Why I Cannot Vote for Dean, Kucinich, or Nader (Robert Cohen)

[TeeYiYi]

Why I Cannot Vote for Dean, Kucinich, or Nader
by Robert Cohen — Mon Dec 22, 2003

Howard Dean is a good man, filled with fire and brimstone.
I supported his candidacy when I was in high school in
1968. Only then, his name was McGovern. His name was
McCarthy. His name was Shirley Chisholm. I was not very
practical then. I was a politically naive, idealistic teen
who wanted to help change the world.

Ralph Nader talks a good talk, showing up once every four years.
He hangs around long enough to make some incredibly clever
statements, raising substantial funds, then buries his head
beneath the Cheops, under deep sands deposited by the Nihilism
river until the following presidential cycle.

Dennis Kucinich has a vision that would make him the perfect
president of Middle Earth, in the sequel to Return of the King.
With Gandalf as his chief of staff, perhaps he'd appoint Hobbits
to run things at the Pentagon. The other magnificent seven
Democrats are not even worth mentioning. I'd sooner be elected
as head of Land O'Lakes Butter than the odds that any of those
pretenders be elected president of these United States.

Not any of the above has even one nanogram's chance in a kilo
of defeating the George Bush war machine. What have we become,
sacrificing good wisdom and logic, to imagine that nickels
and dimes can defeat the Republican Party's $100 million war
chest?

There is but one lone Democrat with any possibility of
defeating the Bushmeister, and she has not entered the fray.
Pity. George Bush is bad for your health.

The Republican Party has more than just sold out to
pharmaceutical companies. They have merged with
Monsatan so that the needs of the White House and the
policies of biotechnology and genetically engineered food
companies have become identical. Their visions are one and
the same. Public health be damned. The health of the bottom
line of drug companies is a top priority in our new America.

Monsanto's ex-attorney (Clarence Thomas) sat on the Supreme
Court and cast the deciding vote three years ago. Payback
is, as some would say, a fitch. Slippery as a polecat?
Evidence of the Monsanto connection to the Bush White House:

http://www.notmilk.com/pelican.html

Every nation on planet earth with one exception, gives
its consumers the right to know if packages of processed
foods contain genetically engineered organisms. How can
it be that in the land of the so-called free, America
has become that one exception? Each day, more and more
evidence is found attesting to the adverse threats from
consuming genetically engineered foods. Yet, Monsanto is
protected.

On Friday, December 19, 2003, Monsanto began the largest
cover-up in their history. After a serious manufacturing
error of their bovine growth hormone, Monsanto will be
calling in every political favor that they can to insure
that the truth not be told. Am I at risk for attempting to
do so? I do not give a damn. Your health is at stake,
and your interests have been sold out. If you are foolish
enough to continue to eat dairy products, let this event
be motivation for you to immediately desist. Do not eat
any dairy product until you are assured that this possible
genetically engineered freak of nature has not entered
your food supply.

Get rid of that administration which continues to
bend over backwards to protect the world's most dangerous
and powerful criminals. Their actions have made your food
supply a potential weapon of mass destruction.

What else can you do? There's a primary coming to a state
near you. Waste your vote on Dennis the Menace, Howard
the Duck, or Ralph Kramden, and you continue your
comic-book fantasy existence of delusion and illusion.
Write in H. Clinton. Write letters to the editor. Spread
the message. Urge Hilary to run. Your vote is too important
to waste. Only one individual can beat George Bush. She has
the stature and brains to lead. She's been in the White House
before, and things were never better for America. During
those Clinton years, other nations loved America. American
people still had inalienable rights. The economy was strong.
Our children had a future free of fear.

Today, Big Brother watches over America, and I am not
comforted by what we have become. Only one person has
a chance of defeating the Monsanto presidency, which
grows stronger with power and connections and influence.
Her name is Hilary Clinton. If she does not run, I will
write in her name, hoping that we make it until 2008.

Send your message to Hilary:

http://clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com

_____________

Posted in its entierty with permission.

TYY

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Psh!

Stuff and nonsense if you ask me.

[Shanty Oilish]

44. You read my mind.

Psh!

Stuff, nonsense and prime corn. "Payback's a fitch." Gotta try that line on the old geezer here... :evilgrin:

[ajacobson]

2. Annoying rant

from someone I've never heard of.

Thanks for sharing?

[Zynx]

3. Hillary can stick it. I don't like or trust either of the Clintons.

[Abe Linkman]

5. Amen.

Their contributions are more accurately called "contributions".

