No GM Alfalfa!

From the Organic Consumers Association:

Barack Obama, despite promising us "change we can believe in," is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, packing the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto men and biotech cheerleaders such as former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, named "Biotech Governor of the Year" in 2001, now serving as USDA Secretary. Vilsack, notorious for flying around in a Monsanto company jet during one of his previous election campaigns, is now busy trying to get the court-ordered ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa lifted by issuing a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that denies or downplays the obvious environmental (genetic pollution and creation of herbicide-resistant superweeds) and human health hazards of GM alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading Monsanto's patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. Widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.

Take action!

http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/alert/?alertid=14469696

Why's everyone wearing glasses?

I have thought for a long time that as our worlds become smaller and smaller, our eyesight is getting worse and worse. Now there's a little something to it. Solution: have your kids play outside for 2+ hrs/day! So we can avoid both Nature Deficit Disorder and near-sightedness.

Read the article here.

Pistons Plays of the Decade

When your team is on a 13 game losing streak, you need to remember the good times. Go Pistons!!!

Relationships and Rightness

I read this morning and thought it aptly described some of my own thinking and feeling:

The question is how to relate to these individuals when a controversial topic—abortion, say, or Afghanistan—is broached. We have a stock of options for response: retreat, limited resistance (arguing only until someone gets upset), a strategic diversion (speaking of Afghan affairs, did I tell you I’ve learned to crochet?), or full-scale engagement.

Hmm … Interestingly, these are all military metaphors. There’s something about political dialogue more than any other topic that flips us into combat mode. There’s ground we feel compelled to protect, or to gain. For the duration of the argument, the other person stops being my sister or my uncle or my friend: They are my opponent, and I can either convince them of my rightness, or lose.

But lose what? I’ve been mulling that over. Why do I feel so threatened when people I care about take a different political path—and are vocal about it? It’s not the same as reading a columnist I disagree with, or exchanging political punch lines with Facebook acquaintances, or getting into a discussion over healthcare with a colleague at work. Such cases may generate hot air, but they don’t leave me feeling as heated up and vulnerable inside. There’s no personal relationship. When we care about someone, we let them have a stake in our well-being. And part of our well-being, we believe, is staked on being right. The relationships and the rightness get all tangled up.

Read the full article.