mixed in with the sheep and goats
I always sort of stop the car if no other car is around and just watch a few seconds
People all over drive to see the fall foilage
I just look out our window
But like Frenchy said above, when I wanna see the NY Mets destroy the Cardinals,(in my dreams) gotta go back to Shea ...Oops, mean the new Citi Field
Hey frenchy, do you think McGwire is going to get rehabilitated as coach next year, and have a chance for the HOF?
I look forward to his return, and coming clean about his use of enhancements. I personally don't think he will see the HOF.
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 19 2009, 08:02 PM)
I look forward to his return, and coming clean about his use of enhancements. I personally don't think he will see the HOF.
I don't think so either. Don't think Bonds and the others should (and same with Roger C.)
but then I still think they should do away with the designated hitter, and interleague play too
you know, the most fun I have had recently was last year when my son & I went and saw the Giants play in SF
there's something about baseball (even if the Mets suck big time, and the dang Yankees win another).
Love to make the circuit of all the parks, I know someone who a few years ago got to 1/2 of them (and now would need to do it again as so many stadiums are new).
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 19 2009, 07:14 PM)
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 19 2009, 08:02 PM)
I look forward to his return, and coming clean about his use of enhancements. I personally don't think he will see the HOF.
I don't think so either. Don't think Bonds and the others should (and same with Roger C.)
but then I still think they should do away with the designated hitter, and interleague play too
Common ground!
you know, the most fun I have had recently was last year when my son & I went and saw the Giants play in SF
there's something about baseball (even if the Mets suck big time, and the dang Yankees win another).
Love to make the circuit of all the parks, I know someone who a few years ago got to 1/2 of them (and now would need to do it again as so many stadiums are new).
Busch Stadum...Cards/Padres game
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-4/988747/2086787
!
cool pictures.
How many days til pitchers/catchers?
How many days til pitchers/catchers?
Not sure exactly how many days...but it appears the earliest reporting date which has been released to the media is Feb 18 by the Texas Rangers...with Tampa batteries reporting the following day.
http://www.springtrainingonline.com/featur...rting-dates.htm
http://www.springtrainingonline.com/featur...rting-dates.htm
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 19 2009, 09:26 PM)
cool pictures.
How many days til pitchers/catchers?
How many days til pitchers/catchers?
Not soon enough, Graham. Hey Graham...Ya think the Mets will sign Matt Holiday? I don't think the Cards can afford to keep him!
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 19 2009, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 08:58 PM)
There are plenty of issues that cut perpendicularly across party lines. But when it comes down to voting for representatives, the pattern of rural red/urban blue/suburban battleground haven't changed much. I think it has something to do with the problems people face every day and how population effects them.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Urban people have to deal with social issues more. Rural people have to deal with natural economic resource issues more.
Rural people tend to be more in favor of protecting the kids (in their way), owning land or a home, see most people dealing responsibly with guns, help out their neighbors at church (which is much more common in rural areas because there's not much else to do). They tend to know their neighbors and help one another more, though they thrive on that individualistic notion, they will tell you "they take care of their own" and my experience selling advertising and spirit and booster items supports this theory....only the suburban or rural accounts were worth getting because the business owners around their were quite generous with their support to the local High School whereas in the city the only people supporting the teams were those whose kids were directly involved. That's just my view of rural environments.
It's not necessarily better or worse in one environment or the other. It's just a different set of problems. The good thing about having many weaker bonds than fewer strong bonds is that an individual is less vulnerable to devastation from losing one or two bonds.
On a side note, Marshall McLuhan predicted this pattern would grow with the evolution of electronic media. The pattern doesn't end with rural vs urban. There is a newer environment in modern times known as cyberspace. Cyberspace may be to offline citizens (both rural or urban) what urban is to rural. We are already seeing the effect on relationships. We can even see the difference from one cybercommunity to another. CGCS is a small town compared to some of them.
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 19 2009, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 6 2009, 02:18 PM)
I have some guesses as to what it means, but I want to hear your thoughts first.
Bill, I suggest you put a little more meat on these bones...
I was raised in suburbia which was closer to urban than rural. From what little I know of rural people, they aren't challenged to trust as often as urban people. It's easy for rural people to trust people they know really well, but are quick to distrust people they don't know. Urban people have to decide who to trust and who not to trust without the luxury of knowing people as well. Urban people can't afford to be as xenophobic as rural people. Being forced to trust people from a bigger more diverse group from a wider variety of backgrounds makes people more sensitive to social issues. Rural people, not having as much access to technological resources and conveniences as urban people, are forced to be more resourceful, learning more important lessons about conservation, hence the word conservative.
