[ ] Sing and play on the streets activist/protest/folk music on acoustic guitar, and also doing some percussion work with re-purposed drum kit, using bike trailer for transport.
[ ] Ask the four Democratic candidates or representatives from their campaign what the candidates did regarding Senate Bill 5, including did they sign the petition to put the issue on the ballot? I think you would break a story that all media in Columbus would have to follow.
[ ] Review of the Protein Myth. Interview David G Irving, author of The Protein Myth
[ ] Request interview with Lierre Keith after a magazine/radio show accepts my pitch regarding questions I and other vegans/vegetarians may have about The Vegetarian Myth.
[ ] Constructive criticism of how the following treat animals :
OSU research facilities;
Columbus Zoo;
Snowville Creamery.
[ ] Details---naming names---in terms of evidence that supports or refutes the claim that the corporate abuse of power---and how to ties with the governmental abuses---adversely affects how our nation/society addresses a range of issues pertaining to food, water, housing, medicine, finance, transportation, communication, eduction, prisons and so on.
[ ] Occupy the Courts Event
[ ] Franklinton Housing Justice protest/issues + Jonathan Meier's story of walking across US, going on hunger strike, community gardening, and running his business Rain Brothers.
1/23/12
Draft of Questions for David G. Irving
In Ch 24 of your book, the Protein Myth, you talk about how our diet pertains to issues beyond the physical health of ourselves and our friends and family such as to world poverty, the suffering of billions of farmed animals, and damage to the planet. This seems to contrast to how food in public discourse is often framed in terms of individual or family health, with little attention paid to the broader community and to the world in general. Any thoughts on how we've developed such a narrow public discourse when it comes to food ?
You write on page 291 of your book, the Protein Myth, "the meat industrialists...are reaching out to expand the consumption of animal protein in the developing world. There they are busily at work promoting the same process of feedlot production (Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs)) to increase meat output that has been successfully employed in the West.
"Food corporations marketing meat can only profit when people eat meat, and so they advertise everywhere to encourage people to eat as much meat as possible. Rifkin points out that sales campaigns equate grain-fed 'feedlot' cows (in contradistinction to grass-fed 'pasturage' cows) to a country’s prestige
where consuming animal protein has increasingly become 'the
mark of success' in the developing countries."
To what extent does this parallel the apparent fact that many people in 'developing' nations see hyper-consumerism and and otherwise energy-intensive ways of life as key measure of success or 'living the good life?' For example, many people in 'developing' countries are also acquiring washing machines and other appliances as well as abandoning their bicycles for automobiles.
So, perhaps, the marketing of animal products is not the ONLY factor behind a rise in animal products consumption among some people in 'developing' countries. As bad as corporate abuses of power may be, a deeper issue may be a value system in which we define 'success' and 'progress' in ecologically destructive ways.
Please talk about how a diet high in animal products not only exploits farmed animals but also worsens world hunger. Actually, in the Protein Myth, you say that the diet of wealthy nations--lots of meat, dairy, and eggs,---CAUSES world hunger, right ?
On pg 305, you write about "drug companies which create nonexistent diseases to get the public to buy their drugs." What are your referring to here ?
On pg 306, you write that, "Some of our major nonprofit health organizations and government healthcare agencies have recommended drugs not because they legitimately solved a healthcare problem, but because some of their officials were tied to the drug industry through personal connections that padded their wallets or created wealth for their institutions." Please name names. Or does that expose you to the risk of lawsuits? Perhaps, one option I have as someone with close to no financial assets is to speak out against corporate and governmental abuse of power without fear of being sued, though a media outlet I work for could be sued.
In some ways,some of us live in separate universes, when it comes to being vegan. One the one hand, are people who wonder whether we can get adequate nourishment without animal products; while, on the other hand, are people who claim that a vegan diet is a sort of magic bullet. To what extent could the truth be some combination of these two competing viewpoints ?
One of the points in your book, the Protein Myth, that stands out in its contrast to the conventional wisdom is that milk is NOT a healthful drink, and that dairy products are a type of junk food. Please say more about that.
I myself am reluctant to paint all dairy as a bad thing. That's because I would like to help farmed animals by finding common cause with organic farmers. Here in Central Ohio, there is Snowville Creamery, which seems to be doing things much better than the factory farms. Speaking for myself, I don't want to shut people out. Many people might oppose factory farming, yet---unlike you, me, and other vegan---don't think that consuming animal products, per se, is bad.