[eyesroll]

4. Hillary Clinton evokes such a visceral reaction from so many people

You think the attacks on Dean/Clark/Kerry/etc. have been bad? Just let the right wing -- and some of the not-so-right at HRC for a minute or two.

Wrong time. Sorry.

[worldgonekrazy]

25. Nail on the head

'08 maybe. '12 perhaps. But not '04.

[FDRrocks]

6. The Dean situation is kinda different than McGovern...

He was going against a popular incumbant (while Bush polarizes society), and also against a former California Gubernatorial candidate, who, if I recall carried that state.

I love his dismissal of Kucinich with no substance at all.

I didn't think it was a very good article at all. Hah.

[morgan2]

7. stupid rant

Whining about monsato.. then saying a Clinton would punish them. Yes Bill did a lot to go after corporate crime, please.

[no name no slogan]

22. because Clinton favored ADM instead of Monsanto

Clinton got major cash from ADM (the "Supermarket to the World"), which is one of the largest agribusiness companies on earth, as well as a major polluter and a big cause of what is quaintly known as "the farming crisis".

The only difference between ADM and Monsanto is that ADM contributes more to Dems, and Monsanto contributes more to Repubs. Both are still part of the same agribusiness oligopoly that continues to screw family farmers.

[mike_c]

8. it might be a rant, but I'd like to know more about...

...this assertion:

On Friday, December 19, 2003, Monsanto began the largest
cover-up in their history. After a serious manufacturing
error of their bovine growth hormone, Monsanto will be
calling in every political favor that they can to insure
that the truth not be told.


There's nothing about it on the link provided, although lots of other connections between administration officials and Monsanto are alleged. Any idea what this is about?

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Lots of articles about them

at common dreams and on greg palast's site, if you feel like sifting through them:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site:www%2Ecommondreams%2Eorg+monsanto

http://gregpalast.com/searchresults.cfm?searchtype=columns&keyword=monsanto

[mike_c]

10. yes, and there are even some specific references that contain...

..."Monsanto December 19" but nothing that looks remotely like any greater than usual industrial conspiracy. Anyway, it's a bit OT-- I was just intrigued and wondered if anyone else had any more specific information than the allusion in the original post.

[eric_schafer]

30. maybe he had an inside tip

on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=283222&mesg_id=283222

[TeeYiYi]

32. More than an inside tip . . .

EMERGENCY***First Ever USA Mad Cow
by Robert Cohen — Tuesday Dec 23, 2003

It was inevitable. The State of Washington is home
to America's first Mad Cow, and Canadians are
snickering.

Last summer, the United States destroyed Canada's
meat industry by closing its borders to meat and
dairy products from the north. Now it is America's
meat and dairy industries that will suffer the
consequences of marketing diseased flesh and body fluids.

Canadians shunned beef after their first case of
Mad Cow Disease. Will Americans do the same?

So far, one Holstein cow from a dairy farm in Mapleton,
Washington has tested positive. Mapleton is in the center
of the state, just 40 miles southeast of Yakima. The entire
farm has been quarantined, but the damage has been done.

Americans have been drinking milk from that cow for many years.
This is as bad as it gets folks, for the disease is here. The
plague is coming. Here is why milk and dairy products may be
the key to passing on Mad Cow Disease to humans:

http://www.notmilk.com/m.html

The active substance that causes Mad Cow Disease to spread
to humans and causes a brain-wasting encephalopathy called
Cruetzfeld Jacob Disease (CJD) is the Prion. Prions
are protein fibrils, crystalline in structure. They
are not destroyed by Pasteurization.

Since one single cows filters 10,000 quarts of blood through
her udder each day, chances are that an infected cow has
spread her disease to humans in her milk. Ten pounds of
milk are required to make one pound of hard cheese. Twelve
pounds of milk make one pound of ice cream. Twenty-one
pounds of milk make one pound of butter.

Will these potential poisons be served at your
Christmas or New Year's buffet?

Merry Christmas, dairymen.
Happy New Year, meat producers.
Americans have been waiting for a sign to
reject your poisons.
It's here.

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com


----------------------------------------------------
THE NOTMILK NEWSLETTER:
SUBSCRIBE: send an empty Email to-
[e-mail]

-------------

Posted in its entirety with permission.

