Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Feature Article: The True Horrors of Pet Food Revealed

Shelves of dog food. Includes Beneful and Pedigree
Prepare to be shocked by what goes into Dog food and Cat food

In Dr. Pitcairn's Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs & Cats (Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, Inc., 1995), the author, a renowned veterinarian, lists a number of other factors that could expose a family dog or cat to possible carcinogens. "These include," he writes, "… consuming pet foods high in organ meats and meat meal (concentrators of pesticides, and growth hormones used to fatten cattle, which can promote cancer growth) as well as in preservatives and artificial colors known to cause cancer in lab animals."

Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 78


by Jessica Smith, citizen journalist



If you check the labels on grocery store foods, you've probably already begun to see that the list of ingredients doesn't always tell the whole truth about what's in your food. The same goes for your pets' food. Behind innocent-sounding words like "meat byproducts" and "meat meal" are horrific manufacturing practices that would turn your stomach. The nutritional considerations of pet foods go beyond the sources of meat in them. Pet food manufacturers add dangerous preservatives and vitamin fortifications that actually make your pets' food less healthy.

What mysterious "meat byproducts" really are

Let's start with what usually appears as the protein source and the primary ingredient in pet food: Meat byproducts or meat meal. Both are euphemisms for the parts of animals that wouldn't be considered meat by any smart consumer. The well-known phrase "meat byproducts" is a misnomer since these byproducts contain little, if any, meat. These are the parts of the animal left over after the meat has been stripped away from the bone. "Chicken by-products include head, feet, entrails, lungs, spleen, kidneys, brain, liver, stomach, bones, blood, intestines, and any other part of the carcass not fit for human consumption," writes Henry Pasternak in Healing Animals with Nature's Cures.


Meat meal can contain the boiled down flesh of animals we would find unacceptable for consumption. This can include zoo animals, road kill, and 4-D (dead, diseased, disabled, dying) livestock. Most shockingly, this also can include dogs and cats. That's right, your pets could be cannibals. Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser writes, "Although leading American manufacturers promise never to put rendered pets into their pet food, it is still legal to do so. A Canadian company, Sanimal Inc., was putting 40,000 pounds of dead dogs and dead cats into its dog and cat food every week, until discontinuing the practice in June 2001. "This food is healthy and good," said the company's vice president of procurement, responding to critics, ''but some people don't like to see meat meal that contains any pets."


How roadkill ends up in Fido's food bowl

The process that turns these animals and animal parts into pet food is also disgusting. After all, it takes a lot to turn roadkill into something owners feel good about pouring into their pets' bowls. Ann M. Martin describes the process in Food Pets Die For: "At the rendering plant a machine slowly grinds the entire mess in huge vats. Then this product is cooked at temperatures between 220 degrees Fahrenheit and 270 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes to one hour. The mixture is centrifuged (spun at a high speed) and the grease (or tallow) rises to the top and it is removed from the mixture. The grease becomes the source of animal fat in most pet foods. Oftentimes, when you open a standard can of dog food, you will see a top layer of fat. The centrifuged product is the source of that fat, which is meant to entice a hungry dog or cat. After the grease is removed in the rendering process, the remaining material is dried. Meat meal, and meat and bone meal are the end product of this process. This dried material is usually found in dry pet food."

Chemical dangers lurk in commercial pet food

Rendering practices aren't just gross; they're also dangerous for your pets. The chemicals used to euthanize zoo animals, dogs and cats can survive the cooking process, which means these chemicals end up in pet food, and ultimately, in your pet. Martin writes, "Euthanized cats and dogs often end up in rendering vats along with other questionable material to make meat meal, and meat and bone meal. This can be problematic because sodium pentobarbital can withstand the heat from rendering. For years, some veterinarians and animal advocates have known about the potential danger of sodium pentobarbital residue in commercial pet food, yet the danger has not been alleviated." In short, that means the poisons designed to kill pets are the same ones being fed to them.

