Cloning Food

I was not happy to find out that we may be consuming cloned products and the FDA is not going to make it official that manufactures must place labels specifing the product is cloned. I think I will now stick to all organic beef and stay away from corn product. I'll turn to wheat. I do not trust the government or anyone who approves of this. Very little research has been done on this and yet it is being approved. One kind of wonders what type of new diseases will be formed. Just think how rich the drug companies and the health insurances will become because of this. What a conspiracy theory this would make!

Below is an article I found which is worth reading.

___________________________________________

Cloning promises many benefits, not least through replicating embryonic stem cells, which may be used to repair and replace organs. Though this is a vexed issue politically, a bill currently under debate in the Senate would allow the use of "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (or cloning) in taking genetic information from human embryonic stem cells and implanting it in other cells for therapeutic purposes.
The same process, used for reproductive ends, results in cloned animals. Yet the outcomes aren't always as hoped. Consider Chance, a sweet, Ferdinand-like bull first reported on in This American Life, whose owner, distraught at the bull's death, had the animal cloned only to be gored by Second Chance. So it's fair to say that the cattle industry is on the horns of a dilemma, facing a reticent public, according to a 2006 poll by the industry-supported International Food Information Council (IFIC), which found that 59 percent of respondents wouldn't buy foods from cloned animals or their offspring even if the FDA said it was safe. Only 16 percent of U.S. adults hold a favorable impression of animal cloning. The industry has been careful to maintain a voluntary ban on selling cloned animal foods, though IFIC's website states that "cloning allows farmers and ranchers to reproduce the most productive, healthiest animals."
The voluntary moratorium on food from cloned animals still stands, but the day of its retirement may be fast approaching. Last December, FDA announced that its peer-reviewed risk assessment on the safety of meat and milk from cloned pigs, cattle and goats had determined that these foods were as safe as those from non-cloned animals and fit for human consumption. Due to lack of information, the FDA recommended against eating food products from sheep clones. Currently, the FDA is accepting public comments on their risk assessment, management plan and draft industry guidance and have extended the comment period by a month. Meanwhile, the European Union, recognizing that member countries may find themselves importing meat from cloned animals (or the descendents of those animals), have assigned the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the task of determining not only the safety of food from cloned animals but what effect they might have on the environment.
With the public evidently concerned about cloned food, vocal criticisms of the FDA's report followed quickly. In late March, the non-profit Center for Food Safety (CFS) challenged the FDA's position, noting that there will be no labeling for food derived from clones and that cloning can result in the deaths of cows, high percentages of failed pregnancies and on-going health problems for the clone. While CFS also warns about the loss of genetic differences that may make more animals vulnerable to disease, Greg Jaffe, director of Center for Science in the Public Interest's biotechnology project, notes that since one bull may father a thousand calves, "we are currently really reducing the biodiversity of livestock." Jaffe suggests that cloning may even increase the biodiversity of cattle if genes that fight against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow" disease) and other ailments can be spread to vulnerable animals.
In the pork industry, on the other hand, cloning may not even end up as much of an issue. "Cloning is extremely expensive compared to natural mating," says Mark Boggess, Ph.D., director of animal science at the National Pork Board, adding, "If you have a boar that you might want to clone, through our breeding programs that boar already has sons that are as good or better." Pigs have such a high reproductive rate over such a short interval, Boggess says the incentive is much less than in cattle.
Even with organic foods, there is a chance that cloning may be allowed, since other reproductive techniques such as in vitro fertilization are accepted by the USDA's National Organic Program. Cloning isn't explicitly forbidden under the USDA's organic standards and an advisory panel for the Department of Agriculture will consider the issue this spring.

Iowa Caucus

I can't believe Governor Huckabee actually won! What a turn of events. This election should be exciting, but I don't see him winning New Hampshire. I just don't want to see a religious movement moving into the Whitehouse! There is no room for State and Church. A disaster waiting to happen. This is what I want.

Stop the pork spending.

Do not raise taxes! Stop the spending and we will have money.

Fix social security! If I am contributing money for this, I had better see my money. Maybe a lawsuit would come in handy. Isn't that theft when you get right down to it.

Get out of the Middle East as soon as possible.

Start taking care of The American People!

Here is an article from CNN:

__________________________________________

With all Democratic precincts reporting, Obama had the support of 38 percent of voters, compared to 30 percent for John Edwards and 29 percent for Hillary Clinton. "The numbers tell us this was a debate between change and experience, and change won," said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider.
Iowa delivered fatal blows to the campaigns of Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware. Both have decided to abandon their White House runs.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who finished fourth, said his campaign plans to "take the fight to New Hampshire.
New Hampshire holds the nation's first primary Tuesday. Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in New Hampshire, according to the latest CNN/WMUR poll.
On the GOP side, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign was languishing six months ago, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney are now tied for first place in New Hampshire, according to the poll, which was released Wednesday.
McCain left Iowa before caucus night even began. He was already in New Hampshire by Thursday afternoon, trying to get a jump on his rivals. For the winners of both party's caucuses in Iowa, it's an age revolt for Democrats versus a religious revolt for Republicans, Schneider said.