So (in general) urban people are more socially intelligent, whereas rural people are more economically intelligent. Both rural an urban people are holding key pieces of the big socioeconomic puzzle.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 12 2009, 05:50 AM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:25 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 11 2009, 09:05 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM)
It's race
Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
That's an oversimplification. There has to be a reason why urban areas attract racial diversity more.Rural areas don't have the demographics of America
they are still Norman Rockwell
which means in national presidential races the republicans will have less and less because the rural areas have less and less pull
or the opposite
rural areas do not take to change well, so make sure to make those not like them uncomfortable, though slowly
(taking the NYC area, as the years go by, more and more people from NYC area have moved into NJ and going further and further west (there are areas in North and Northwest NJ that used to be 100% repub, and are becoming more and more mixed in all ways. (religion too, when I moved into the town I am in, there were very few Jews, and now there is a big sized congregation here.
yes. agricultural societies are more conservative and urban areas more liberal
it comes from the way of life. in a town you are 'stuck' with meeting people ever-so-slightly different than you on a constant basis and you get used to that, you get used to people with opinions different from yours, their manners, customs. obligatory diversity.
countryside has smaller population density to begin with (hey, can't grow year's crops on rooftops), even less 'strangers' and they are treated with caution. and since 'everybody' does that, noone'd want to 'deviate' in a small society. another d-word...
no matter what sample of people you start with - split them up, one into town and another to farmland community, and after a long enough period of time, they will exhibit these characteristics
farmers desire stability, status quo, reliability, predictability above all else. THAT comes from the nature of their life - heavily dependent on irrational, erratic, random events - occurrence and exposure length to unpredictable sun, rain, snow... (and fishermen etc) this makes them wary and suspicious of all deviations - people, ideas - because in THEIR experience out of the ordinary is another way to spell d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r.
in urban environment you get accustomed to changes - or you lock yourself up (or others will). when somewhere something's happening all the time, it becomes the norm. when change becomes the norm then, naturally, it is seen less a threat. so you end up with societies 'welcoming' new ideas and people.
it's 'training'
no difference but in that
like 'men from mars and women from venus' - bollock$ when you just need patience in understanding
like multitasking - not inborn but acquired
So are 'urban dwellers' the denizens of Wall Street residing in the multimillion dollar apartments in Manhattan's fashionable districts or the unemployed living in povery in as documented in the film Brick City, Newark?
Or, conversely, are 'rural dwellers' the millionaires and billionaires with homes in the Hamptons and small coastal towns on Cape Cod or the fishermen and their families living at or near the poverty level in those same areas?
Or, conversely, are 'rural dwellers' the millionaires and billionaires with homes in the Hamptons and small coastal towns on Cape Cod or the fishermen and their families living at or near the poverty level in those same areas?
Moreover, look at this coalitiion and explain it using your framework, urban and rural UNITED -
(also PhD's and high school grads, I'm guessing, by the way)
Signatories of letter below,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
AllergyKids
American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Action
California Food and Justice Coalition
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Environmental Health (CA)
Center for Food Safety
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central Florida Jobs with Justice
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Community Farm Alliance (KY)
Concerned Citizens for Clean Air (OR)
Cornucopia Institute
EarthJustice
Equal Exchange
Family Farm Defenders
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
Farm Worker Pesticide Project (WA)
Farmworker Association of Florida
Farmworker Justice
Farmworker Self-Help (FL)
Food & Water Watch
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Food for Maine’s Future
Florida Immigrant Coalition
Food Democracy Now!
