Seems all of the candidates make vague promises to fix our infrastructure and stormwater issues, but HOW do they plan to pay for these needed fixes when every tax funding effort the city puts before TABOR is a guaranteed NO vote?
I see no way out of TABOR's coffin. Bruceites are killing our city and county.
We need some one who will take our basic needs to heart first. This being water to drink, roads that are drivable, cleaning up gang problems, restrooms in our parks and use the money they receive for what we vote for. These people that could be in charge also need to listen when we vote. Also when some thing does not go their way please do not reword it and try and shove it down our throats a second time.
Bill Murray is an excellent choice! He will hit the road running, swinging with both arms.
I'm not certain which definition of gadfly you intended to describe Mr. Murray, but I'm sure the number of domestic animals he has bitten or annoyed is minimal. If you intended the other definition:
"a person who persistently annoys or provokes others with criticism, schemes, ideas, demands, requests, etc," that is exactly the type we need on Council. The more the better.
From the Indy GIVE GUIDE for the COS Public Market Project: "Did You Know? Shifting just 10% of our community's consumption to food grown, raised and produced locally would create as many as 5000 jobs that could never be outsourced." The path to healthy eating AND a healthy local economy does not lie in the hands of Big Ag and their GMO products but in SMALL local farms.
Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto for 3 years... about 30ish years ago. Should we judge everyone by their previous jobs? If so then just about everyone is now a big corporate shill for the fast food industry.
Also here's a partially debunked list of the common list of "Monsanto Employees" people seem to cite:
Sorry I can't take anecdotal evidence about some friend you have. If they did have cancer and it did go into remission maybe they should have submitted their findings and tried to get them published. Also the plural of "Anecdote" is not "Data"
As for what's banned and whatever... Here I have a map:
Of the countries in Europe where some of them haven't been approved they have political reasons not to. Some mitigating factors: Guilds and their farmers, Mutagenics is huge over there, hell just simple bureaucracy (You've seen Greece's government right?).
Finally Soil health from a farmer's perspective:
Everything about soil health here in regards to Glyphosate:
Glyphosate is broken down in soil and water by microbial action and this has been known for long a time.
Here is a PDF of a study from 1977: “Metabolism and degradation of glyphosate in soil and water”.
The ability to metabolize glyphosate seem fairly common for a variety of environmental microorganisms:
“Glyphosate-degrading isolates from environmental samples: occurrence and pathways of degradation”
“Degradation of the Herbicide Glyphosate by Members of the Family Rhizobiaceae”
Glyphosate does not adversely affect the microbes in soil.
“Effect of glyphosate on soil microbial activity and biomass”
I rather like this study. It really shows that it is the microbial action in water that degrades glyphosate. Glyphosate in distilled water did not break down but the samples from the environment did.
“Degradation of glyphosate in the aquatic environment: An enzymatic kinetic model that takes into account microbial degradation of both free and colloidal (or sediment) particle adsorbed glyphosate”
Another study on how glyphosate is degraded in water.
“Analysis and degradation study of glyphosate and of aminomethylphosphonic acid in natural waters by means of polymeric and ion-exchange solid-phase extraction columns followed by ion chromatography–post-column derivatization with fluorescence detection”
The following document provides a nice summary on glyphosate in the environment.
“Environmental Fate of Glyphosate”
EXCELLENT post of facts re GMOs and soil and food politics.
Prop 105 lost by a huge margin. Voters do not want GMO products labeled. Did they vote No because they believed the pro-GMO advocates that (1) the cost of food will increase by hundreds of dollars a year or (2) that GMO foods are safe and eating organic is elitist? We need to educate the public about GMOs before ALL foods in Safeway etal are GMO, which they will be if the public remains ignorant and unconcerned. An educated public will want to buy organic food which, according to the economic law of supply and demand, will result in more local people becoming small farmers growing a greater variety of produce, including "heirlooms" with superior taste and nutrition. Organic is a win-win for our health and the local economy.
To educate yourself about how traditional foods and their preparation produce a healthy body, one that resists and overcomes disease, go to westonaprice.org.