Someone might say that your concerns are not well founded, given that the life expectancy of people in 'developed nations' is much higher than it is in other parts of the world where much less animal products are consumed.
Are those life expectancy figures misleading ? Perhaps people in 'developed' nations would live even longer with less of us getting the many chronic illnesses you talk about if we ceased consuming animal products ?
In your book, the Protein Myth, you write about how 'the dairy industry', to perhaps overgeneralize, `exerts its influence thru, among other means, instructional materials in our nation's class rooms. Say more about that.
In your book, The Protein Myth, you write about how the general public trusts a medical establishment that is giving dangerously false info about cholesterol. Please say more about that.
You also mention flawed studies with which some researchers have claimed to debunk the idea that saturated fats are a cause for heart disease (and cancer ?) Say more about that.
It might be worth noting that even if a plant-based diet doesn't improve human health, it's still better for farmed animals and for the rest of the natural environment.
Even if we assume there has been and can continue to be benefits for humans that result from inflicting pain and death on animals, perhaps it's the case that there would be a NET benefit to human beings as well as other animals, if we were to cease viewing them as part of an order of living beings that is inferior to humans?
I ask this because many of the social and environmental problems that confront humanity may stem from our view of ourselves as separate from other species and the natural environment in general.
What about the polio vaccine. It's estimated that at least a million monkey's were "used" in the lab work the led to a vaccine. Should that have not been done? To what extent is there ever a situation in which it's moral to inflict suffering on an animal so as to promote human welfare and/or prevent human suffering ?
If I read what you wrote in your book correctly, you're saying that to a significant degree the process of universities and private researchers getting tax payer money to do animal research is more or less a scam. I don't want to exaggerate or otherwise distort what you wrote, so, how would you describe the situation ?
Is animal research somehow more prone to such corruption than research that does not involve the use of animals ?
Talk about how, in your opinion, officials at universities are not willing to engage in public debate regarding how animals are treated in their research facilities.
The Ohio State University, the main campus, is right here in Columbus. So, say more about how, in your opinion, animals are being abused at research facilities of the Ohio State University. You mention in your book, the Protein Myth, that there is a researcher here that experiments on dogs, inducing heart attacks by having them run on a treadmill.
So, who's making money off of abusing animals in the name of research ? This is funded by taxpayers right ? Please name names when it comes to getting NIH money and other research money from government entities.
What can we do to reduce, if not eliminate the abuse of animals in research facilities ? When it comes to food, drink, clothing, and accessories, one of the things we can do is the so-called voting with our dollars,that is withdrawing our financial support for exploitative industries. But I'm not sure what to do about, for example, getting OSU to stop abusing animals in its research facilities.
Do you advocate a ban on all testing on animals ? You mention in your book that clinical drug trials on animals have limited usefulness for testing whether the drug will be safe for humans to use.
One might ask the question of why there are so many pharmaceuticals being tested in the first place. Pharmaceuticals are there place, but perhaps the focus on pharmacology has gone too far ? Perhaps our society would be better to focus more on diet, a healthy environment, and natural remedies ?
Critics might say that would be anti-modern and unscientific. But perhaps moving forward is a matter of using our scientific knowledge of, for example, chemistry, and applying it in ways more beneficial to the well-being of humans and other animals ? It's NOT about romanticizing the past, right ?
In your book, the Protein Myth, you write " Computer technology already
exists capable of putting an end to animal testing for drugs, so
what is the necessity of testing for drugs on millions of animals
other than to take billions of tax dollars from the public?"
In the Protein Myth, you write, "n the year 2005 three Nobel Prize winners and 500 eminent academics including 250 professors signed a collective statement that read “Virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on research with animals.” Say more about that.
A significant portion of your book addresses the immorality of using animals for scientific research. So, why is the title of your book, The Protein Myth ?
In your book, you say we can ELIMINATE (?) our risks for some cancers, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis,macular degeneration, and multiple sclerosis.
That's a long list of health problems you claim we can solve by not consuming animal products. Is it perhaps a matter of REDUCING those risks, but not eliminating them ?
You wrote in your book " one of the premier government healthcare agencies,
the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, set the upper level for protein intake in its 2002 annual report at 35% (as a percentage of calories). That was 25% higher than the amount recommended
the previous 50 years. No explanation accompanied the new FNB recommendation."
Say more about that.
You write on page 291 of your book, the Protein Myth, "the meat industrialists...are reaching out to expand the consumption of animal protein in the developing world. There they are busily at work promoting the same process of feedlot production (Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs)) to increase meat output that has been successfully employed in the West.