TYY

[AntiCoup2K4]

43. Has anyone checked Mr Cohen's work for accuracy.....

For instance, there is no "Mapleton Washington". The mad cow came from Mabton Washington". If he can't get a simple fact like that correct, I'm not sure I would trust his political advice. Besides anybody who "hopes we can make it till 2008" just so they can vote for Hillary has no credibility to begin with.

[Tinoire]

38. Yes. 2 Journalists who were going to expose BGH were fired

by Fox because their expose was too explosive and would have scared the public to death killing Monsanto's profits before they had overtaken the milk industry. Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, defended Fox (Monsanto in effect). The first article explains this pretty well. Read the whole article if you have time. The second article is from the web-site of the 2 reporters involved. Lots of stuff about the milk case there. This thing was huge in biotech and pure food circles when it happened but the general public heard nothing about it. I stopped buying anything but organic milk from that point on. BGH... you should see the immense suffering this brings to cows- that coupled with what many scientists think it does to humans is inexcusable and we don't even have the right to properly labeled foods! Anyway these 2 reporters basically exposed the fact that despite assurances to grocers that the hormones weren't being used, they were and from there were sold to, foisted on an unsuspecting public. When it came to GMs we were basically hood-winked, lied to and presented with a fait accompli because the administration was determined not to lose such a lucrative cow (GM foods) that were meant to be a real economic weapon against other countries- especially the poorer ones.

Monsanto was one of the first companies to get its people into Iraq. They've basically already carved up the place into various agricultural parcels. Pretty soon the Iraqis won't be able to sustain themselves food-wise and will totally be enslaved to our corporations. It's happening all over the world as indigenous plant life is destroyed and replaced with Monsanto's patented versions that require Monsanto's special pesticides which totally destroy the environment. One of Wellstone's major fights was against Monsanto and they were highly suspected in an assassination attempt against him in Colombia. Kucinich works on this issue also (I think he worked with Wellstone on it) which is another reason I really want to see Kucinich win.

=====

Trial pits two reporters against Fox

The two sued WTVT-Ch. 13 over their firings and the handling of a news report. The civil trial starts today.
By LARRY DOUGHERTY

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 17, 2000

<snip>

Wilson and Akre say they were dismissed for refusing to lie in a story about a controversial hormone being used by Florida milk producers. They say a multinational corporation put pressure on their station to blunt their stories.

<snip>

Some famous names will help explain these conflicting stories to jurors. Wilson and Akre plan to call Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate turned Green Party presidential candidate, to testify. They're also hoping to introduce testimony they took from Walter Cronkite about media ethics in the age of corporate takeovers.

On the defense side, the lead lawyer representing Fox TV is from the Washington firm of Williams & Connolly, which defended President Clinton during his impeachment.

Wilson is an Emmy-winning veteran of tabloid television shows like Inside Edition. He once scuffled with a U.S. senator while reporting on political junkets. He is acting as his own lawyer in the case. His wife, Jane Akre, formerly worked at WTSP-Ch. 10. More recently, she has worked as a weekend anchor on Bay News 9. They see their story as a corporate rejection of the public's right to know.

Jurors are "going to get a look inside a newsroom, and what happened when a big major multinational corporation put pressure on this news organization and predicted dire consequences," Wilson said in a recent interview. Fox 13 "put its own selfish corporate interest ahead of the public's interest," he said.

<snip>

http://www.sptimes.com/News/071700/SouthPinellas/Trial_pits_two_report.shtml


----

CLINTON LAWYER NOW REPRESENTING FOX IN CASE BROUGHT BY FIRED JOURNALISTS

By STEVE WILSON

TAMPA (APRIL 17, 1999) – David Kendall, President Clinton's personal lawyer who has defended him throughout the Whitewater investigation and the subsequent impeachment proceedings, is now working to defend Fox Television against charges it fired two investigative reporters for refusing to lie on television about a controversial hormone injected into many of America's dairy cows.

<snip>

The Kendall letter strongly suggests Monsanto has continued to pressure Fox, even beyond the pre-broadcast pressure which preceded the broadcaster's decision to pull the investigative reports and later fire the reporters who produced them. The journalists charge they were ultimately fired for refusing orders to slant the reports in Monsanto's favor to avoid the "dire consequences" Walsh originally threatened in letters he sent to Fox News chief Roger Ailes just as the BGH series was scheduled to air in February 1997.

Even though Fox refused to broadcast the Wilson/Akre investigative reports, an early version of the stories was posted on the World Wide Web after being entered into evidence in the journalists' suit. Apparently not content with just keeping them off the air, Monsanto has apparently pressured Fox to go after its former reporters to get them off the Internet, too.