Among Democrats, Obama took 57 percent of the under-30 vote, according to CNN's analysis of entrance polls. Speaking to supporters, Obama called the night a "defining moment in history."
"You came together as Democrats, Republicans and independents to stand up and say that we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come.
Huckabee's victory can be attributed to his overwhelming support among evangelical voters and women, the polls indicate.
With 92 percent of Republican precincts reporting, Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, had the support of 34 percent of voters, compared to 25 percent for Romney.

Fred Thompson had 13 percent, McCain had 13 percent and Ron Paul had 10 percent.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has turned the focus of his campaign to the February 5 "Super Tuesday" primaries, trailed with 4 percent.
"We've paid a lot of attention to states that some other candidates haven't paid a lot of attention to," Giuliani said, adding, "Time will tell what the best strategy is."
Huckabee was vastly outspent by Romney, who poured millions of dollars into a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation.
"People really are more important than the purse, and what a great lesson for America to learn," Huckabee said in thanking his supporters.
For most of 2007, Huckabee languished in the single digits in the polls and had very little success raising money. But his momentum picked up in the final six weeks of the year when social conservatives -- an important voting bloc in Iowa -- began to move his way.
"We won the silver ... You win the silver in one event. It doesn't mean you're not going to come back and win the gold in the final event, and that we are going to do," Romney said.
Clinton, speaking with 96 percent of the vote in, portrayed herself as the candidate who could bring about the change the voters want. "I am so ready for the rest of this campaign, and I am so ready to lead," she said.
Clinton had worked to convince Iowa caucus-goers she has the experience to enact change, while Edwards and Obama preached that she is too much of a Washington insider to bring change to the nation's capital.
Edwards, in a tight race for second, said Iowa's results show that "the status quo lost and change won."
"Now we move on ... to determine who is best suited to bring about the changes this country so desperately needs," he said.
McCain, who had largely abandoned Iowa to focus on the New Hampshire primary, said, "The lessons of tonight's election in Iowa are that one, you can't buy an election in Iowa; and two, that negative campaigns don't work."
With such a close race on both sides, voter turnout was key. The Iowa Democratic Party reported seeing record turnout. The party said there were at least 227,000 caucus attendees.
The Iowa GOP projected that 120,000 people took part in the Republican caucuses. The Iowa Democratic Party said 124,000 people participated in the 2004 caucuses, while the Republican Party of Iowa estimated that 87,000 people took part in the 2000 caucuses. (President Bush ran unchallenged for a second term in 2004.)
Caucus-goer Kathy Barger, inside a Democratic caucus site in Walnut, Iowa, said the room she was in was packed to the brim with a line out the door.

Fuel Efficiency Standards

Finally! However, we are paying a price for reduction of fuel consumption. Cost of corn is up which affects our food bill. I don't think this whole process was well thought out. I have a feeling that we are just seeing the beginning of trouble.

_______________________________________________

Following weeks of negotiation, President Bush signed into law Wednesday the first major increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards in over three decades.
The law also calls for greater use of biofuels like ethanol and more energy-efficient homes and appliances - but left out some provisions called for by Congressional Democrats.
Automakers will have to make sure the average fuel efficiency level for all vehicles they sell in the U.S. is 35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from 25 miles per gallon currently.
"We make a major step... toward reducing our dependence on oil, fighting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations... a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure," said Bush at a signing ceremony at the Energy Department.
The current fuel-economy standards of 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 22.2 for light trucks were established in 1975. The new bill sets a single average standard for manufacturers.

Automakers had long resisted raising fuel economy standards, saying it would be a costly change that customers didn't want.
But opposition melted away in the last year of so, as high gasoline prices drove sales of foreign cars at the expense of domestic manufactures.
Environmental groups seemed happy with the law.
"This is an extraordinary change from just a little while ago," The Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. "Everyone from the auto lobby to one-time Congressional opponents have thrown their support behind it."
The law also requires refiners to replace 36 billion gallons of gasoline with biofuel by 2022. The U.S. currently consumes about 140 billion gallons of gas annually, and uses about 6 billion gallons of biofuel.
The mandate also says that no more than 15 billion gallons of biofuel can come from corn-based ethanol, in part due to concerns about food prices. The rest must come from "advanced biofuels," like ethanol made from switch grass or other biofuels.