Now that you know pet food manufacturers will seemingly go to any length to fill their foods with the cheapest sources of protein they can find, you probably won't be surprised to find out that the other ingredients in pet foods aren't much better. Cheap grain fillers, cellulose to bulk up the food, preservatives and poorly monitored vitamin and mineral supplements round out the recipe. In Healing Pets with Nature's Miracle Cures, Henry Pasternak writes, "Remember, pet foods are primarily processed, grain-based diets. These foods are 'fortified' with synthetic B vitamins, which can cause a subclinical B vitamin deficiency." Martin mentions in Food Pets Die For that one bag of dog food was overloaded with so much zinc that she had to take her dog to the vet because he became ill. She took the bag of food to an independent lab to verify that the zinc content of the food was 20 times the recommended daily allowance for dogs.

Preservatives in dog and cat foods keep the foods seemingly fresh for long periods of time: "Unfortunately, harmful chemical preservatives and other artificial additives are the norm in most pet foods. Some are intentionally added by the manufacturer, while others come from the herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides used by farmers to boost crop yields," Pasternak writes. While some pet food companies have decided to use less harmful preservatives and natural preservatives, most pet food companies don't find these ingredients to be cost effective.

So what should you do with this information? Many pet owners are discovering there are more natural alternatives to commercial pet food. Natural health food stores usually stock a few varieties of organic or all-natural pet foods. There are other owners who go even further and prepare their pets' foods from real, whole ingredients. Though this might not be for everyone, some owners say it's worth the peace of mind, and it helps them feel closer to their animal companions. Be aware though, that once your pet finds out what real, whole foods take like, they may not want to go back: "I used to feed my cat canned or dry pet food, but now I prepare her food from fresh ingredients. She thrives on raw meat," writes Debra Lynn Dadd in Home Safe Home. "She will eat canned or dry food if it is a natural brand, but if I give her pet food from the supermarket, she paws around it like she's trying to cover up something in her litter box."

The experts speak on pet food processing:

Most veterinarians acquire their only knowledge on pet nutrition in elective classes in veterinary school. These classes may only last a few weeks and are often taught by representatives from pet food companies. Hill's, lams, and Purina are the largest contributors for these courses. In addition, pet food companies even donate food to the vet students for their own companion animals. This practice has become so widespread among pet food companies that the veterinary school at Colorado State University made this an agenda item for an Executive Committee meeting in 2000. "Discussion was held on how to handle dealing with pet food companies and their donations of pet food to the university," according to the Executive - Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 21

Dry food has its advantages. In fact, the dry pet food you buy in the supermarket is manufactured for your convenience as much as Fifi's and Fluffy's health. It's the nibble-at -will, no-can-opening, no-greasy-spoon, no-smelly-bowl, no-budget-busting pet food. It has lower levels of fat than canned meat because the fat seeps through the paper bags (you don't want that greasy bag on your car upholstery or in your kitchen cabinet). Fifi and Fluffy get to eat more for your money, thus getting pleasantly full tummies, while less protein, fat and digestibility keep their figures from becoming unbecomingly porcine.

Everyday Health Tips by Prevention Magazine, page 346

Fats are necessary for good health and disease prevention. Here again, fats should be raw or unrefined—not processed. Meat, fish, eggs, or milk in their natural states are the best sources of fat. The pet food industry prepares some pet foods with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids that are claimed to be effective for treating various inflammatory diseases. However, omega-3 fatty acids are quite sensitive to heat and are destroyed and easily become rancid during processing. Cod liver oil can be added to pet foods. It is a good source of omega-3 fatty acids as well as vitamin A. Proteins

Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 77


They don't need "special" diets. Your typical pet will do nicely on typical pet food. "There are a lot of marketing gimmicks in the pet food industry that aren't necessarily in the best interest of the dog," says Dr. Donoghue. It's not always a good idea, for example, to reduce protein in the diet of a healthy old dog.