<snip>

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/jasw041799.htm

[Tinoire]

41. Here's a little more to explain what was at stake for Monsanto & the Admin

#639 - Genetically Altering The World's Food, February 25, 1999

On January 14, after an 8-year scientific review, Canada rejected Monsanto corporation's request for approval of its genetically altered milk hormone, rBGH, a drug that makes dairy cows produce 10% more milk than normal.<1> This was a serious setback for Monsanto because rBGH was the company's first genetically-engineered product and Monsanto had hoped international acceptance of rBGH would smoothe the way for its other genetically-engineered farm crops like cotton, tomatoes, potatoes, rice, corn, and soybeans.
The approval process for rBGH in Canada became an embarrasing political fiasco when Canadian health officials claimed Monsanto had tried to bribe them, which the company denied, and government scientists testified that they were being pressured by higher-ups to approve rBGH against their better scientific judgment. (See REHW #621.)

Ultimately, Canada gave a thumbs down to rBGH because, as the product label acknowledges, it can cause udder infections, painful, debilitating foot disorders, and reduced life span in treated cows.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of rBGH in U.S. dairy cows in November, 1993, without taking a position on the issue of cruelty to animals. Monsanto will not reveal how widely the drug has been adopted by U.S. dairy farmers.


Monsanto says it will appeal the rBGH decision within the Canadian government. But more importantly, Monsanto will ask the World Health Organization's Codex Alimentarius to declare rBGH safe when Codex meets in Rome this coming summer. If Codex issues the statement that Monsanto wants, under the World Trade Organization's rules, Canada will lose its right to ban the use of rBGH within its borders, and Monsanto will be one step closer to its goal.<1> At bottom, this is what "free trade" is about -- freeing transnational corporations from control by nation states. Codex Alimentarius is widely perceived to be dominated not by public-spirited health specialists but by scientists aligned with the interests of transnational corporations.

Despite the recent setback for rBGH in Canada, Monsanto is pressing ahead with its plan to dominate world agriculture by selling genetically modified seeds -- a plan it is pursuing with powerful aid from the highest levels of the U.S. government.

<snip / great article>

http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/bulletin.cfm?Issue_ID=1282

[letthewindblow]

11. What a

BS!

[eileen_d]

12. What an asshole.

Personally I like Hillary but people need to get over the fact that she is NOT RUNNING IN 2004, and she is NOT THE SAVIOR of the Democratic Party, fercryinoutloud. I don't know where the hell this guy got the idea that she is, but I'm thinking he might have been looking in one of his own bodily crevices.

Also, the characterizations of Dean, Nader and Kucinich in this article are completely rude and unnecessary. To say the least.

What an asshole.

[kaybea]

21. Agree...

I don't think this guy is proffering Hillary's name because he considers her any kind of Democratic savior. I think he just wants an extention of Clinton hate. Perhaps the late 1990s weren't enough to get his rocks off. Maybe crevices aren't his body part of choice. The Clenis is a powerful thing.

[Redneck Socialist]

13. Hoo, Ha, Whooo!

Thanks for the laugh. Sorry I just don't understand the whole Hilary thing. What's the appeal?

[citizen snips]

14. So who do you support?

[TeeYiYi]

18. Kucinich. .....n/t

TYY

[Rowdyboy]

15. Pure flamebait

By the way, most Democrats know that its spelled Hillary, not Hilary (as they do at FreeRepublic)

Plus, you've violated all sorts of rules concerning allowable length...

Buh, buy...

[TeeYiYi]

19. See ya . . .

TYY :hi:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. Hillary Clinton? Get real!

ha ha. If I wanted a President who would support an invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act I would have voted for Bush.

[Ficus]

17. Yeah right

I have already vowed to work my ass off against Hillary in 2008 should she decide to run. She is no Bill. She will go down in flames worse than Dean or Kucinich ever could of dreamed of. F*ck her. I'll be back with Dennis in 08 unless Russel Feingold runs.

on edit: Or '12, depending on the outcome of this election.

[HFishbine]

20. Boy, talk about the lunatic fringe

Mr. Chohen was more in touch with reality when he supported McGovern and Chisolm.

[Mairead]

23. It looks like lo-quality DLC rubbish to me. Plenty insults, no content.

[worldgonekrazy]

24. Yes, lets just give up

And this guy accuses NADER of "nihilism"? Fuck you buddy.