"Food corporations marketing meat can only profit when people eat meat, and so they advertise everywhere to encourage people to eat as much meat as possible. Rifkin points out that sales campaigns equate grain-fed 'feedlot' cows (in contradistinction to grass-fed 'pasturage' cows) to a country’s prestige
where consuming animal protein has increasingly become 'the
mark of success' in the developing countries."
To what extent does this parallel the apparent fact that many people in 'developing' nations see hyper-consumerism and and otherwise energy-intensive ways of life as key measure of success or 'living the good life?' For example, many people in 'developing' countries are also acquiring washing machines and other appliances as well as abandoning their bicycles for automobiles.
So, perhaps, the marketing of animal products is not the ONLY factor behind a rise in animal products consumption among some people in 'developing' countries. As bad as corporate abuses of power may be, a deeper issue may be a value system in which we define 'success' and 'progress' in ecologically destructive ways.
Please talk about how a diet high in animal products not only exploits farmed animals but also worsens world hunger. Actually, in the Protein Myth, you say that the diet of wealthy nations--lots of meat, dairy, and eggs,---CAUSES world hunger, right ?
On pg 305, you write about "drug companies which create nonexistent diseases to get the public to buy their drugs." What are your referring to here ?
On pg 306, you write that, "Some of our major nonprofit health organizations and government healthcare agencies have recommended drugs not because they legitimately solved a healthcare problem, but because some of their officials were tied to the drug industry through personal connections that padded their wallets or created wealth for their institutions." Please name names. Or does that expose you to the risk of lawsuits? Perhaps, one option I have as someone with close to no financial assets is to speak out against corporate and governmental abuse of power without fear of being sued, though a media outlet I work for could be sued.
In some ways,some of us live in separate universes, when it comes to being vegan. One the one hand, are people who wonder whether we can get adequate nourishment without animal products; while, on the other hand, are people who claim that a vegan diet is a sort of magic bullet. To what extent could the truth be some combination of these two competing viewpoints ?
One of the points in your book, the Protein Myth, that stands out in its contrast to the conventional wisdom is that milk is NOT a healthful drink, and that dairy products are a type of junk food. Please say more about that.
I myself am reluctant to paint all dairy as a bad thing. That's because I would like to help farmed animals by finding common cause with organic farmers. Here in Central Ohio, there is Snowville Creamery, which seems to be doing things much better than the factory farms. Speaking for myself, I don't want to shut people out. Many people might oppose factory farming, yet---unlike you, me, and other vegan---don't think that consuming animal products, per se, is bad.
Someone might say that your concerns are not well founded, given that the life expectancy of people in 'developed nations' is much higher than it is in other parts of the world where much less animal products are consumed.
Are those life expectancy figures misleading ? Perhaps people in 'developed' nations would live even longer with less of us getting the many chronic illnesses you talk about if we ceased consuming animal products ?
In your book, the Protein Myth, you write about how 'the dairy industry', to perhaps overgeneralize, `exerts its influence thru, among other means, instructional materials in our nation's class rooms. Say more about that.
In your book, The Protein Myth, you write about how the general public trusts a medical establishment that is giving dangerously false info about cholesterol. Please say more about that.
You also mention flawed studies with which some researchers have claimed to debunk the idea that saturated fats are a cause for heart disease (and cancer ?) Say more about that.
It might be worth noting that even if a plant-based diet doesn't improve human health, it's still better for farmed animals and for the rest of the natural environment.
Even if we assume there has been and can continue to be benefits for humans that result from inflicting pain and death on animals, perhaps it's the case that there would be a NET benefit to human beings as well as other animals, if we were to cease viewing them as part of an order of living beings that is inferior to humans?
I ask this because many of the social and environmental problems that confront humanity may stem from our view of ourselves as separate from other species and the natural environment in general.
What about the polio vaccine. It's estimated that at least a million monkey's were "used" in the lab work the led to a vaccine. Should that have not been done? To what extent is there ever a situation in which it's moral to inflict suffering on an animal so as to promote human welfare and/or prevent human suffering ?
If I read what you wrote in your book correctly, you're saying that to a significant degree the process of universities and private researchers getting tax payer money to do animal research is more or less a scam. I don't want to exaggerate or otherwise distort what you wrote, so, how would you describe the situation ?
Is animal research somehow more prone to such corruption than research that does not involve the use of animals ?