Everyday Health Tips by Prevention Magazine, page 348

Sodium Pentobarbital:

As I discuss elsewhere, euthanized cats and dogs often end up in rendering vats along with other questionable material to make meat meal, and meat and bone meal. This can be problematic because sodium pentobarbital can withstand the heat from rendering. For years, some veterinarians and animal advocates have known about the potential danger of sodium pentobarbital residue in commercial pet food, yet the danger has not been alleviated. The "Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia," states, "In euthanasia of animals intended for human or animal food, chemical agents that result in tissue residue cannot be used."

Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 57

Another staple of the Tenderer's diet, in addition to farm animals, is euthanized pets-the six or seven million dogs and cats that are killed in animal shelters every year. The city of Los Angeles alone, for example, sends some two hundred tons of euthanized cats and dogs to a rendering plant every month. Added to the blend are the euthanized catch of animal control agencies, and roadkill. (Roadkill is not collected daily, and in the summer, the better roadkill collection crews can generally smell it before they can see it) When this gruesome mix is ground and steam-cooked, the lighter, fatty material floating to the top gets refined for use in such products as cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, candles, and waxes. The heavier protein material is dried and pulverized into a brown powder—about a quarter of which consists of fecal material. The powder is used as an additive to almost all pet food as well as to livestock feed. Farmers call it "protein concentrates." In 1995, five million tons of processed slaughterhouse leftovers were sold for animal feed in the United States. I used to feed tons of the stuff to my own livestock. It never concerned me that I was feeding cattle to cattle.

Mad Cowboy By Howard F Lyman, page 12

Pet owners are horrified to learn that rendered cats and dogs can be legally recycled back into pet food. At times, this outrage leads consumers to seek change. One case in point is Valley Protein, a rendering company that operates in twenty-two states in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Southwest regions of the United States. In the first edition of Food Pets Die For, I wrote about the Baltimore City Paper reporter Van Smith who described what he observed at the Valley Protein Rendering Plant in 1995. His article was replete with photos of barrels of dead dogs and cats about to be rendered. Smith reported that there are "thousands of dead dogs, cats, raccoons, possums, deer, foxes, snakes, and the rest that local animal shelters and roadkill patrols must dispose of each month." In that same article, Smith observed, "In a gruesomely ironic twist, most inedible dead animal parts, including dead pets, end up in feed used to fatten future generations of their kind."

Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 147

Pets used in Pet Food:

While researching and writing, there were times that I was absolutely horrified with what I discovered. There were other times when I was extremely frustrated with the run-around I received from government agencies, organizations involved with the pet food industry, the rendering industry, and at times, veterinary research centers. What has kept me going is the hope that pet owners will read my findings and be convinced that their pets' health is directly related to what they eat—and that most commercial pet foods are garbage. The most objectionable source of protein for pet food is euthanized cats and dogs. It is not uncommon for thousands of euthanized dogs and cats to be delivered to rendering plants, daily, and thrown into the rendering vat—collars, I.D. tags, and plastic bags—to become part of this material called "meat meal."

Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 153

Extensive records had to be kept on the disposition of various animal proteins, and feeds that were now prohibited for cattle had to be clearly labeled as such. There were no new restrictions, however, on what could be fed to poultry, hogs, zoo animals, or pets. Indeed, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the National Food Processors Association, and the pet food Institute successfully lobbied against any new labeling requirement for pet foods. These industry groups rightly worried that the FDA's proposed warning label — "Do not feed to ruminants" — might alarm consumers about what their pets were actually being fed.

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, page 275

The current FDA feed rules are primarily concerned with efficiency and utility, not public health. They allow cattle to be fed pigs, pigs to be fed cattle, cattle to be fed poultry, and poultry to be fed cattle. They allow dogs and cats to be fed dogs and cats. Although leading American manufacturers promise never to put rendered pets into their pet food, it is still legal to do so. A Canadian company, Sanimal Inc., was putting 40,000 pounds of dead dogs and dead cats into its dog and cat food every week, until discontinuing the practice in June 2001. "This food is healthy and good," said the company's vice president of procurement, responding to critics, "but some people don't like to see meat meal that contains any pets."