On edit: I mean "fuck you buddy" in reference to the author of this rant, not the poster.

[Tinoire]

26. As if the Clinton's didn't enable Monsanto

Bill Clinton at Seattle anyone?

US GOVT-MONSANTO COLLUSION
(excerpts from story Dec. 27, 1998 by Bill Lambrecht Post-Dispatch
Washington Bureau WASHINGTON)


A $7.5 billion company with 25,000 employees needs to be well-connected, and Monsanto works to keep it that way. The company plies political parties equally and recruits people with deep ties in Washington.

By virtue of a friendly relationship between Monsanto chief operating officer Robert B. Shapiro and Clinton, Monsanto is identified in Washington as "a Democratic company." Monsanto and its employees spread the political contributions. In the last two years, donations to Democrats totaled about $100,000; Republicans received $140,000. The company invests much more in bringing aboard influential people. Among them:

• Monsanto board member Mickey Kantor is a former U.S. trade representative and chairman of Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.
  
• Marcia Hale, Monsanto's international regulatory director, was a top Clinton assistant.
  
• Linda Fisher, Monsanto's vice president for federal government affairs, mapped pesticide policy in the Bush administration EPA.
  
• Michael R. Taylor, former deputy FDA commissioner, was hired recently to look at long-range matters.
  
• Jack Watson, who was chief of staff in Jimmy Carter's presidency, is a Monsanto staff lawyer in Washington.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture operates in the dual role as regulator and ardent booster of biotechnology. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said that pressing foreign leaders on these matters "is at the top of my agenda." Clinton, Gore, and Secretary of State Albright have applied significant pressure on foreign leaders to accept GMO food without labeling.

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10029.htm



Published on Monday, July 24, 2000 in the San Francisco Chronicle
Going Backwards:
Clinton Administration Appoints A Former Monsanto Corp. Lobbyist To Represent US Consumers On Genetically Engineered Food Issues
by Tom Abate

Leading consumer and environmental groups are fuming because the Clinton administration has appointed a former Monsanto Corp. lobbyist to represent U.S. consumers on a transatlantic committee set up to avoid a trade war over genetically engineered foods.
U.S. farmers have planted millions of acres of corn and other crops that have been genetically engineered to resist pests, and the growers want to export such produce freely. But in Europe, where genetically altered crops have been dubbed Frankenfoods, governments have imposed labeling rules and safety tests that have restricted U.S. imports.

Friction between the United States and Europe over the foods issue torpedoed last year's World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Seattle and now threaten to erupt into a transatlantic trade war.

<snip>

In a letter appointing the U.S. members of this advisory forum, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked them to suggest a compromise on labeling, safety testing and other regulatory issues, and to present it to the next U.S.- European economic summit in December.

<snip>

But this gesture backfired when the State Department ignored the nomination of consumer representative Michael Hansen -- a scientist with Consumers Union -- and instead gave the post to Carol Tucker Foreman, a Capitol insider who recently took over food issues for the Consumer Federation of America after 18 years as a lobbyist.

What angered critics most is that during her lobbying days, Foreman helped Monsanto -- the firm most closely identified with genetically engineered foods -- win approval for bovine growth hormone, a chemical that stimulates milk production.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072600-03.htm

More here

[TeeYiYi]

27. Thanks Tinoire. I was hoping you'd . . .

. . . dig into and post from your Monsanto archive.

TYY :hi:

[Tinoire]

29. Oh lol! I haven't even dug into that yet?

Think I should? When I get home tonight, I'll go through it and see what else we have in there... There were quite a few Monsanto men around Clinton. Could be a very useful exercise! Thanks

:hi:

On edit- just PM me if you ever need anything. I'm going to have plenty of time on my hands these next 10 days :)

[TeeYiYi]

31. "Think I should?" . . . YES! ...*lol* ......n/t

TYY :hi:

[Tinoire]

35. Clinton leant on Blair to allow modified foods

This is really sad... Today, Christmas Eve, I just want to weep over what we've done for the good of corporations. Peace :)


Clinton leant on Blair to allow modified foods
The Independent - London Sun, Sept 6, 1998
© Copyright 1998 Newspaper Publishing PLC

<snip about Clinton personally intervening with Blair>

Clinton's intervention has outraged MPs and environmentalists. They accuse the US President of intruding in a sensitive domestic matter.

<snip>

"It is quite wrong for the British Prime Minister to be conspiring behind the back of the British public about American business interests," said Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman.