Talk about how, in your opinion, officials at universities are not willing to engage in public debate regarding how animals are treated in their research facilities.
The Ohio State University, the main campus, is right here in Columbus. So, say more about how, in your opinion, animals are being abused at research facilities of the Ohio State University. You mention in your book, the Protein Myth, that there is a researcher here that experiments on dogs, inducing heart attacks by having them run on a treadmill.
So, who's making money off of abusing animals in the name of research ? This is funded by taxpayers right ? Please name names when it comes to getting NIH money and other research money from government entities.
What can we do to reduce, if not eliminate the abuse of animals in research facilities ? When it comes to food, drink, clothing, and accessories, one of the things we can do is the so-called voting with our dollars,that is withdrawing our financial support for exploitative industries. But I'm not sure what to do about, for example, getting OSU to stop abusing animals in its research facilities.
Do you advocate a ban on all testing on animals ? You mention in your book that clinical drug trials on animals have limited usefulness for testing whether the drug will be safe for humans to use.
One might ask the question of why there are so many pharmaceuticals being tested in the first place. Pharmaceuticals are there place, but perhaps the focus on pharmacology has gone too far ? Perhaps our society would be better to focus more on diet, a healthy environment, and natural remedies ?
Critics might say that would be anti-modern and unscientific. But perhaps moving forward is a matter of using our scientific knowledge of, for example, chemistry, and applying it in ways more beneficial to the well-being of humans and other animals ? It's NOT about romanticizing the past, right ?
In your book, the Protein Myth, you write " Computer technology already
exists capable of putting an end to animal testing for drugs, so
what is the necessity of testing for drugs on millions of animals
other than to take billions of tax dollars from the public?"
In the Protein Myth, you write, "n the year 2005 three Nobel Prize winners and 500 eminent academics including 250 professors signed a collective statement that read “Virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on research with animals.” Say more about that.
A significant portion of your book addresses the immorality of using animals for scientific research. So, why is the title of your book, The Protein Myth ?
In your book, you say we can ELIMINATE (?) our risks for some cancers, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's, osteoporosis,macular degeneration, and multiple sclerosis.
That's a long list of health problems you claim we can solve by not consuming animal products. Is it perhaps a matter of REDUCING those risks, but not eliminating them ?
You wrote in your book " one of the premier government healthcare agencies,
the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, set the upper level for protein intake in its 2002 annual report at 35% (as a percentage of calories). That was 25% higher than the amount recommended
the previous 50 years. No explanation accompanied the new FNB recommendation."
Say more about that.
1/21/12
Menu code ---copy and paste from EDIT view
/*********************Navigation Menu 1**********************/
.access{margin:auto;width:960px;display:block;float:left;}
.access .menu ul{list-style:none;margin:0;}
.access .menu li{float:left;position:relative; font-weight:bold;}
.access a{display:block;text-decoration:none;font-size:14px; text-transform:uppercase; padding:0 15px;line-height:34px; }
.access .menu li.current_page_item a {background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access ul ul{display:none;position:absolute;top:34px;left:0;float:left;-webkit-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-moz-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);z-index:99999;}
.access ul ul ul{left:100%;top:0;}
.access ul ul a{height:auto;line-height:1em;padding:10px;width:160px; font-size:11px;}
.access li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access ul ul li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
/*********************Navigation Menu 2**********************/
.access2{margin:auto;width:960px;display:block;float:left;}
.access2 .menu2 ul{list-style:none;margin:0;}
.access2 .menu2 ul li{float:left;position:relative;}
.access2 a{display:block;text-decoration:none;font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; padding:0 15px;line-height:34px;background:url(images/divider.png) right no-repeat; text-shadow:1px 1px #000;}
.access2 ul ul{display:none;position:absolute;top:34px;left:0;float:left;-webkit-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-moz-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);z-index:99999; }
.access2 ul ul ul{left:100%;top:0;}
.access2 ul ul a{height:auto;line-height:1em;padding:10px;width:160px; color:#FFF;}
.access2 li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access2 .menu2 ul ul li a {background-image:none;}
.access2 ul ul li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access{margin:auto;width:960px;display:block;float:left;}
.access .menu ul{list-style:none;margin:0;}
.access .menu li{float:left;position:relative; font-weight:bold;}
.access a{display:block;text-decoration:none;font-size:14px; text-transform:uppercase; padding:0 15px;line-height:34px; }
.access .menu li.current_page_item a {background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access ul ul{display:none;position:absolute;top:34px;left:0;float:left;-webkit-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-moz-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);z-index:99999;}
.access ul ul ul{left:100%;top:0;}
.access ul ul a{height:auto;line-height:1em;padding:10px;width:160px; font-size:11px;}
.access li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access ul ul li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
/*********************Navigation Menu 2**********************/
.access2{margin:auto;width:960px;display:block;float:left;}
.access2 .menu2 ul{list-style:none;margin:0;}
.access2 .menu2 ul li{float:left;position:relative;}
.access2 a{display:block;text-decoration:none;font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; padding:0 15px;line-height:34px;background:url(images/divider.png) right no-repeat; text-shadow:1px 1px #000;}
.access2 ul ul{display:none;position:absolute;top:34px;left:0;float:left;-webkit-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-moz-box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);box-shadow:0px 3px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);z-index:99999; }
.access2 ul ul ul{left:100%;top:0;}
.access2 ul ul a{height:auto;line-height:1em;padding:10px;width:160px; color:#FFF;}
.access2 li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
.access2 .menu2 ul ul li a {background-image:none;}
.access2 ul ul li:hover > a{background:url(images/menu_hover.png) repeat-x;}
1/18/12
Occupy the Courts material
Doug Todd is a full-time state employee who is involved with the Central Ohio Green Education Fund as well as Move to Amend Central Ohio.