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, page 288 Ingredients in Pet Food:

One of the dirty little secrets kept by the pet food industry is that some by-products also contain substances such as abscesses and cancerous material. In my opinion, feeding slaughterhouse wastes to animals increases their chances of getting cancer and other degenerative diseases. Some meat, especially glandular tissue, may contain high levels of hormones, which may also cause serious health problems including cancer. Unlike bacteria and viruses, these hormones are not destroyed by the high temperatures or pressure cooking used in the manufacture of pet food. Cats seem to be most adversely affected by high hormone levels.

Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 11

PET CARE Many pet foods claim to be " 100% nutritionally complete and balanced." This claim legally can be made and printed on commercial products based on information studies using isolated nutrients and not whole foods, or by feeding the complete pet food to animals for several weeks to determine whether it prevents obvious disease or malnutrition. Although motivated by an interest to assure quality for the consumer, these tests ignore important nutritional issues and give both producer and consumer a false sense of knowledge and security. Measuring a food's merit by levels of isolated nutrients tells only a partial story. There are more than forty known, essential nutrients, and more than fifty other nutrients are under investigation. Thus, making sure a food contains appropriate amounts of only a dozen of these nutrients can't possibly assure that a food is "complete."

Home Safe Home by Debra Lynn Dadd, page 413

Harmful components (and ingredients) found in Pet food:

Unfortunately, harmful chemical preservatives and other artificial additives are the norm in most pet foods. Some are intentionally added by the manufacturer, while others come from the herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides used by farmers to boost crop yields. Many pet foods advertised as "preservative-free" do, in fact, contain preservatives. As the law is currently written, manufacturers don't have to list preservatives that they themselves did not add. Many preservatives make their way into pet food at rendering plants before the meat is even sent to the manufacturer. An analysis of several pet foods labeled "chemical free" or "all natural ingredients" found synthetic antioxidants in all samples. With continued use, low levels of these synthetic antioxidants may build up in the tissues; inges-tion of small doses over time may be just as toxic as a single large dose. About 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides, and 30 percent of all insecticides are considered to be cancer causing in and of themselves.6-7

Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 11

Under AAFCO guidelines, acceptable meat by-product can include animal lungs, spleens, kidneys, brains, livers, blood, bones, low-temperature fatty tissue, and stomachs and intestines freed of their contents. Livers can be infested with worms (liver flukes) or diseased with cirrhosis. Lungs can be filled with pneumonia. If an animal is diseased and declared unfit for human consumption, the carcass is acceptable for pet food. Even parts of animals, such as "stick marks,"—the area of the body where animals have been injected with antibiotics, hormones, or other drugs—are cut from the carcasses intended for human consumption and used for meat by-product for pet food.

Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 153

Commission warned that a series of mysterious dog ailments at kennels in Michigan may be the result of fluoride contamination of pet foods. They noticed a high incidence of deformed puppies and pointed out that chronic effects of fluoride poisoning may not be noticeable for a long time.

Fluoride The Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis, page 16

After 45 weeks of producing fertile eggs plagued by hunger, debeaking, detoeing, decombing, toxic ammonia, and diseases, these breeder chickens are "liquidated" and turned into human animal "food" and nonhuman animal "feed" and pet food products.

Prisoned Chickens Poisoned Eggs by Karen Davis PhD, page 93

She sees the problem all the time in older canines and felines, "usually those eight years or older." She blames the commercial pet foods and owners' irresponsibility for most of it. "There is just too much sugar in everything. You can't buy a decent brand of [pet] food anymore without there being some kind of sugar in it. An animal's system will rebel just like the human body does when excess sugar is taken into it. The same autoimmune disorder that attacks human pancreatic cells that make insulin destroys the insulin-producing capabilities in our dogs and cats."

Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 87

Just as products for kids carry the same dangers as I their adult counterparts, products for pets have the same I hazards as their human counterparts—pet food contains the same carcinogenic pesticide residues, and the pesticides used in flea collars are as toxic as the pesticides used to kill any other insects. And just as babies and children are more susceptible to the effects of toxic exposures than adults, so too are animals more susceptible to the effects of toxic exposures than humans.