Steven is definitely a Monsanto supporter, but putting all of that aside. There is one thing that is not being addressed here and that Steven is obviously unaware.
Regardless of all of the studies that Biotech companies promote, the one study that seems to be missing is the soil content. My son is a horticulture major at a large ag university and he has performed numerous lab testings and soil testings on gmo's and glyphosphate, which are partners in the Biotech world. What came out of his testing, was that the glyphosphate actually destroyed all of the beneficial micro-organisms that keep soil "active". This is concerning because we need active soil for nutrients to go into the fruits and vegetables. The results of their testing showed that the soil over time will become "dead" soil. Basically, conventionally grown crops will have almost no nutrient value. A person will be eating empty calories, much like junk food.
I could lie and say that I don't care what other people eat, but the truth is, I do. I have had several co-workers get cancer, who declined conventional medical treatment (chemo) and chose to go 100% organic, etc. They went into full remission without chemo or radition. That tells me that this could potentially be the food that this person was eating. Could it be other things? Possibly.... The problem is that you have studies that are funded by Biotech, Pharma and other big corporate interests that are not the least bit interested in a non-biased study. Of course, they only want studies that support their products, etc. Its ALWAYS about the money! And if you think that the FDA is going to watch our for your best interests, think again, the top FDA officials are former Monsanto executives. Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court Justice worked for Monsanto for years. I have to give it to those Monsanto guys, they knew early on how to position themselves in our government to get what they want so they wouldn't deal with resistance. And if they did, they would be in more of a position to rule in favor of Monsanto.
BTW Steven, you are incorrect about the GMO's being allowed in Europe. I have been there and I have been to Asia. There are no GMO's that are promoted at ALL. In fact, they all look down on America because we get them whether we want them or not. The Cheerios that we eat, are not the Cheerios that get shipped to Europe. Its the NON GMO variety, regardless of the propoganda that you and Biotech are promoting.
Show me anywhere in the foreign policy for food product of those countries where GMO's are allowed.
In the end, it all boils down to the fact that I should be able to make a choice whether to consume GMO's or not. What is wrong with being informed and making a choice, absolutely nothing, unless you are selling a product that is making you billions, then, you are not allowed a choice at all.
What most people don't remember, is that back in the late 70's GMO food was released to the public with public knowledge. What you don't hear today what happened back then, is that the GMO was put into Doritos, I think, and several people died and they pulled it off of the shelves. Interestingly, when they re-introduced GMO food to the public, they didn't tell anyone.
It's clear to me that, in this voter guide, you're not interested in presenting both sides fairly and justly. Through this, you've demonstrated that you're grossly one-sided and partisan. We get enough partisan politics on a regular basis; we don't need more of it from you. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised at your one-sided-ness here, given that you're just another media outlet dedicated to a one-size-fits-all mentality, and like most other media outlets, you don't really care about informing us and helping us to think independently. You clearly have an agenda--again, like most media--and, for me, you've proven that you're untrustworthy. I'm a thinking, independent American--as we all should be--and I don't trust you to give me the kind of unbiased report I want.
Re dirty tricks article: "In Colorado for example, the “no” campaign has Don Ament as its spokesman in a TV ad opposing GMO labeling. Ament is identified as a “former agriculture commissioner for the Colorado Department of Agriculture,” which is true. But his LinkedIn profile listed his role as a lobbyist for J. Andrew Green and Associates for the past 24 years. Apparently, once word of this got out, Ament scrubbed that job from his profile; an experienced lobbyist, after all, is out of step with the “farmer” image the ads try to portray."
As for the lie that GMO labeling will increase food costs hundreds of dollars, Consumers Union reports the likely cost will be $2.30 annually.
The Food Industry says GMO products are economically and socially and environmentally good. And they're safe to eat. So why don't they spend their millions on a campaign promoting the health benefits of eating GMOs? Media advertising can be built around the catchy slogan, "Have you had your GMOs today?"
Lot's of dirty tricks being carried out by Coca-Cola, Pepsi, DuPont, Monsanto, etc.
