Puppet MastersS


Monkey Wrench

Did California voters defeat the food movement along with Prop. 37?

Tom Philpott
Mother Jones
Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:22 UTC
Image
"Come at the king, you best not miss," the character Omar famously observed on The Wire. Does the law of the streets apply to the politics of food? Writing in the The New York Times Magazine last month, Michael Pollan laid down the gauntlet on Prop. 37, the California ballot initiative that would have required labeling of genetically modified foods. "One of the more interesting things we will learn on Nov. 6 is whether or not there is a 'food movement' in America worthy of the name - that is, an organized force in our politics capable of demanding change in the food system," he wrote.

Pollan ended his essay by suggesting that passage of Prop. 37 would be a sure way to convince President Obama of the importance of food-system reform.
Over the last four years I've had occasion to speak to several people who have personally lobbied the president on various food issues, including G.M. labeling, and from what I can gather, Obama's attitude toward the food movement has always been: What movement? I don't see it. Show me. On Nov. 6, the voters of California will have the opportunity to do just that.
Read More...
Chess

Did Monsanto win Prop 37? Round one in the food fight of our lives

Ronnie Cummins & Katherine Paul
Alternet
Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:11 UTC
Image
© thepeoplesrecord.com
Prop 37 has exposed the dark side of Big Ag and Big Food, and their desperation to keep U.S. consumers in the dark about whether or not our food has been genetically engineered.

It was a mighty fight. And it's far from over.

Between Oct. 7 and Nov. 6, 4.3 million Californians - nearly 47% of those who voted - cast their ballots in favor of what would have become this country's first law to require mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and ban the routine industry practice of marketing GMO-tainted foods as "natural."

That Monsanto and Big Food's 4.8 million votes managed to scuttle Prop 37, one of the most widely publicized and closely watched state ballot initiatives of 2012, is almost a footnote to the real story. (As of today, with reports of almost 3 million votes still uncounted, some still question the "official" vote count and whether the No on 37 camp really won at all).
Read More...
Question

David Petraeus resigns as CIA director over 'extramarital affair'

Greg Miller
The Washington Post
Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:59 UTC
Image
CIA Director David H. Petraeus resigned Friday and admitted to having an extramarital affair, bringing a surprisingly abrupt end to his brief tenure at the spy agency as well as his decorated career in national security.

Petraeus, a retired four-star U.S. Army general once considered a potential presidential candidate, met with President Obama on Thursday and said he was prepared to step down because of the affair. Obama accepted the resignation in a phone call to Petraeus on Friday, officials said.

"After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair," Petraeus said in a statement distributed Friday to the CIA workforce. "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation."

The sudden departure created turmoil in the Obama administration's national security team just days after the president's reelection. That team is expected to see a series of changes in the coming months, but many believed that Petraeus would remain in his position.

Comment: The extramarital affair excuse just doesn't make any sense. "Petraeus was scheduled to testify next week on Capitol Hill in hearings on the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador and two CIA security officers, in Libya in September. U.S. officials said Friday that the controversy surrounding that attack - and the administration's shifting explanations for it - played no role in Petraeus's decision to resign." Whatever Patraeus's role was during the Benghazi attacks, the opposite of what 'officials' are saying seems more plausible.

On October 26th the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. "

William Kristol at the Weekly Standard wrote:
So who in the government did tell "anybody" not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.

It would have been a presidential decision. There was presumably a rationale for such a decision. What was it? When and why - and based on whose counsel obtained in what meetings or conversations - did President Obama decide against sending in military assets to help the Americans in need?
Human Events reports:
Following Petraeus's announcement, a spokeswoman for the committee said that the hearing is expected to proceed as scheduled, though the CIA director's immediate resignation will likely change the witness list. It's not immediately clear if the CIA will send a replacement witness to testify, though CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, now acting director is reportedly in line for Petraeus's position.


Read More...
Attention

Everything you need to know about the British Conservative party paedophile scandal in five minutes

Ian Dunt
Politics.co.uk
Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:23 UTC
Angel
The allegations of abuse in the 1970s and 80s have rocked the political establishment.
Where did the Tory paedophile accusations come from?

On October 24th, Labour MP Tom Watson stood up during PMQs and asked the prime minister a question. "I want to ensure the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to parliament and No 10," he said. It was met by a stunned silence in the Commons chamber.

A week earlier, Watson had received a call from a former child protection specialist who believed a wider investigation regarding the activities of convicted paedophile Peter Righton had not been fully investigated. Some of the evidence, Watson said, suggested a paedophile ring was operated in care homes in Wales during the 1970s and 80s involving senior members of the establishment, including an aide to Margaret Thatcher and several other household names.

Did the abuse take place?