Home Safe Home by Debra Lynn Dadd, page 341


Slaughterhouses also provide renderers with the leftovers from slaughtered animals not fit for human consumption. Before these animal parts and by-product used for pet food are shipped from the slaughterhouse to the rendering plant, the by-product is "denatured." This means that crude carbolic acid, cresylic disinfectant, or citronella, is sprayed on the product. In the case of a whole beef or swine carcass that has been condemned, the denaturing product is injected into the entire carcass. If meat inspectors condemn only parts of an animal, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that "before an approved denaturing agent is applied, the product must be freely slashed so that pieces are less than 4" in diameter. This allows the denaturant to contact all parts of the product."

Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 18

Both animal-care professionals weren't at all reticent about vocalizing their strong opinions about this matter. Dr. Tejinder: "There are way too many chemicals in pet food that no one knows the side effects of. And the rancid fat that is used to cook a lot of this food that pets eat only complicates things more." Dr. Stefanatos: "The pesticides, preservatives, and additives in pet food reprogram the organs so their functions behave differently. No one knows the full extent of the problem, but it's there, nevertheless." The Nature of Animal Diabetes

Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 88

Mad Cow and Other diseases:

Those of us who are intimately acquainted with what goes into commercial pet foods have no problem discerning where a good majority of liver disorders originate. In their January 1998 newsletter, Love of Animals, Dr. Bob Goldstein and his wife, Susan, featured an interesting article entitled, "The Truth About Canned Dog and Cat Foods." They note that many so-called "naturally preserved" pet foods contain meat by-products that usually come "from diseased cows or sick chickens." "These are terrible foods" they warn their readers. And the fact that they contain chemical preservatives (to keep the high fat content from going rancid) and artificial coloring agents and dyes (for eye appeal of pet owners), not to mention appetite stimulants (salt, sugar, glucose, sucrose, fructose, phosphoric acid) only makes their impact upon the average animal liver that much more deadly.

Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 204

Cattle—dead, diseased, dying and disabled (4-D)—can legally be rendered and used in pet foods in the United States and in Canada. Rendering will not eradicate any of the TSEs, including the chronic wasting disease in deer, elk, and roadkill, which can also be rendered for use in pet food. The U.S. government believes it is safe to render diseased cattle for use in pet foods because this practice does not affect humans since we don't eat dogs and cats. But rendering diseased cattle into pet food does potentially endanger our animal companions. This is already happening in Europe. If dogs and cats succumb to a TSE disease, would their owners know the actual cause?

Food Pets Die For by Ann N Martin, page 100

Although you won't see it on the label, since it is often added at the rendering plant and not by the manufacturer, ethoxyquin (EQ) is used to preserve most dry pet food. First used as a rubber stabilizer, EQ is the most powerful of all preservatives and may be the most toxic. Originally, it was permitted in livestock food. So since pet food is considered animal feed, the use of EQ is also permitted in pet food. The fish industry uses high levels of EQ; factory workers exposed to it exhibited side effects similar to those of agent orange: a dramatic rise in liver or kidney damage, cancerous skin lesions, hair loss, blindness, leukemia, fetal abnormalities, and chronic diarrhea. In animals, EQ has been linked to immune deficiency syndrome; spleen, stomach, and liver cancers; and a host of allergies.

Healing Pets With Nature's Miracle Cures By Henry Pasternak DVM CVA, page 11



Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, January 21, 2011

Feature Article: Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed

The Supreme Court of the United States. Washin...
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision:
Constitution Is Void





ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 - PRNewswire-USNewswire -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.

Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions:

"There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court."

The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was:

"Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts."
By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.

William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).

After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S. Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.

"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.

"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.
"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed."

For more information, see http://www.lawlessamerica.com/.
Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094, bill@lawlessamerica.com

SOURCE William M. Windsor

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Feature Article: Ron Paul - Repeal the Patroit Act

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...Image via Wikipedia

Ron Paul:
Stop the Police State,
Repeal the PATRIOT Act!








By Ron Paul



The year 2011 brings in a host of opportunities and challenges to America. Will we accelerate toward economic insolvency by continuing the policies that have created this crisis, or will a new Congress elected on the energy of the Tea Party movement find the courage to change course?

With the new Republican majority in the House I will have the opportunity as a subcommittee chairman to take a careful look at our domestic monetary policy. I'm excited by the prospect of real oversight of the Federal Reserve, but I also hope to focus on the important ways in which our foreign policy and monetary policy are related. Just last week the Financial Times reported that the limited oversight of the Federal Reserve allowed by the passage of a watered-down version of my Audit the Fed bill revealed that approximately 55% of the loans made available under the largest Federal Reserve bailout program - termed "auction facility" - went to foreign banks. This is just but one example of the real cost to Americans of maintaining its empire overseas and it cries out for more transparency and oversight.

This is why it is key for us to understand that our foreign policy and current economic crisis go hand in hand. Some have promised to lead us back to fiscal responsibility while asserting that any reduction in our foreign and military spending is off the table. They would like us to believe that we should not only continue spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, but they actually call for an even more aggressive U.S. policy abroad. They believe we should continue to bomb Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that we must impose even more crippling sanctions on countries like Iran while moving steadily on to yet another Middle East war that is not in our interest. They represent the failed policies of the past and they would like to lead us down a dead-end street. We must resist the temptation of their neocon-inspired scaremongering.

There will be much work for us to do in the next year and in the next Congress. We need look no further than the grossly unconstitutional and immoral policies of the Transportation Security Administration, demanding that we either be irradiated or fondled to travel in our own country, to see that those who would deprive us of our civil liberties on the empty promise of full security will not be given up easily. We must continue standing up to them and we must not compromise.

We must not allow the out-of-control Department of Homeland Security to impose an East-German like police state in the U.S. where neighbors are encouraged by Big Brother or Big Sister to inform on their neighbors. We must not accept that government authorities should hector us via television screens as we go about our private lives like we are living in Orwell's 1984.

I'm optimistic that the incoming members of Congress understand the importance of what they have been entrusted with by the American people. But I do hope that those who elected them will watch their actions and their votes in Congress carefully. An early indication will be the upcoming vote on reauthorization of the anti-American PATRIOT Act. Defeating once-and-for-all this police state legislation will be a great way to start 2011 and the 112th Congress.

We must move ahead with confidence. Our numbers are growing. Happy New Year!




Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 31, 2010

Martika - More Than You Know | HAPPY 2011

Feature Article


CNN Poll:
Americans
Optimistic about the World in 2011

By the CNN Wire Staff
STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • 63% of people questioned say they're hopeful for the world in 2011
  • That's an increase of 12 points from this time last year 
  • Men are slightly more optimistic than women, the poll found

Washington (CNN) -- Americans are looking forward to the new year with much more optimism about the state of the world than they did a year ago, according to a new national poll.

But a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday also indicates Americans' optimism regarding their own personal lives is down a bit from last year.

Sixty-three percent of people questioned in the poll say they are hopeful about what the new year holds in store for the world in general, up 12 points from last December, with 35% saying they are fearful, down 13 points.

"On the home front, Americans are just as optimistic, with 64% saying they are hopeful about their own personal lives in the new year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But that number is down from 69% who felt that way 12 months ago."

The survey indicates a gender gap, with seven of ten men saying they are optimistic about the state of the world in 2011, 11 points higher than the 59% of women who say they feel that way. And according to the poll, Democrats and Republicans are more positive about the state of the world in the new year than independent voters.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted December 17-19, with 1,008 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.



-- CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report






Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Feature Article

Poll: 
President Barack Obama and 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 
are 'most admired'

WASHINGTON -- For the third straight year, President Barack Obama ranks as the man most admired by people living in the U.S., according to an annual USA Today-Gallup poll.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most-admired woman for the ninth year in a row, edging out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and TV host Oprah Winfrey, as she did last year.

The poll, released Monday, asked respondents what man and woman, living anywhere in the world, they most admired. Rankings from one to 10 were based on total mentions and reported in percentages.