But the bill left out two major provisions that Congressional Democrats had pushed for months - over $20 billion in funding for renewable energy, paid for largely by taxes on Big Oil, and a requirement that utilities buy 15 percent of their power from renewable sources.
Debate on the bill in both the House and Senate had been intense for the last few weeks. Ultimately, a likely filibuster from Senate Republicans and a veto threat from the White House left those measures out of the bill.
Critics of the tax provision said taxes on Big Oil would discourage domestic production, increasing costs for consumers.
Southeastern utilities said a federal law mandating the purchases of renewable energy would be an unfair burden on them, as their region has fewer renewable options like wind. About half the states have already passed such a requirement.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Democrats would continue fighting for those measures, presumably after the holiday recess.
Even the measures signed into law Wednesday - raising vehicle fuel economy standards, home and appliance efficiency standards, and using more biofuels - were not without critics.
House opponents such as Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, complained that the bill will undo many of the efforts made to foster increased production of fossil fuels in an energy bill passed in 2005.
"I understand the consequences of elections. I understand there's a new majority," said Barton, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I do not understand how what made sense two years ago doesn't make sense today."
Barton called the bill a "no-energy" bill and "a recipe for recession," arguing that the conservation measures mandated by the bill would raise prices for fuel, homes and appliances for consumers.

Obama Speaks at New Hamphire Forum

There was a meeting today in New Hampshire, and during this meeting, Obama had mentioned about how the current Administration lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and I started to wonder. Food for thought.

This question has always been on my mind and I don't believe it has ever been answered or really pursued. Why is it ok for this present administration to lie and deceive the American people about the invasion of Iraq, and they got away with it, and Bill Clinton was in the hot seat for having sex. I know he lied, so what! We are talking about a war that has cost us billions and billions of dollars. What did it really cost us on Clinton's lie, wasted tax payers dollars because he cheated on his wife? How can one compare. Shows you that the most influenced people have the power.

Ohio Turnpike Postpones Projects

I would like to commend the Ohio Turnpike officials for their fiscal responsibilities. I applaud you and so should everyone else.

Because revenues were below budget, projects have to be postponed. This is a good example of an entity with common sense. There is no mention of raising the tolls either. Maybe the city of Toledo and Lucas County entities should learn from this. If there is no money, you cut costs!

Licenses For Ilegal Immigrants?

What the......

Why would you give illegal immigrants drivers licenses?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/14/ny.licenses/index.html

Is this the best idea our so called intelligent leaders can come up with? Try again!

I understand that they take the jobs that Americans don't want. What about making the employers that hire them be responsible for making them legal. If caught not doing so, then they pay a hefty fine. Let the employer pay the application fee for each illegal and make sure each has to go through the proper channels like everyone else. I could live with that.

New York Governor Spitzer abandoned the idea, seeing that the New York State could not address the problems themselves. At least he tried. He said he wanted to act because of the failure of the federal government to deal with immigration policy and the impact that failure was having on New York.

I would like to hear some new ideas by other people who aren't politicians.

Wetland Veto

I found this through the AP about the wetland veto.

"An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in thwarting legislation that provides money for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.
This level of opposition virtually assured that Bush would have a veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. He has used the veto very sparingly for most of the time he has been in office, but has made more use of it recently.
"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he is refusing to fund important projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers that are essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region."The $23 billion water bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto and make the bill law.Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate. He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.But Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too. Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness in the seventh year of his presidency, Bush risks being criticized for doing too little, too late and of waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.The president took the gamble, though without any public fanfare, making it part of a broader effort to take on Democratic leaders frequently and more pointedly.White House spokesman Tony Fratto said Bush issued veto threats under the GOP-controlled Congress that were enough to do the job."Republicans heeded the president's concerns, stayed within his spending caps, and avoided vetoes," he said. "Democrats are intent on exceeding those caps, and if they do the President will veto those bills."The water project legislation originally approved by the Senate would have cost $14 billion and the House version would have totaled $15 billion. Bush and a few Republicans complained that the final version was larded with unneeded pet projects pushed by individual lawmakers -- sending the overall cost of the bill much higher."Only in Washington could the House take a $14 billion bill into a conference with the Senate's $15 billion bill and emerge with a compromise that costs taxpayers over $23 billion," said White House press secretary Dana Perino.Bush vetoed the bill because it is "fiscally irresponsible" and falls outside the scope of the mission of the Army Corps of Engineers, she saidCritics noted the Corps already has a backlog of $58 billion worth of projects and an annual budget of only about $2 billion to address them.If Bush is overridden, the measure would give a green light to projects in virtually every state. It only authorizes the projects; the actual funding must be approved separately.

It never stops amazing me how hidden agendas are placed into bills. For once it would be nice if our beloved elected officials would think of our country and not their own agendas. What is it going to take for the American people to stand up and say "Enough is Enough". This country is slowly deteriorating and our elected wonders don't seem to care.