Undoubtedly. During the 1970s and 80s children in care homes in the Gwynedd and Clwyd Council areas were sexually and physically abused. A police investigation in 1991 resulted in eight prosecutions and seven convictions. All were care workers. But it is widely believed the scale of the abuse was much greater. Much of it is thought to have taken place outside the homes. Steve Messham, a sex abuse victim, told Newsnight last Friday that children had been"sold" to men for sexual abuse at a nearby hotel.
Read More...
Question

Did PM Tony Blair cover up paedophile scandal? List of child sex offenders in British government

x
The People's United Community
Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:57 UTC
Tony Blair
Tony Blair
While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under criminal suspicion in the "honours-for-cash" scandal that has rocked his Labour government, we have been told that there is an even more explosive scandal that Blair, up to now, has managed to hide behind the draconian British policy of issuing "D-Notices," government orders that prohibit the British media from reporting on certain "national security" cases.

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles run by Britain's National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed "under caution" by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair's government.

However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).
Read More...
Snakes in Suits

Coming out of the Cabinet: British PM Cameron in a panic over 'gay' gaffe on national TV


21st Century Wire
Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:14 UTC
Cameron
Cameron has somehow injected bizarre ‘gay’ talking point into No.10 paedophile debate.
Politicians normally don't like surprises, or having to answer tough questions off the cuff. Even Question Time is a staged routine where party leaders pretend bite back for the camera - pure Punch 'n Judy. But ITV's This Morning Show turned out to be an unlikely arena for this prime ministerial showdown...

PANIC STATIONS: PM David Cameron appeared to get the shock of life Thursday morning when a seemingly harmless character, host Philip Schofield, challenged the PM about the government's policy of denial regarding any paedophiles, past, present or future, in No.10, or anywhere else in Westminster for that matter.

Schofield is last guy you'd expect to go for the PM like this, but now thousands are Tweeting and Facebooking support for Schofield, and his 'street cred' index for 18-35′s has just shot into orbit.

The only line Schofield crossed, was to rightly challenge a public politician on a serious issue. It was a rare display of balls in the mainstream media - which has made him a sort of people's presenter. No doubt, and all too predictably, ITV will be pressured by Downing Street and Ofcom to sack Schofield for his challenge to the PM - let's see if ITV have got some of the family jewels that the BBC clearly lack. But if they cave in, ITV will have cut loose what appears to be its coolest asset in years.
Read More...
Light Sabers

Moscow urges immediate resumption of Iran-powers talks


Fars News Agency
Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:56 UTC
Image
Sergei Ryabkov
Russia called for the immediate resumption of talks between Iran and the Group 5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany).

Speaking to radio Voice of Russia on Thursday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said there is no reason to postpone the talks.

Now that [we] have been cleared who has the final say in the US foreign policy, there is no reason to delay talks between the two sides, he said.

"We should take action to proceed with talks between the two sides as Tehran as well as other states know that who decides the US foreign policy," the Russian diplomat said.

Once again we invite all parties to come back to negotiating table, he said.

Late in October, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who represents the world powers in talks with Tehran, said she would soon have talks with Iran's lead negotiator Saeed Jalili.

Iran and the Group 5+1 have held several rounds of talks this year.

Comment: The question becomes: Who do they believe has "the final say in the US foreign policy"?

Read More...
Blackbox

Iran says Obama's view on Iran 'completely different' from Israel's

Barney Henderson
The Telegraph
Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:30 UTC
Image
© REUTERS/AFPMr Netanyahu, Mr Ahmadinejad and Mr Obama
Iran has claimed that the Obama administration has "completely different" views on the Islamic Republic to Israel and the US Republican Party, according to an intelligence ministry report.

The report, posted on the ministry's newly launched website vaja.ir, claimed that the Democrats had "pinned their" hopes on a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear threat, and that there was "open confrontation between President Barack Obama and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue.

It was apparently prepared before Mr Obama's re-election victory on Tuesday over Mitt Romney.

"The Republican party has a more severe confrontational approach towards Iran ... and its proposed policies are close to those of the Zionist (Israel) regime," it said according to an AFP report.

Mr Obama's "Democratic party's position is completely different" on Iran, it added.
Read More...
Question

Dr. Judy Wood: Where did the World Trade Center go on 9/11?


One Step Beyond
Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:37 UTC
Read More...
Megaphone

Lies, dirty tricks, and $45 million kill GMO labeling in California

Michele Simon
Appetite for Profit
Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:05 UTC
Image
California's Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, died a painful death last night. Despite polling in mid-September showing an overwhelming lead, the measure lost by 53 to 47 percent, which is relatively close considering the No side's tactics.

As I've been writing about, the opposition has waged a deceptive and ugly campaign, fueled by more than $45 million, mostly from the leading biotech, pesticide, and junk food companies. Meanwhile, the Yes side raised almost $9 million, which is not bad, but being outspent by a factor of five is tough to overcome.

While we can always expect industry to spend more, the various groups fighting GMOs for years probably could have been better coordinated. I was dismayed and confused by all the fundraising emails I received from different nonprofits on Prop 37 and wondered why they weren't pooling their resources.

But would more money and better strategy have made a difference? Given the opposition's tactics, it seems unlikely. I am not easily shocked by corporate shenanigans but the No on 37 campaign is my new poster child for propaganda and dirty tricks. It's worth recapping the most egregious examples.
Read More...