The Clinton administration has close links with Monsanto, the powerful biotechnology conglomerate which develops the seeds for GM crops.

Monsanto, which made a profit of almost $300m (pounds 177m) in 1997, is one of five companies spearheading Clinton's welfare to work programme, and the President singled out the biotech company for praise during his State of the Nation address last year.

During the 1996 election, Monsanto was among those donating thousands of dollars in "soft money" (legal funds which are not included in the ban on corporate donations) to the Clinton camp.

<snip>

http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/rw80912.htm#07

[Tinoire]

36. The Monsanto Machine

The Monsanto Machine
In These Times (Chicago, Illinois) March 7, 1999

The Monsanto Machine
by Jeffrey St. Clair

Top Clinton aides--including U.S. Trade Rep. Charlene Barshevsky, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman and Secretary of Commerce William Daley--also have lobbied their European counterparts on Monsanto's behalf. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore got in on the act, engaging in some last minute arm-twisting of Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahren and French President Lionel Jospin. Both the French and the Irish caved in to the pressure.

<snip>

How can Monsanto's extraordinary leverage be explained? Political influence often comes down to the judicious application of campaign cash. Monsanto--a $7.5 billion company--has poured nearly $200,000 a year into the coffers of candidates for federal office and the two major parties. This is a relatively paltry amount compared to the millions pumped into the system by big oil or even by its chemical rivals, DuPont, ICI and Dow. Instead, Monsanto has realized the efficacy of a well-financed lobbying strategy.

<snip>

In 1997, the chemical giant invested $4 million for lobbying Congress and the White House on issues ranging from the federal tax code and agricultural subsidies to hazardous waste laws and food safety regulations. To protect its tax loopholes, Monsanto retains the services of David Bockorny, a former legislative affairs specialist in the Reagan White House, and Catherine Porter, former chief trade and tax counsel to Sen. John Chaffee, the powerful Rhode Island Republican.

<snip>

On the troublesome matter of patents--a huge issue in the genetic
engineering field--Monsanto has recruited the help of Dennis DeConcini, the former Arizona Democratic senator. DeConcini's firm, Parry & Romani, has carved out a specialty in the field of agricultural and pharmaceutical trademarks, and the libelous practice of staking property rights to native seed stocks. Similar work is done for Monsanto by Timmons and Company, a Democratic lobby shop that includes Ellen Boyle, former press secretary to Tip O'Neill; William Cable former deputy assistant for legislative affairs to Jimmy Carter; and John S. Orlando, who served as chief of staff to John Dingell, the senior Democrat in the House.

<snip>

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Monsanto/machine.cfm

When you've got friends like this, you don't have to concern yourself with your enemies." (( Michael Colby, Vermont-based Food & Water, which has battled Monsanto on rBGH and pesticides for a decade.))

[Tinoire]

37. Ex-Monsanto pro-biotech lobbyist appointed to US Gov's Biotech Consult.

Ex-Monsanto pro-biotech lobbyist appointed to US Gov's Biotech Consultative Forum

DATE: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 17:30:51

Ignoring the unanimous recommendation of consumer and agriculture groups concerned about biotechnology, the White House, with input from the US State Department, went ahead and appointed its own "consumer advocate" to the global Biotech Consultative Forum on May 31. While a number of groups had forwarded the name of Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumer Union's Consumer Policy Institute -- Dr. Hansen has testified before Congress and many other bodies exposing false claims made by the Monsanto Corporation pertaining to the company's manufacture of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and other products; the company refuses to debate him on the issues -- the White House appointed Carol Tucker Foreman of the very dubious "Consumer Federation of America" instead.

Carol Foreman represents consumer interests about as much as Indonesia represents the interests of E. Timor. Her last private sector project involved working as a lobbyist for Monsanto. She is currently is working on a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, a heavy investor in biotechnology research.

Rockefeller Foundation is represented by other Clinton/Gore appointees as well. With the exception of Becky Goldburg of the Environmental Defense Fund, there are no known critics of biotechnology appointed to the Board by the "environmental-friendly" Clinton/Gore administration. Corporate interests (including non-profit organizational mouthpieces for the biotech industry) are heavily weighted.

Powerful Democratic lobbyist Carol Tucker Foreman last year left her lucrative lobbying firm and now heads up the food issues section, which includes Genetically Modified Organisms, for the Consumer Federation of America, a Greenwashing group which happily accepts food industry funding. She has since become a major player in international policy on genetically engineered food, with Rockefeller funding from Gordon Conway, apologist and promoter of Genetically Engineered crops.