Todd said giving corporations the rights of natural persons is the result of a long string of Supreme Court decisions going back to the 19th Century.
"The Citizens United Supreme Court decision of two years ago was the straw that broke the camel's back, because it grants corporations unlimited power to influence elections... It opens the floodgate to money in elections. But even before Citizens United, there was already too much money in elections."
The Citizens United ruling has made it easier for super PACs to spend money on media.
"In other words, what they're doing is buying advertising spots. Back to the Media Reform Caucus we had back in 2004, one of the big issues there was that local stations are not covering local politics anymore. A local politician doesn't get on the airwaves unless they're buying advertising because the local media---newspapers sometimes cover it, the Dispatch is better than most, believe it or not. But local TV and radio stations do not cover local elections anymore, or they do very little of it."
Getting air time requires a lot of money. Todd said some politicians complain they have to spend a very large percentage of their time raising money. But he said big corporations are happy with this arrangement.
" I can't remember who made the quote but some business person said the highest return on investment is the money spent on campaigns, because you can change laws in your favor. These guys are spending the money and they get what they want. The media organizations are in business to make money. Local media does well during political campaigns. That their profitable season because everybody has to buy ads, even though the stations are supposed to be operating in the public interest."
Bob Krasen works with Move to Amend in Columbus.
“The word is out to a pretty good number of organization, including Occupy, to come and participate in this. Nobody really knows how many are going to come, but we’re hoping for a crowd of a couple hundred people.”
He said Move to Amend has been established in across the US with affiliate groups in each state.
Occupy the Courts takes place on third anniversary of the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United V. the Federal Elections Commission case.
“It’s a demonstration against the Citizens United decision but you might say it’s a celebration of what it is we’re trying to accomplish. A demonstration is not necessarily just an anti-thing. It can be a celebration of coming together to try to do something,” Krasen said.
He said Move to Amend has crafted language that makes its amendment to the US Constitution the best among as many as seven other proposals.
“Some of them will not really exclude corporations from participating in the political system and will continue to allow corporate money to filter thru to all sorts of things. I think the wording of the constitutional amendment that Move to Amend is doing really cuts thru those loop holes and is pretty straight forward about what they (corporations) are and are not, and allows local and state entities to legislate against what level anybody can participate in elections.”
Some US cities and states are making efforts to abolish corporate personhood. For a list visit http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map
As for Columbus, "I’ve tried to approach Andy Ginther about that, but they’re in the middle of budget hearings, so I haven’t heard back from him,” said Krasen.
Krasen said the proposed Constitutional amendment is not against corporations, per se.
“Move to Amend has essentially said ‘we like what corporations do---the goods and services that they provide; that’s valuable to us and to the American people, and we’re not opposed to that at all.’"
Krasen said he and fellow activists oppose corporations in so far as they use their money to drown out the voice of ordinary Americans by funding campaigns and lobbying for bills.
“Right now, if a candidate will oppose something that a corporation wants, they can flood his district or his area with tons of money to prevent him from getting elected. That’s the kind of thing we want to stop.”
He suggests Paul Krugman’s blog
“He (Krugman) is on the side of Occupy and has said Republican proposals on economics are wrong and will be the undoing of the country.”
Krasen also recommends Reader Supported News.
Michael Greenman is _____________
"Most of the major issues today that are a detriment to society, to quality of life, to freedom, to democracy, to the environment, and to education, come back sooner or later to corporate influence or corporate money."
Krasen said our political system is at an impasse.
"There is no way for our elected representatives to go against the significant wishes of the corporate will."
He said Congresspersons have to spend a great deal of their time every day getting money to get reelected.
" A lot of the money comes from Super PACs or wealthy individuals. Nobody gives anything. There is always the expectation---even if it isn't stated or specified---that there will be quid pro quo for donations," said Greenman.
He said as a result, a small percentage of the population has a lot of say over how our country is run.
"In today's environment, with Citizens United, as we just saw, interestingly enough, within the Republican Party, enormous expenditure of money by a wealthy person on behalf of Newt Gingrich against Mitt Romney. I've heard numbers of $5 million for a 29 min television piece...It's not you and me or other individuals or even unions that have the level of money available to do that."
Todd said giving corporations the rights of natural persons is the result of a long string of Supreme Court decisions going back to the 19th Century.
"The Citizens United Supreme Court decision of two years ago was the straw that broke the camel's back, because it grants corporations unlimited power to influence elections... It opens the floodgate to money in elections. But even before Citizens United, there was already too much money in elections."
The Citizens United ruling has made it easier for super PACs to spend money on media.
"In other words, what they're doing is buying advertising spots. Back to the Media Reform Caucus we had back in 2004, one of the big issues there was that local stations are not covering local politics anymore. A local politician doesn't get on the airwaves unless they're buying advertising because the local media---newspapers sometimes cover it, the Dispatch is better than most, believe it or not. But local TV and radio stations do not cover local elections anymore, or they do very little of it."
Getting air time requires a lot of money. Todd said some politicians complain they have to spend a very large percentage of their time raising money. But he said big corporations are happy with this arrangement.
" I can't remember who made the quote but some business person said the highest return on investment is the money spent on campaigns, because you can change laws in your favor. These guys are spending the money and they get what they want. The media organizations are in business to make money. Local media does well during political campaigns. That their profitable season because everybody has to buy ads, even though the stations are supposed to be operating in the public interest."
Bob Krasen works with Move to Amend in Columbus.
“The word is out to a pretty good number of organization, including Occupy, to come and participate in this. Nobody really knows how many are going to come, but we’re hoping for a crowd of a couple hundred people.”
He said Move to Amend has been established in across the US with affiliate groups in each state.
Occupy the Courts takes place on third anniversary of the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United V. the Federal Elections Commission case.
“It’s a demonstration against the Citizens United decision but you might say it’s a celebration of what it is we’re trying to accomplish. A demonstration is not necessarily just an anti-thing. It can be a celebration of coming together to try to do something,” Krasen said.
He said Move to Amend has crafted language that makes its amendment to the US Constitution the best among as many as seven other proposals.
“Some of them will not really exclude corporations from participating in the political system and will continue to allow corporate money to filter thru to all sorts of things. I think the wording of the constitutional amendment that Move to Amend is doing really cuts thru those loop holes and is pretty straight forward about what they (corporations) are and are not, and allows local and state entities to legislate against what level anybody can participate in elections.”
Some US cities and states are making efforts to abolish corporate personhood. For a list visit http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map
As for Columbus, "I’ve tried to approach Andy Ginther about that, but they’re in the middle of budget hearings, so I haven’t heard back from him,” said Krasen.
Krasen said the proposed Constitutional amendment is not against corporations, per se.
“Move to Amend has essentially said ‘we like what corporations do---the goods and services that they provide; that’s valuable to us and to the American people, and we’re not opposed to that at all.’"
Krasen said he and fellow activists oppose corporations in so far as they use their money to drown out the voice of ordinary Americans by funding campaigns and lobbying for bills.
“Right now, if a candidate will oppose something that a corporation wants, they can flood his district or his area with tons of money to prevent him from getting elected. That’s the kind of thing we want to stop.”
He suggests Paul Krugman’s blog
“He (Krugman) is on the side of Occupy and has said Republican proposals on economics are wrong and will be the undoing of the country.”
Krasen also recommends Reader Supported News.
Michael Greenman is _____________
"Most of the major issues today that are a detriment to society, to quality of life, to freedom, to democracy, to the environment, and to education, come back sooner or later to corporate influence or corporate money."