Florida Organic Growers
Fresno Metro Ministry
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace US
Grassroots International
Indiana Toxics Action
Innovative Farmers of Ohio
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Kids for Saving Earth
Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Land Stewardship Project
Maine Fair Trade Campaign
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Maryland Pesticide Network
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative (OK)
National Family Farm Coalition
National Farm Worker Ministry
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
New York Environmental Law & Justice Project
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Interstate Council (NOFA-IC)
Northern Plains Resource Council (MT)
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Oakland Institute
Ohio Conference on Fair Trade
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project
Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
Oregon Toxics Alliance
Organic Consumers Association
Partners for the Land & Agricultural
Needs of Traditional Peoples (WV)
Pesticide Action Network North America
Pesticide Free Zone
Pesticide Watch
Public Citizen
Rural Advancement Foundation International – USA
Rural Advancement Fund
Rural Coalition
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (CA)
Science and Environmental Health Network
Sciencecorps
Search for the Cause (CA)
Sierra Club
Small Holders Alliance of Massachusetts
Washington Fair Trade Coalition
Western Organization of Resource Councils
World Hunger Year
(also PhD's and high school grads, I'm guessing, by the way)
Signatories of letter below,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
AllergyKids
American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Action
California Food and Justice Coalition
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Environmental Health (CA)
Center for Food Safety
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central Florida Jobs with Justice
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Community Farm Alliance (KY)
Concerned Citizens for Clean Air (OR)
Cornucopia Institute
EarthJustice
Equal Exchange
Family Farm Defenders
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
Farm Worker Pesticide Project (WA)
Farmworker Association of Florida
Farmworker Justice
Farmworker Self-Help (FL)
Food & Water Watch
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Food for Maine’s Future
Florida Immigrant Coalition
Food Democracy Now!
Florida Organic Growers
Fresno Metro Ministry
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace US
Grassroots International
Indiana Toxics Action
Innovative Farmers of Ohio
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Kids for Saving Earth
Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Land Stewardship Project
Maine Fair Trade Campaign
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Maryland Pesticide Network
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative (OK)
National Family Farm Coalition
National Farm Worker Ministry
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
New York Environmental Law & Justice Project
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Interstate Council (NOFA-IC)
Northern Plains Resource Council (MT)
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Oakland Institute
Ohio Conference on Fair Trade
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project
Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
Oregon Toxics Alliance
Organic Consumers Association
Partners for the Land & Agricultural
Needs of Traditional Peoples (WV)
Pesticide Action Network North America
Pesticide Free Zone
Pesticide Watch
Public Citizen
Rural Advancement Foundation International – USA
Rural Advancement Fund
Rural Coalition
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (CA)
Science and Environmental Health Network
Sciencecorps
Search for the Cause (CA)
Sierra Club
Small Holders Alliance of Massachusetts
Washington Fair Trade Coalition
Western Organization of Resource Councils
World Hunger Year
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 18 2009, 08:46 PM)
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...t&p=1034514
QUOTE
http://www.panna.org/files/FINAL-Finance%2...er-Siddiqui.pdf
Re: Nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator for the United States Trade Representative
Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley:
The following organizations representing environmental, consumer, anti-hunger, family farm, farmworker, fishing groups, sustainable agriculture and other advocacy groups are writing to express our opposition to the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. We urge the Senate Finance Committee to reject Siddiqui’s appointment.
Siddiqui’s record at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his role as a former registered lobbyist for CropLife America (whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow), reveals him to be consistently in favor of agribusinesses’ interests over the interests of consumers, the environment and public health. His appointment sends an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world that the United States plans to continue down the failed path of industrial
agriculture by promoting toxic pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade agreements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.
As the global food crisis deepens and negotiators prepare to meet at the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial on November 30, the United States needs a trade negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor the world’s hungry.
Siddiqui’s record and statements in his government positions and at CropLife America show his clear bias in favor of chemical-intensive and unproven biotechnology practices that imperil both our planet and human health while undermining food security and exacerbating climate change. We believe Siddiqui’s nomination has severely weakened the Obama Administration’s credibility in promoting healthier and more sustainable local food systems here at home. Siddiqui’s confirmation would send a message to the world that the United States continues to place the vested interests of our chemical pesticide and biotech industries ahead of concern for public health, the environment, and the well-being of farmworkers and communities around the world.
With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a new, sustainable model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farmworkers and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui’s clear track record favors none of these solutions.
We call on the Senate Finance Committee to reject Islam Siddiqui’s nomination and reorient trade policy to serve the interests of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers and the planet.
Sincerely,
(see above)
Cc: Members of the Senate Finance Committee
.
Re: Nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator for the United States Trade Representative
Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley:
The following organizations representing environmental, consumer, anti-hunger, family farm, farmworker, fishing groups, sustainable agriculture and other advocacy groups are writing to express our opposition to the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. We urge the Senate Finance Committee to reject Siddiqui’s appointment.