Obama has been the poll's most-admired man since his election in 2008. With 22 percent choosing him, Obama leads his predecessors, George W. Bush, with 5 percent, and Bill Clinton, with 4 percent.

However, Obama's percentage has fallen over the years. In 2008 he led the list with 32 percent and in 2009 with 30 percent.

Rounding out the top 10 most-admired men, with 2 percent or less: former South African President Nelson Mandella, computer tycoon Bill Gates, Pope Benedict XVI, the Rev. Billy Graham, former President Jimmy Carter, talk-show host Glenn Beck and the Dalai Lama.

Hillary Clinton has been the most-admired woman in the poll 15 times since 1992, when she first appeared following her husband's election as president. She leads this year with 17 percent, followed by Palin with 12 percent, Winfrey with 11 percent, and first lady Michelle Obama with 5 percent.

Rounding out the top most-admired women, with 2 percent or less: former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Queen Elizabeth, actress Angelina Jolie, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and, in a three-way tie for ninth place, Burmese democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi and former first ladies Laura Bush and Barbara Bush.

The USA Today-Gallup survey, conducted Dec. 10-12, is based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,019 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
© 2010 The Associated Press
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Feature Article

net neutrality world logoImage via Wikipedia

We Don’t Support

The New Net Neutrality Rules


The FCC passed net neutrality regulation. To many Internet users, this law’s implication is vague. How will this improve our user experience and why should we care one way or another about what the government has to say about the net?


To one group of users, this law, its implication and why they needed to speak out was clear. Reddit PAC was the brain child of Eddie Geller, a Los Angeles comedian who was upset about the possible defeat of net neutrality. He went to Reddit to express his dismay in a call to arms.

“I got sick of being told what we can’t have, because the political climate is about to be ‘inopportune.’ So, I had the idea that the users of Reddit band together to demand action,” Geller said. He decided to create a political action committee to harness the impromptu support he received for his post, in an attempt to become a serious voice on net neutrality. Geller and his group incorporated, created a website to facilitate grassroots action, traveled to Washington and immediately began to work in tandem with other groups.

I spoke with Geller about the impact of the net neutrality vote and his group’s actions to understand more about neutrality from a grassroots perspective.

What does your membership look like? Who considers themselves a Reddit PAC member and what constitutes that membership?

For legal reason.s, I should start off by saying we are now the Open Source Democracy Foundation. We emerged from Reddit and tend to hang out at reddit.com/r/rpac, but out of fear from Condé Nast’s lawyers, we need to make it clear that this organization is not affiliated with Reddit.

That being said, much of our membership is young, educated, tech-savy and passionate about politics — particularly net neutrality. Of course, because of the nature of the users of Reddit, we’re a bit of a “Boys’ Club” right now. That’s something we need to work on, because this is an issue that affects women just as much as men, and we want to fight the perception of the Internet as a male-dominated arena. Also, I’d say anyone who’s joined our e-mail list would consider themselves a member. Members can become more involved by commenting on discussions on reddit.com/r/rpac or attending IRC meetings. And some members are volunteers who work on our website, do research or contribute in any number of ways.

Why do you care about net neutrality and why should the average user?

I care about net neutrality because it concerns me as a citizen and as a consumer.

I believe, as Sen. Al Franken recently put it, net neutrality is “the most important free speech issue of our time.” Right now, the barrier to entry to get on the Internet is so low — and that’s great. But without strong net neutrality rules in place, there could come a day where some speech is harder to find than others. If I want to go to DemocracyNow.org to get my news, I can get there as easily as I can get to CNN.com. The same can’t be said for finding those voices on television.

And it’s not just finding speech that’s the issue — it’s censorship. In 2005, look at what Canadian telecom TELUS did during a dispute with union workers: They blocked subscribers from accessing a site that supported the union members. What if that’s your union? Or in 2007 when Verizon blocked an abortion-rights group from sending out text messages (a decision they reversed and admitted was “incorrect.”) You don’t have to be for abortion rights to realize that the owners of the pipes (the telecoms) could decide that your cause is unfit for the airwaves.

As a consumer, I’m alarmed by the story that came out of Wired last week. It showed a slide from Allot Communications and Openet suggesting their companies could “make it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype or Netflix.” And if I owned a small business, that would frighten me, too. I might think, “Are the telecoms going to make it harder for users of the Internet (whether it be mobile or wired) to reach my website?

The average Internet user should care because they’re definitely a consumer; they’re a citizen of somewhere; and they might even run a business.

In light of that, are you happy with the FCC’s new ruling?

Definitely not. We signed on to a letter with SaveTheInternet.com (along with 80 other groups) to tell the FCC their proposal falls short in five areas: paid prioritization, wireless protections, it’s too easily exploitable to loopholes, it opens the door to specialized services, and it puts net neutrality on questionable legal footing.

It would have been great to see the reclassification of the Internet from an information service to a Title II Telecommunications Service. Using the Internet is fundamentally about communication and should be treated as such.

Every lobbying entity has a foe. Pro-gun vs. anti-gun. Pro-life vs. Pro-choice. Who is your lobbying foe and why?

Our lobbying foes are any groups that are anti-citizen, anti-consumer and anti-small business. Okay, I know that sounds like too much of a political answer, but I’ll be more specific: The telecommunications industry seems to be leading that charge. But if, all of a sudden, these companies started lobbying for making it easier for Americans of all stripes to access the Internet equally, then we’d no longer be on opposite sides.

Fundamentally, the companies that are fighting true net neutrality rules are looking for a way to pay for the cost of building out the infrastructure needed to provide the rich content and services of Web 3.0 and beyond.

We would like them to do that as well. However, to do that by paid prioritization of traffic, or bandwidth throttling, or other “network controls” creates a fundamentally unfair playing field on the Internet, at the expense of the user. It entrenches the power players, rather than opening up the same opportunities Web 1.0 and 2.0 have brought us.

And if these companies want to make their case that these policies are absolutely necessary, I invite them to send someone to http://www.reddit.com/r/rpac to present that argument. We are very open to honest debate and can be swayed by facts and good arguments.

What’s been your lobbying strategy so far and where’s it going in the future?
We helped deliver 2,000,000 signatures to the FCC with FreePress.net in support of Real Net Neutrality. I also had a conversation with FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn to express our concerns with the draft proposal.

I imagine we’ll continue with those sorts of efforts, but we need to also be innovative. We need to work with the culture not against it. Jon Stewart dedicated an entire episode of The Daily Show to the 9/11 First Responders bill and now it’s being talked about again. We need to stop decrying our fellow Americans for watching Dancing with the Stars instead of calling their representatives. Instead, we need to be focused on how we get those people to participate. Once we have some of those people, our calls, petitions, and whatever else we do will be that much stronger.

If you are successful, what does the Internet look like?

An Internet that looks like the one we have now, with very clear rules for how you can’t tamper with it.
Name three things that someone who agrees with you can do to have an impact.

1. Go to http://www.theosdf.org and sign up to be on our mailing list — or even better — sign up to volunteer. That sounds self-serving, but I’m a believer in mass, coordinated action. Calling and writing our representatives is crucial — and by all means, please do that! But if you’re back in the 1930s and you decide you want to fight Nazis, you’d probably be better off joining the Army (if you weren’t already drafted) than to just fly over to Europe by yourself with a grenade and a helmet. Maybe people did that, I don’t know. If they did, I’m sure there was a History Channel special on it.

2. Don’t get cynical. It kills me when people decide to do nothing because they think they’ll never win. I wrote my last entry on Huffington Post on this.

3. If you’re in the media, keep talking about this issue! What’s great is someone like Nilay Patel from Engadget (there are so many others, forgive me blogosphere!). Not only is he unafraid to tell his readers the impact this issue is going to have on them, but he’s writing in a forum that’s not political. His posts about net neutrality are sandwiched between iPad rumors and the videos of people hacking their Xbox. That’s fantastic because it tells readers, “Hey, if you’re using an iPad or playing Xbox online, this issue will affect you.”




Enhanced by Zemanta