Krasen said our political system is at an impasse.
"There is no way for our elected representatives to go against the significant wishes of the corporate will."
He said Congresspersons have to spend a great deal of their time every day getting money to get reelected.
" A lot of the money comes from Super PACs or wealthy individuals. Nobody gives anything. There is always the expectation---even if it isn't stated or specified---that there will be quid pro quo for donations," said Greenman.
He said as a result, a small percentage of the population has a lot of say over how our country is run.
"In today's environment, with Citizens United, as we just saw, interestingly enough, within the Republican Party, enormous expenditure of money by a wealthy person on behalf of Newt Gingrich against Mitt Romney. I've heard numbers of $5 million for a 29 min television piece...It's not you and me or other individuals or even unions that have the level of money available to do that."
1/12/12
.
I venture some food growers who use organic or 'chemical free' polyculture methods are beyond subsistence. That is, they might be selling what they and their families don't eat. But I got to check that out. Perhaps other users of this forum can support or detract from that claim.
Getting our hands (and clothes) dirty by growing food, instead of/in addition to, for example, working in a cubicle might be one of many ways to revitalize our economy. Why allow ourselves as a society to be stuck in a rut, unimaginatively and complacently, given how some of us have faced increased risks of losing our corporate jobs ?
But, since you mentioned it, let's consider subsistence farming--that is, growing just enough to live off of. As a last resort, it might be better than starvation, which is what the majority of people in this country--including myself---MIGHT face without petroleum.
I say that because (relatively eco-benign) substitutes such as geothermal, wind, and solar seem more applicable to electricity generation, transportation, and heating than they do to agriculture.
The claims of food and chemical companies such as Monsanto, Dow, or ADM about feeding the world might make sense if we overlook the uncertain future for petroleum and natural gas. Also, to those big companies that say thru their high-price PR firms "We feed the world", we might want consider whether it's better if the world is instead able to feed itself, as opposed to relying on big companies that literally wield the power of life or death.
But as for peak oil (and climate change for that matter), even if concerns about them are overblown or just plain false, our current systems are problematic for other reasons. For the sake of brevity (if it's not too late for that) let's just consider our food system for the time being.
Industrialized agriculture involves many challenges, irrespective of peak oil and climate change :
(1) eutrophication of waterways;
(2) salinization of soil;
(3) draw-down of aquifers;
(4) loss of topsoil;
(5) loss of micro-nutrients;
(6) loss of biodiversity;
(7) loss of nutrient density in food;
(8) public health problems such as obesity, BSE, MRSA, H1N1, and lowered resistance to antibiotics;
(9) concentrated control over seeds;
(10) monopolies in the dairy and livestock industries;
(11)abuse and neglect of farmed animals;
(12)exploitation of migrant and other workers at the bottom of our food supply chain.
But let's again pan our conceptional lens wider, not limiting our focus to our food system. Brevity be damned! Whether it pertains to food (petroleum, natural gas); transport (petroleum, coal-fired electricity); electricity generation (coal and nuclear); or heating and cooling (coal, natural gas, and nuclear); I suggest a more accurate accounting of the 'costs.'
Apply to your understanding of 'cost' the same degree of systemic thinking you applied in order to challenge the way people use the word 'renewable' when we talk about energy sources. http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/eliminate-tax-subsidies-for-big-oil-companies#post-404439
The key term is 'throughput,' so as to account for NET usage of energy and materials, and NET gains vs. cost to human well-being. (I used an anthropocentric framework for the sake of a possibly more constructive discourse with you.)
So, I suggest we consider the net costs and benefits of pursuing alternatives to our current systems for agriculture, transportation, and power generation versus the net costs and benefits of sticking with (or trying to stick with) things as they are.
----------------------
As for the US being a net fuel exporter, (1) does this necessarily negate the value of reducing absolute demand ?
As for the DoD's innovations with alternative fuels and energy sources, I'm not sure if you mentioned this to bate Pilsner, given his anti-war posts. But it calls to mind the conservative stance that government should spend money and resources on 'national defense' and little else.
Having said all of that, I would add the broad commercial and noncommercial applications of technological innovation that resulted from the Cold War space race to your example of the internet resulting from a DARPA program. This raises a possibly useful line of inquiry:
(2) to what extent has government-sponsored R&D focused on military applications
resulted in benefits to society and the world in general;
(3) to what extent has non-military government-sponsored R&D benefited society and the world in general;
(4) what do our answers---in comparing (2) and (3)--- mean regarding citizens right now pushing our political leaders to invest in government-sponsored R&D;
(5) and will the money for this come from keeping taxes low for the super rich and big corporations that send jobs and manufacturing know-how overseas ?