<snip>
http://www.tao.ca/~ban/600IPRmonsantolobbyist.htm
===

USA: Former Monsanto Lobbyist Appointed to Represent Consumers on GE Food Issues

By Tom Abate
San Francisco Chronicle
July 24, 2000


Leading consumer and environmental groups are fuming because the Clinton administration has appointed a former Monsanto Corp. lobbyist to represent U.S. consumers on a transatlantic committee set up to avoid a trade war over genetically engineered foods.

U.S. farmers have planted millions of acres of corn and other crops that have been genetically engineered to resist pests, and the growers want to export such produce freely. But in Europe, where genetically altered crops have been dubbed Frankenfoods, governments have imposed labeling rules and safety tests that have restricted U.S. imports.

Friction between the United States and Europe over the foods issue torpedoed last year's World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Seattle and now threaten to erupt into a transatlantic trade war.

<snip>

What angered critics most is that during her lobbying days, Foreman helped Monsanto -- the firm most closely identified with genetically engineered foods -- win approval for bovine growth hormone, a chemical that stimulates milk production.

<snip>

In her government role, Foreman earned praise and criticism from consumer colleagues. Foreman helped persuade Congress to eliminate a co-payment requirement that had kept millions of people from getting food stamps. But she also relaxed poultry inspection rules that favored big chicken farmers like Arkansas' Tyson Foods.

<snip>

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=711

[Tinoire]

39. Our Modern Dictatorship

Our Modern Dictatorship
Guest Column
Anton Van Der Ven

<snip>

One thing Bill Clinton will be remembered for in the future is that he presided over record numbers of corporate mergers -- to be exact, 70,000 of them. By comparison, the Reagan era saw 40,000 corporate consolidations. Markets central to our existence, such as food distribution, pharmaceuticals and energy, are oligopolies that can be characterized as highly centralized command economies only a shade more competitive than the economy of the former Soviet Union.

<snip>

But mega-corporations do not need to own a TV network to influence the media. Powerful rogue corporations are quick to use bullying tactics like threats of massive lawsuits when reporters expose unsavory corporate behavior. Furthermore, media corporations are always careful not to offend their important sponsors who are more often than not other large corporations. It is in exactly this way that several large chemical companies, most notable among them the Monsanto corporation, have been able to surreptitiously transform a majority of our food supply to one that is drawn from genetically modified crops. We the people of this country were never consulted about this fundamental change in our food. Even as consumers we are denied the right to not eat genetically-modified food since they are not labeled as such. The media has been all but silent on this issue. This is no surprise considering the clout that Monsanto has. Monsanto, for example, forced Fox TV to rewrite a documentary that mentioned potential health risks associated with its genetically modified bovine growth hormone used to boost milk production in cows. When the two reporters of the documentary failed to sufficiently white-wash the piece after 83 rewrites, they were fired. The reporters filed a whistle-blower law suit against Fox and won. A jury awarded them almost half a million dollars. Fox is appealing the ruling. It argues that “there is no law, rule or regulation against slanting the news.”

Despite the overwhelming dominance and power of corporations in our society, there are still a few laws that restrict their behavior. It is well-known that corporations expend much effort buying off politicians to dismantle laws and regulations. Lately though, they have also been using international “free trade” agreements as a conduit to slip in new rights for corporations, often at the expense of democracy in countries.

The next major free trade agreement on the table is the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), which was the subject of a meeting in Quebec City this past weekend. Trade representatives of all the countries of North and South America (except Cuba) met in Quebec to work on an agreement similar to NAFTA. Although agreements like NAFTA are widely acknowledged to impact all strata of society, only trade representatives and CEOs of large corporations participate in the drafting of these “free trade” agreements. In fact, most of the FTAA draft remains a secret; even Congress has not seen the full text. While the trade representatives in Quebec were accompanied by several hundred corporate representatives, the rest of society was kept out of the meeting in true dictatorial style. A large 10-foot wall was erected around Quebec City and held in place by close to 10,000 heavily armed police who used tear gas and plastic bullets to intimidate protesters. Ironically for corporations, it is the free trade agreements that have spurred an encouraging pro-democracy movement of resistance to corporate domination. This was dramatically evident during the Seattle protests of November 1999, the IMF-World Bank protests last spring and the massive protests last weekend in Quebec where 60,000 citizens, despite tear gas and a constant shower of rubber and plastic bullets, took a stand against the corporate takeover of our society.

<snip>

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N21/col21avdv.21c.html

[Tinoire]

40. Partial list of officials

Joining officials who changed job assignments from service in government to positions in the biotechnology industry was Marcia Hale. She had been assistant to the President of the United States for intergovernmental affairs. Her new appointment: Senior official for the Monsanto Corporation in coordinating public affairs and corporate strategy in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Also switching sides over the last couple of years were:

• L. Val Giddingso went from being a biotechnology "regulator" at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to being the Vice President for Food and Agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a pro biotech propaganda arm. Giddings, who had represented U.S. government (and, purportedly, the people's) interests at the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety Protocol, attended the second meeting on the protocol as the representative of the industry;
  
• David W. Beler, former head of Government Affairs for Genentech, Inc., and now chief domestic policy advisor to Al Gore; Linda J. Fisher, former Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, and now Vice President of Government and Public Affairs for Monsanto;
  
• Josh King, former director of production for White House events, and now director of global communications in the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto;
  
• Terry Medley, former administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the US Department of Agriculture, former chair and vice chair of the US Department of Agriculture Biotechnology Council, former member of the US Food and Drug Administration food advisory committee, and now Director of Regulatory and External Affairs of Dupont's Agricultural Enterprise;
  
• William D. Ruckelshaus, former chief administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, now (and for the last 12 years) a member of the board of directors of Monsanto;
  
• Lidia Watrud, former microbial biotechnology researcher at Monsanto, now with the US Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division; and,
  
• yton K. Yeutter, former Secretary of the US Department of Agriculture, former US trade representative (who led the US team in negotiating the US Canada Free Trade Agreement and helped launch the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations), now a member of the board of directors of Mycogen Corporation, whose majority owner is Dow AgroSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical.

One of the leading shills for Monsanto and a very visible proponent of genetic engineering is former US President Jimmy Carter. And, should any of the legal cases make their way to the Supreme Court they will be argued before Justice Clarence Thomas, among others.

(Clarence) Thomas -- one might remember from Anita Hill's testimony -- began his career as a lawyer for ... Monsanto. And one of the chief witnesses on behalf of Monsanto will be Dr. Louis Sullivan, former head of Health and Human Services and now a paid apologist for the company.

((can't remember where I copied this from. newsletter?))

[TeeYiYi]

42. Thanks Tinoire. Your zeal in exposing the Monsanto machine . . .

. . . is greatly appreciated. I'm kicking this thread in hopes that the good people of DU will take a moment to glean something from this depressing lineup of corporate greed and corruption. Bookmarks would definitely be in order for this Monsanto treasure trove of who's who in the Washington parade of political palm grease . . .

TYY:hi:

[Scott Lee]

28. As a former Hillary supporter, I must rant myself

Hillary Clinton has outted herself as one of the biggest war shills out there. Her vote for IWR sealed it for me - I no longer respect nor support her, and the thought of another warpig (or war-sow) in the Oval Office is too much to stomach. Our country and the world cannot and will not handle much more of this. Am I one issue voter? Of course not. But this issue is preeminent with me, because the Bush Doctrine of Forever War will be disastrous for my country, when the rest of world finally decides it's had enough and rises up against us in earnest.

And, for the pipedreamers amongst us who think the US military can protect this great nation against a big enough coalition of strong nations against us - think again.

Defeat the war pigs. Do not let them back up.

[IndianaGreen]

33. "the thought of another warpig (or war-sow) in the Oval Office..."

Hillary Clinton has outted herself as one of the biggest war shills out there. Her vote for IWR sealed it for me - I no longer respect nor support her, and the thought of another warpig (or war-sow) in the Oval Office is too much to stomach.

Hillary has the same negatives as John Kerry. She voted for PATRIOT and she voted for war. Unlike Kerry, she went to Israel last year and kissed the Likud's ass, while refusing to meet with any Palestinians. She got my pamper bear award in FA forum for that stunt. I will point out that none other than Joe Lieberman, took the trouble to meet with Palestinians when he was in Israel. Liberman got kudos from me for that gesture, Hillary got scorn.

If Hillary was running for President now, she would be in the same prowar group as Lieberman, Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt. Hillary will have to answer for her IWR vote!

[ozone_man]

34. Nice rant.

She blew it along with Kerry and the rest who voted for the IWR. It's not the only issue certainly, but it sure is a sticking point with me. They're part of the problem and they can't lead us to where we need to go to.