Story is here:
Given you are not a scientist, Mr. Shaver, how would you know that not one of the "1700+ studies" makes no such connection? Even if you read every one of those studies, you do not have the background to understand a single one. Most likely you have read an opinion piece that purports to sum up all of those studies. Which means that the industry does not need to buy off every single scientist doing study in the field. They only need to buy off a handful of journalists.
Speaking of "bullshit," you repeat a specious argument that I have already debunked as thoroughly illogical and unscientific. What Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and BP can or cannot do, have or have not done, has absolutely no bearing on what Monsanto or Dow Chemical can or cannot do, have or have not done. The fact that you repeat this nonsense, knowing it has already been exposed as false equivalence, demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of your position.
Given the 1700+ studies done. Surely there would be one connecting the two?
And it's bullshit to say that they're all bought and paid for. Also a terrible gambit.
If Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, and BP can't pay off a majority of Climate Scientists. What makes you think that "Big Ag" can "pay off" all the studies done in the Biotech industry?
How Colorado ranks in education:
Seriously, this is bad. Really bad! Nobody wants to pay more taxes, but at least most liberals would vote for it to fund education. Unfortunately, almost every conservative would vote against it. With ammendment 68, no one's paying paying higher taxes and schools are getting a desperately needed boost in funding. This ammendment helps tax payers and schools, and only hurts Blackhawk's business. And that's exactly why they're the one's buying up ad time to tell you to vote no.
A quote from a Philippine scientist in the Nation article: “For every application of genetic engineering in agriculture in developing countries, there are a number of less hazardous and more sustainable approaches and practices with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of safety record behind them. None of the GE applications in agriculture today are valuable enough to farmers in developing countries to make it reasonable to expose the environment, farmers and the consumers to even the slightest risk.”
Scientists don't know what the long-term effects of eating GMO products will be. Why risk eating something without knowing what you're eating and what it might do to you? Put a label on it! VOTE YES on 105.
Allow me to translate jbmonco:
What was said: "I hate it when they try to get us to vote for something by tying it to education funding."
What was meant: I'll vote, but why support education funding?
What was said: "Let's fund education the right way and not depend on things like this."
What was meant: Let's stand around and watch as everyone votes against raising taxes for anything, including funding education.
What was said: "I'm wholly uninterested one way or the other in gambling but because they tied it to education I'm voting NO."
What was meant: I don't care if they build a casino, but ALL of the money better go to the owners! How dare they even THINK about giving any of the profits to benefit the education of our children, the future of our world?! No. We'll simply put raising taxes to fund education to a vote, and watch as conservatives shiver at the idea of raising taxes and overwhelmingly vote it down.
So you want to see studies that cite a connection between GMOs and auto-immune diseases? So do I. Surely the GMO promoters would not sell products to the public that would make them sick. Would they?
Also please cite studies about new "autoimmune" diseases...
the GENERA database are all independent studies not done by "big ag" ...
The only country to ban GMOs outright is Peru.
There are some who have banned only certain crops, there are some that have restricted the growth of certain crops but also regularly import transgenics. There are many where it's that they just haven't been tested by their government yet.
For instance Italy is on that "list" and they regularly import crops.
China's "banned" them in the sense that they want their own transgenic crops and don't want to use the RR transgene.
In fact, they are one of the leaders of biotechnology in the world. They produce an extraordinary amount mutagenic crops too.
26 countries ban GMOs - why won't the U.S.?
This is the title of article in The Nation, 10.29.13. There is almost no independent science and of course no long-term studies on what effects GMO foods have on humans. Big Ags scientists don't know - or they're not telling - what new diseases are the result of eating GMO foods. Never seen before autoimmune diseases that are showing up now may be linked to GMOs. Independent research needs to be done. In the meantime, label GMO raw and processed foods. Give consumers the facts needed to choose. VOTE YES on 105.
Re: Amendment 68 I hate it when they try to get us to vote for something by tying it to education funding. Let's fund education the right way and not depend on things like this. I'm wholly uninterested one way or the other in gambling but because they tied it to education I'm voting NO.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation