I am currently living in the 2nd Congressional District in Nebraska. The incumbent for the House of Representatives is Congressman Lee Terry. He was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1998. While he was running in the primary to become the Republican choice for Congress in the 2nd District, he signed the U.S. Term Limits Pledge. He pledged to serve no more than three terms in the United States of House of Representatives. This means that he pledged to no longer run after the completion of his 2002 term.
My professor for Introduction to American National Government at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, Richard Fellman was the first one to alert me to this bit of information. In 2008, Lee Terry spoke to my class about the Bailout bill. It's important to note that Barack Obama was not the president when the first bailout was voted on and was not the one who started the talks about having the bailout (I thought it might be important to note that). Professor Fellman asked Jim Esch, who ran against Terry in 2006 and 2008, if Esch was going to call Terry out on this former pledge he had signed. Esch stated that he would not.
There will be a series of posts about what Hypocrisy Now thinks about this particular Congressional Race. I'm sure you can imagine where we stand on this issue. I just thought it should be introduced here. Perhaps, we'll actually finish all of our series of posts.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Saturday, November 12, 2011
A question
Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I have a very simple argument that leads to a question.
1. We had a balanced budget in the United States under President Bill Clinton because of increased taxes.
2. We currently have a huge debt in the United States and we want to have a balanced budget.
3. Therefore, we need to increase taxes.
Why are we not going to increase taxes on the wealthy?
At some point Republicans will have to answer the question of what is more important to them trying to protect so-called job creators or trying to balance the budget. They cannot have it the same way.
1. We had a balanced budget in the United States under President Bill Clinton because of increased taxes.
2. We currently have a huge debt in the United States and we want to have a balanced budget.
3. Therefore, we need to increase taxes.
Why are we not going to increase taxes on the wealthy?
At some point Republicans will have to answer the question of what is more important to them trying to protect so-called job creators or trying to balance the budget. They cannot have it the same way.
Clarification to the last post
We're not calling for an end to all farm subsidies but it stands to reason that there should be an incentive for farmers so that they can grow a more diverse set of materials.
An issue
I will provide you with a series of posts to explain what issues we stand for, so you know if you want to continue reading.
Re-thinking the way we eat.
Our government needs to end the ridiculous subsidies on corn that we have, currently. Or at the very least we need to lessen the subsidies. Or we should incentevize farmers and others in agriculture to grow a better variety of crops instead of looking at farms like they are machines or factories.
The subsidies on corn allow for an excess of farmers growing corn. We have to get rid of this corn somehow. So what do we do? We feed corn to all types of animals even to those who can't digest it (I'm looking at you cows).
We're not the first ones to suggest that we need to re-think the way we eat. It's been covered by many different writers Michael Pollan, Jonathan Safran Foer, and David Foster Wallace to name a few. It's been covered in movies such as Food, Inc. and Super Size Me.
In Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer lays out the argument broadly for vegetarianism but criticizes the process of factory farms before moving to arguments of vegetarianism. Briefly, I'll talk about his arguments, why we support him, and some solutions that we would support as well.
The strongest part of Foer's arguments is found in his chapter entitled Words/Meanings. They start on page 43 if you happen to have your copy of the book in front of you.
I'll quote extensively from the chapter because as much as I would like to think I am, I am nowhere near the writer Foer is.
CFE's or common farming exemptions "make legal any method of raising farmed animals so long as it is commonly practiced within the industry." Farmers or the corporations behind the farmer have the right to define cruelty so long as the rest of the industry follows. Foer interviews two lawyers who are experts on common farming exemptions who state that "...Ohio exempts farmed animals from requirements for wholesome exercise and a change of air...Vermont exempts farmed animals from the section in its anticruelty statute that deems it illegal to tie, tether, and restrain an animal in a manner that is inhumane or detrimental to its welfare."
"A University of Chicago study found that our food coices contribute at least as much as our transportation choices to global waming. More recent and authoritative studies by the United Nations and the Pew Commission show conclusively that globally, farmed animals contribute more to climate change than transport. According the UN, the livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse emissions, around 40% more than the entire transport sector...Animal agriculture is responsible for 37% of anthropogenic methane, which offers twenty-three times the global warming potential of CO2, as well as 65 % of antropogenic nitrous oxide which provides a staggering 296 times the global warming potential of CO2. "
In summary, "the environmental effects of the meat industry this way: raising animals for food (whether on factory or traditional farms) 'is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to themost serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global...Animal agriculutre should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity."
To continue on, when a food is defined as free range what it means is that the animal has access to the outdoors. Foer's example is to "imagine a shed containing thirty thousand chickens, with a small door at one end that opens to a five-by-five dirt patch-- and the door is closed all but occasionally."
Fresh poultry according the USDA "has never had an internal temperature below 26 degrees or above 40 degrees Fahrenheit."
Organic means that the animals must "be raised on organic feed (that is, crops raised without most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers), be traced through their life cycle, not be fed anti-biotics or growth hormones, and have access to the outdoors." Foer goes one step further by stating that "you can call your turkey organic and torture it daily."
What are the solutions?
1. We want to limit government subsidies on corn or otherwise incentivize farmers to grow more diverse crops. While this may hurt some farmers in the short run, the research we have done seems to indicate that incentivizing a more diverse farm would helm them long term. Due to free trade agreements and high government subsidies, agriculture in some countries simply can't compete with America's agriculture. Some of these people who can't compete immigrate to the United States because they can't hold jobs. Some of these people do come here illegally.
2. Give the USDA some extended power that includes being able to investigate the claims of farmers and companies to check out the qualifications for organic, free range, fresh, etc. We should have some way of knowing that our food is going to be a little bit safer than they currently are.
3. Along with #1, we want there to be a rule in place that cows need to eat grass, at least, for one week. There are tests out there that show that if the cow was agiven a grass diet for at least a week that they would get rid of most of the bacteria that causes E. Coli.
4. Senate hearing on the state of United States agriculture. Please bring the atrocities of what is happening to our food to the light of day. There's a reason why you can't investigate what is happening on these farms and at the meatpacking plants. The companies don't want you to know because then you wouldn't eat their food. What we're asking for is transparency.
5. End common farming exemptions and try to bring about the end of CAFO's otherwise known as factory farms.
Re-thinking the way we eat.
Our government needs to end the ridiculous subsidies on corn that we have, currently. Or at the very least we need to lessen the subsidies. Or we should incentevize farmers and others in agriculture to grow a better variety of crops instead of looking at farms like they are machines or factories.
The subsidies on corn allow for an excess of farmers growing corn. We have to get rid of this corn somehow. So what do we do? We feed corn to all types of animals even to those who can't digest it (I'm looking at you cows).
We're not the first ones to suggest that we need to re-think the way we eat. It's been covered by many different writers Michael Pollan, Jonathan Safran Foer, and David Foster Wallace to name a few. It's been covered in movies such as Food, Inc. and Super Size Me.
In Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer lays out the argument broadly for vegetarianism but criticizes the process of factory farms before moving to arguments of vegetarianism. Briefly, I'll talk about his arguments, why we support him, and some solutions that we would support as well.
The strongest part of Foer's arguments is found in his chapter entitled Words/Meanings. They start on page 43 if you happen to have your copy of the book in front of you.
I'll quote extensively from the chapter because as much as I would like to think I am, I am nowhere near the writer Foer is.
CFE's or common farming exemptions "make legal any method of raising farmed animals so long as it is commonly practiced within the industry." Farmers or the corporations behind the farmer have the right to define cruelty so long as the rest of the industry follows. Foer interviews two lawyers who are experts on common farming exemptions who state that "...Ohio exempts farmed animals from requirements for wholesome exercise and a change of air...Vermont exempts farmed animals from the section in its anticruelty statute that deems it illegal to tie, tether, and restrain an animal in a manner that is inhumane or detrimental to its welfare."
"A University of Chicago study found that our food coices contribute at least as much as our transportation choices to global waming. More recent and authoritative studies by the United Nations and the Pew Commission show conclusively that globally, farmed animals contribute more to climate change than transport. According the UN, the livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse emissions, around 40% more than the entire transport sector...Animal agriculture is responsible for 37% of anthropogenic methane, which offers twenty-three times the global warming potential of CO2, as well as 65 % of antropogenic nitrous oxide which provides a staggering 296 times the global warming potential of CO2. "
In summary, "the environmental effects of the meat industry this way: raising animals for food (whether on factory or traditional farms) 'is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to themost serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global...Animal agriculutre should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity."
To continue on, when a food is defined as free range what it means is that the animal has access to the outdoors. Foer's example is to "imagine a shed containing thirty thousand chickens, with a small door at one end that opens to a five-by-five dirt patch-- and the door is closed all but occasionally."
Fresh poultry according the USDA "has never had an internal temperature below 26 degrees or above 40 degrees Fahrenheit."
Organic means that the animals must "be raised on organic feed (that is, crops raised without most synthetic pesticides and fertilizers), be traced through their life cycle, not be fed anti-biotics or growth hormones, and have access to the outdoors." Foer goes one step further by stating that "you can call your turkey organic and torture it daily."
What are the solutions?
1. We want to limit government subsidies on corn or otherwise incentivize farmers to grow more diverse crops. While this may hurt some farmers in the short run, the research we have done seems to indicate that incentivizing a more diverse farm would helm them long term. Due to free trade agreements and high government subsidies, agriculture in some countries simply can't compete with America's agriculture. Some of these people who can't compete immigrate to the United States because they can't hold jobs. Some of these people do come here illegally.
2. Give the USDA some extended power that includes being able to investigate the claims of farmers and companies to check out the qualifications for organic, free range, fresh, etc. We should have some way of knowing that our food is going to be a little bit safer than they currently are.
3. Along with #1, we want there to be a rule in place that cows need to eat grass, at least, for one week. There are tests out there that show that if the cow was agiven a grass diet for at least a week that they would get rid of most of the bacteria that causes E. Coli.
4. Senate hearing on the state of United States agriculture. Please bring the atrocities of what is happening to our food to the light of day. There's a reason why you can't investigate what is happening on these farms and at the meatpacking plants. The companies don't want you to know because then you wouldn't eat their food. What we're asking for is transparency.
5. End common farming exemptions and try to bring about the end of CAFO's otherwise known as factory farms.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Michele Bachmann
Oh, Michele Bachmann. Why must you say these things?
Note: Strange spelling, one "l" in Michele and two "n"'s in Bachmann. It almost trapped me.
Note: Strange spelling, one "l" in Michele and two "n"'s in Bachmann. It almost trapped me.
Introduction
hypocrisy- a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc. that one does not really possess.
or
the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, especially the pretence of virtue and piety.
Politics- the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, especially those relationships involving authority or power.
or
the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, especially the pretence of virtue and piety.
Politics- the complex or aggregate of relationships of people in society, especially those relationships involving authority or power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)