Siddiqui’s record at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his role as a former registered lobbyist for CropLife America (whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow), reveals him to be consistently in favor of agribusinesses’ interests over the interests of consumers, the environment and public health. His appointment sends an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world that the United States plans to continue down the failed path of industrial
agriculture by promoting toxic pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade agreements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.
As the global food crisis deepens and negotiators prepare to meet at the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial on November 30, the United States needs a trade negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor the world’s hungry.
Siddiqui’s record and statements in his government positions and at CropLife America show his clear bias in favor of chemical-intensive and unproven biotechnology practices that imperil both our planet and human health while undermining food security and exacerbating climate change. We believe Siddiqui’s nomination has severely weakened the Obama Administration’s credibility in promoting healthier and more sustainable local food systems here at home. Siddiqui’s confirmation would send a message to the world that the United States continues to place the vested interests of our chemical pesticide and biotech industries ahead of concern for public health, the environment, and the well-being of farmworkers and communities around the world.
With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a new, sustainable model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farmworkers and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui’s clear track record favors none of these solutions.
We call on the Senate Finance Committee to reject Islam Siddiqui’s nomination and reorient trade policy to serve the interests of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers and the planet.
Sincerely,
(see above)
Cc: Members of the Senate Finance Committee
.
Moreover, look at this coalitiion and explain it using your framework. I see urban and rural UNITED, also known as GRASSROOTS,
(includes PhD's and those without high school diplomas, I'm guessing, by the way).
Signatories of letter below,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
AllergyKids
American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Action
California Food and Justice Coalition
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Environmental Health (CA)
Center for Food Safety
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central Florida Jobs with Justice
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Community Farm Alliance (KY)
Concerned Citizens for Clean Air (OR)
Cornucopia Institute
EarthJustice
Equal Exchange
Family Farm Defenders
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
Farm Worker Pesticide Project (WA)
Farmworker Association of Florida
Farmworker Justice
Farmworker Self-Help (FL)
Food & Water Watch
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Food for Maine’s Future
Florida Immigrant Coalition
Food Democracy Now!
Florida Organic Growers
Fresno Metro Ministry
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace US
Grassroots International
Indiana Toxics Action
Innovative Farmers of Ohio
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Kids for Saving Earth
Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Land Stewardship Project
Maine Fair Trade Campaign
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Maryland Pesticide Network
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative (OK)
National Family Farm Coalition
National Farm Worker Ministry
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
New York Environmental Law & Justice Project
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Interstate Council (NOFA-IC)
Northern Plains Resource Council (MT)
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Oakland Institute
Ohio Conference on Fair Trade
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project
Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
Oregon Toxics Alliance
Organic Consumers Association
Partners for the Land & Agricultural
Needs of Traditional Peoples (WV)
Pesticide Action Network North America
Pesticide Free Zone
Pesticide Watch
Public Citizen
Rural Advancement Foundation International – USA
Rural Advancement Fund
Rural Coalition
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (CA)
Science and Environmental Health Network
Sciencecorps
Search for the Cause (CA)
Sierra Club
Small Holders Alliance of Massachusetts
Washington Fair Trade Coalition
Western Organization of Resource Councils
World Hunger Year
(includes PhD's and those without high school diplomas, I'm guessing, by the way).
Signatories of letter below,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
AllergyKids
American Raw Milk Producers Pricing Association
Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Action
California Food and Justice Coalition
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Center for Environmental Health (CA)
Center for Food Safety
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Central Florida Jobs with Justice
Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach
Community Farm Alliance (KY)
Concerned Citizens for Clean Air (OR)
Cornucopia Institute
EarthJustice
Equal Exchange
Family Farm Defenders
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
Farm Worker Pesticide Project (WA)
Farmworker Association of Florida
Farmworker Justice
Farmworker Self-Help (FL)
Food & Water Watch
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Food for Maine’s Future
Florida Immigrant Coalition
Food Democracy Now!