I venture some food growers who use organic or 'chemical free' polyculture methods are beyond subsistence. That is, they might be selling what they and their families don't eat. But I got to check that out. Perhaps other users of this forum can support or detract from that claim.
Getting our hands (and clothes) dirty by growing food, instead of/in addition to, for example, working in a cubicle might be one of many ways to revitalize our economy. Why allow ourselves as a society to be stuck in a rut, unimaginatively and complacently, given how some of us have faced increased risks of losing our corporate jobs ?
But, since you mentioned it, let's consider subsistence farming--that is, growing just enough to live off of. As a last resort, it might be better than starvation, which is what the majority of people in this country--including myself---MIGHT face without petroleum.
I say that because (relatively eco-benign) substitutes such as geothermal, wind, and solar seem more applicable to electricity generation, transportation, and heating than they do to agriculture.
The claims of food and chemical companies such as Monsanto, Dow, or ADM about feeding the world might make sense if we overlook the uncertain future for petroleum and natural gas. Also, to those big companies that say thru their high-price PR firms "We feed the world", we might want consider whether it's better if the world is instead able to feed itself, as opposed to relying on big companies that literally wield the power of life or death.
But as for peak oil (and climate change for that matter), even if concerns about them are overblown or just plain false, our current systems are problematic for other reasons. For the sake of brevity (if it's not too late for that) let's just consider our food system for the time being.
Industrialized agriculture involves many challenges, irrespective of peak oil and climate change :
(1) eutrophication of waterways;
(2) salinization of soil;
(3) draw-down of aquifers;
(4) loss of topsoil;
(5) loss of micro-nutrients;
(6) loss of biodiversity;
(7) loss of nutrient density in food;
(8) public health problems such as obesity, BSE, MRSA, H1N1, and lowered resistance to antibiotics;
(9) concentrated control over seeds;
(10) monopolies in the dairy and livestock industries;
(11)abuse and neglect of farmed animals;
(12)exploitation of migrant and other workers at the bottom of our food supply chain.
But let's again pan our conceptional lens wider, not limiting our focus to our food system. Brevity be damned! Whether it pertains to food (petroleum, natural gas); transport (petroleum, coal-fired electricity); electricity generation (coal and nuclear); or heating and cooling (coal, natural gas, and nuclear); I suggest a more accurate accounting of the 'costs.'
Apply to your understanding of 'cost' the same degree of systemic thinking you applied in order to challenge the way people use the word 'renewable' when we talk about energy sources. http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/eliminate-tax-subsidies-for-big-oil-companies#post-404439
The key term is 'throughput,' so as to account for NET usage of energy and materials, and NET gains vs. cost to human well-being. (I used an anthropocentric framework for the sake of a possibly more constructive discourse with you.)
So, I suggest we consider the net costs and benefits of pursuing alternatives to our current systems for agriculture, transportation, and power generation versus the net costs and benefits of sticking with (or trying to stick with) things as they are.
----------------------
As for the US being a net fuel exporter, (1) does this necessarily negate the value of reducing absolute demand ?
As for the DoD's innovations with alternative fuels and energy sources, I'm not sure if you mentioned this to bate Pilsner, given his anti-war posts. But it calls to mind the conservative stance that government should spend money and resources on 'national defense' and little else.
Having said all of that, I would add the broad commercial and noncommercial applications of technological innovation that resulted from the Cold War space race to your example of the internet resulting from a DARPA program. This raises a possibly useful line of inquiry:
(2) to what extent has government-sponsored R&D focused on military applications
resulted in benefits to society and the world in general;
(3) to what extent has non-military government-sponsored R&D benefited society and the world in general;
(4) what do our answers---in comparing (2) and (3)--- mean regarding citizens right now pushing our political leaders to invest in government-sponsored R&D;
(5) and will the money for this come from keeping taxes low for the super rich and big corporations that send jobs and manufacturing know-how overseas ?
Notes and questions regarding systems theory/living systems
For Fritjof Capra : why not us both analytical and systemic thinking ?
1/2/12
Questions for Jonathan Meier
To what extent should people address concerns about shingles on the roof contaminating water that runs off, causing contamination of soil where food is grown.
refer to interview in Metroprenuer
refer to interview in Metroprenuer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