Florida Organic Growers
Fresno Metro Ministry
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace US
Grassroots International
Indiana Toxics Action
Innovative Farmers of Ohio
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
Kids for Saving Earth
Kentucky Environmental Foundation
Land Stewardship Project
Maine Fair Trade Campaign
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association
Maryland Pesticide Network
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative (OK)
National Family Farm Coalition
National Farm Worker Ministry
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade Association
New York Environmental Law & Justice Project
Northeast Organic Farming Association
Interstate Council (NOFA-IC)
Northern Plains Resource Council (MT)
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance
Oakland Institute
Ohio Conference on Fair Trade
Oklahoma Black Historical Research Project
Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
Oregon Toxics Alliance
Organic Consumers Association
Partners for the Land & Agricultural
Needs of Traditional Peoples (WV)
Pesticide Action Network North America
Pesticide Free Zone
Pesticide Watch
Public Citizen
Rural Advancement Foundation International – USA
Rural Advancement Fund
Rural Coalition
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (CA)
Science and Environmental Health Network
Sciencecorps
Search for the Cause (CA)
Sierra Club
Small Holders Alliance of Massachusetts
Washington Fair Trade Coalition
Western Organization of Resource Councils
World Hunger Year
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 18 2009, 08:46 PM)
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...t&p=1034514
QUOTE
http://www.panna.org/files/FINAL-Finance%2...er-Siddiqui.pdf
Re: Nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator for the United States Trade Representative
Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley:
The following organizations representing environmental, consumer, anti-hunger, family farm, farmworker, fishing groups, sustainable agriculture and other advocacy groups are writing to express our opposition to the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. We urge the Senate Finance Committee to reject Siddiqui’s appointment.
Siddiqui’s record at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his role as a former registered lobbyist for CropLife America (whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow), reveals him to be consistently in favor of agribusinesses’ interests over the interests of consumers, the environment and public health. His appointment sends an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world that the United States plans to continue down the failed path of industrial
agriculture by promoting toxic pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade agreements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.
As the global food crisis deepens and negotiators prepare to meet at the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial on November 30, the United States needs a trade negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor the world’s hungry.
Siddiqui’s record and statements in his government positions and at CropLife America show his clear bias in favor of chemical-intensive and unproven biotechnology practices that imperil both our planet and human health while undermining food security and exacerbating climate change. We believe Siddiqui’s nomination has severely weakened the Obama Administration’s credibility in promoting healthier and more sustainable local food systems here at home. Siddiqui’s confirmation would send a message to the world that the United States continues to place the vested interests of our chemical pesticide and biotech industries ahead of concern for public health, the environment, and the well-being of farmworkers and communities around the world.
With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a new, sustainable model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farmworkers and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui’s clear track record favors none of these solutions.
We call on the Senate Finance Committee to reject Islam Siddiqui’s nomination and reorient trade policy to serve the interests of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers and the planet.
Sincerely,
(see above)
Cc: Members of the Senate Finance Committee
.
Re: Nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator for the United States Trade Representative
Dear Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley:
The following organizations representing environmental, consumer, anti-hunger, family farm, farmworker, fishing groups, sustainable agriculture and other advocacy groups are writing to express our opposition to the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. We urge the Senate Finance Committee to reject Siddiqui’s appointment.
Siddiqui’s record at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his role as a former registered lobbyist for CropLife America (whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow), reveals him to be consistently in favor of agribusinesses’ interests over the interests of consumers, the environment and public health. His appointment sends an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world that the United States plans to continue down the failed path of industrial
agriculture by promoting toxic pesticides, inappropriate biotechnologies and unfair trade agreements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.
As the global food crisis deepens and negotiators prepare to meet at the upcoming World Trade Organization ministerial on November 30, the United States needs a trade negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor the world’s hungry.
Siddiqui’s record and statements in his government positions and at CropLife America show his clear bias in favor of chemical-intensive and unproven biotechnology practices that imperil both our planet and human health while undermining food security and exacerbating climate change. We believe Siddiqui’s nomination has severely weakened the Obama Administration’s credibility in promoting healthier and more sustainable local food systems here at home. Siddiqui’s confirmation would send a message to the world that the United States continues to place the vested interests of our chemical pesticide and biotech industries ahead of concern for public health, the environment, and the well-being of farmworkers and communities around the world.
With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates these effects of climate change. In the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that “business as usual is not an option.” We need a new, sustainable model of agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farmworkers and puts profits back in the hands of farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui’s clear track record favors none of these solutions.
We call on the Senate Finance Committee to reject Islam Siddiqui’s nomination and reorient trade policy to serve the interests of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers and the planet.
Sincerely,
(see above)
Cc: Members of the Senate Finance Committee
.
Apologies for the double post, a computer glitch, no idea how it happened, it was unintentional. Mods please delete either one.
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 20 2009, 06:15 PM)
So are 'urban dwellers' the denizens of Wall Street residing in the multimillion dollar apartments in Manhattan's fashionable districts or the unemployed living in povery in as documented in the film Brick City, Newark?
Or, conversely, are 'rural dwellers' the millionaires and billionaires with homes in the Hamptons and small coastal towns on Cape Cod or the fishermen and their families living at or near the poverty level in those same areas?
Or, conversely, are 'rural dwellers' the millionaires and billionaires with homes in the Hamptons and small coastal towns on Cape Cod or the fishermen and their families living at or near the poverty level in those same areas?
just in case you're addressing me...
i - obviously - divided people in the above BY their RESPECTIVE community inasmuch as it relates to their general social environment AND their method for procurement
does a rural billionaire live by the mindset of a farmer? only if he is so raised, ie trained to think in these patterns
i don't remember talking in levels of income, but patterns of mindset
neither do i talk in red and blue much - 'cause i haven't been trained to think like that.
suburbs are where lawns meet bricks, naturally they mix. inbetween - smaller territory, more mobile
conjoined roots movements remind of 3rd party initiatives, ie neither blue nor red. that's more their essence, than joining - they usually have found a subject where they exclude 2-party system, ignore it
but it's also quite likely you weren't addressing me AT ALL, in that case, never mind... just talking to meself
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 20 2009, 09:37 AM)
Apologies for the double post, a computer glitch, no idea how it happened, it was unintentional. Mods please delete either one.
Now that's funny right there!
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 20 2009, 11:43 AM)
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 20 2009, 09:37 AM)
Apologies for the double post, a computer glitch, no idea how it happened, it was unintentional. Mods please delete either one.
Now that's funny right there!
Neither edit is finished (but let's focus on substance, not process, please).
QUOTE(believe_it @ Nov 20 2009, 10:15 AM)
So are 'urban dwellers' the denizens of Wall Street residing in the multimillion dollar apartments in Manhattan's fashionable districts or the unemployed living in povery in as documented in the film Brick City, Newark?
Or, conversely, are 'rural dwellers' the millionaires and billionaires with homes in the Hamptons and small coastal towns on Cape Cod or the fishermen and their families living at or near the poverty level in those same areas?
Millionaires and billionaires are too few to make a significant difference on the pattern. They own multiple homes in rural, suburban, and urban areas and live where ever they feel they need to be at any particular time based on business, leisure activity, or security especially from populist rebellions.Or, conversely, are 'rural dwellers' the millionaires and billionaires with homes in the Hamptons and small coastal towns on Cape Cod or the fishermen and their families living at or near the poverty level in those same areas?
The pattern consists of mostly poor because most people are poor. I'm guessing that most of the middle class dwell in suburban areas and the poor are concentrated in all areas.
QUOTE(gabriellemy @ Nov 20 2009, 11:42 AM)
...but it's also quite likely you weren't addressing me AT ALL, in that case, never mind... just talking to meself.
Thanks for your comments (which are never talking to yourself when posted online). I view it that our posts contribute ideas to a thread (and address any and all readers) without necessarily being part of an actual conversation with other posters. I enjoy reading your perspective even when I may not always agree. Fair enough?
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Nov 20 2009, 12:54 PM)
Millionaires and billionaires are too few to make a significant difference on the pattern. They own multiple homes in rural, suburban, and urban areas and live where ever they feel they need to be at any particular time based on business, leisure activity, or security especially from populist rebellions.
The pattern consists of mostly poor because most people are poor. I'm guessing that most of the middle class dwell in suburban areas and the poor are concentrated in all areas.
.
The pattern consists of mostly poor because most people are poor. I'm guessing that most of the middle class dwell in suburban areas and the poor are concentrated in all areas.
.
Any answers to posts #43/44 (interchangeable) which clearly further demonstrate that the red/rural vs. blue/urban paradigm has serious cracks in it, if it is not a giant junk science psych scam to start with? Or do you ignore inconvenient counterexamples to the theory?
(Ever read The Republican War on Science, which may be part of the BS perpetuating this fake division, but which, nonetheless, clearly documents the Harvard buddies behind the creationism movement and, extrapolating, explains the Sarah Palin worship by the WSJ editorial writers). Richard Cohen wrote a great column on this recently which I am unable to find in an online version - yet.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.