|
Which presently campaigning presidential candidate "says" the following?
Public Lands
Our society has shown a fundamental disregard for the ecosystems that provide life on
this planet. The United States was originally blanketed with a billion acres of forest. Now
only 40 million acres remain uncut. Forests provide clean water and clean air. They
regulate climate and provide soil stability and wildlife habitat, including habitat for fish
and for the pollinators of food crops. Many modern medicines are derived from the
forest. Our very survival as a species depends upon intact forests, yet we have
destroyed 96% of our original forests.
And we have not necessarily corrected the error of our ways. President Bush and
Congress recently created the "Healthy Forest Initiative," which targets the remaining
4% of intact forest for logging, under the guise of "forest-fire management." I am calling
for a fundamental shift of public policy that will protect both our future on this planet and
our tax dollar: Zero Cut, Zero Extraction on Public Lands.
The American people own 635 million acres of public land. These public lands are
controlled by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Park
Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are comprised of a variety of
ecosystems. Public lands provide 80% of municipal water supplies and half of the
remaining habitat left to endangered species. On the other hand, public forests
comprise less than 4% of the timber supply derived from this country, and half of the
trees cut in the U.S. are exported as minimally processed wood, pulp, and chips! We
must end public lands logging and insist on export of only finished wood products, thus
protecting both the environment and American jobs. . . . . . . . . .
American public lands are currently managed for the short-term profits of corporations.
The U.S. Forest Service routinely loses $1.2 billion per year for the taxpayers, since
they spend more money building logging roads and administering timber sales for
timber companies than they receive from the sale of public trees. The real cost is
immeasurably more, since unlike a normal business, the U.S. Forest Service liquidates
public assets without any evaluation of inventory worth or replacement cost. An honest,
full cost accounting of the Forest Service would reveal that revenues from living public
forests are worth over $117 billion per year, yet revenues from Forest Service lands are
only $354 million per year. "Conservatives" squander both public money and the
irreplaceable ecosystems that our life and economy depend upon. . . .
Ranching on Public Lands
The Bureau of Land Management manages our public grasslands for the short-term
benefit of the livestock industry. Cows and sheep have already permanently destroyed
50% of the nation's grasslands, and are currently munching on another 40%. Only 10%
of the nation's original grasslands are available for wildlife, and most of this land is
unprotected.
Public lands ranchers have permanently destroyed millions of acres of lands in the arid
regions of the West, yet they provide only 3% of the nation's beef supply. The cost for a
rancher to use public land for grazing is a mere $1.35 per month for a head of cattle,
compared to approximately $10 per month on private lands. According to the Cato
Institute, a conservative D.C. think tank, public lands ranchers receive $200 million in
direct subsidies yearly. Indirect subsidies and public assets liquidation cost the
taxpayers billions per year. The Bush Administration has extended water rights to
ranchers that feed on public lands. It is time we stop the ranching on public lands.
In 1931, the federal government created a program to "eradicate, suppress, and control"
wildlife species that livestock and agricultural interests find offensive. Since then,
"Wildlife Services" of the Department of Agriculture (formerly named the Animal
Damage Control Program) has poisoned, shot, gassed, and lethally trapped millions of
mammals and birds on public land. This taxpayer-financed operation is responsible for
directly decimating all 19 species of large mammals in the West, including the grizzly
bear, black bear, gray, red, swift and kit foxes, gray wolf, mountain lion, bobcats, lynx,
jaguar, moose, elk, pronghorns, bighorn sheep, mule deer, whitetail deer, buffalo, and
coyote. We must end the government-financed killing of wildlife, saving both public land
ecosystems and millions of taxpayer dollars.
Oil Rigs on Public Lands
There are 46,000 oil rigs currently operating on American public lands. The Bush
Administration has promoted oil interests both at home and abroad. The Bureau of Land
Management is contemplating the eventual drilling of 50,000 oil and gas wells in the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming. A current proposal would drill 5,000 wells, and require
2,500 miles of new roads and 2,500 miles of pipelines. It would ravage 3,600 square
miles of predominately public land in Wyoming, for no more than 15-20 years of
extraction. I see another energy future, one dependent upon clean, renewable energy,
energy conservation, and efficiency.
In summary, I believe that complete protection of our public lands from exploitive
industry is necessary for environmental, economic, and human health. For too long,
corporations have plundered our public lands, ravaging the landscape, costing billions in
direct taxpayer dollars and trillions in public assets liquidation. I endorse Zero Cut, Zero
Extraction on Public Lands.
Organic Farming
I am proud to give strong and unwavering support to our organic family farmers. This
approach to the land provides the safest foods, the best incomes for our farmers, and
new products for this nation to export.
Supporting the Family Farm
America depends upon a rich supply of diverse foods at a good price. Our farmers work
long hours, often under unsafe conditions, for very little income to provide this needed
food supply. The farmer must borrow heavily to put in his/her crop, maintain and
upgrade equipment, and buy inputs such as genetically modified organism (GMO) seed
and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, costing hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Then the farmer must hope that the grain markets reach a level where the crop
can be sold at a profit. Most farms are not the idyllic, relaxed, simple places with a
variety of crops and livestock that Americans picture. The typical conventional farm
requires vast acreage to be profitable, and that area requires huge equipment to plow,
plant, and harvest. The huge size also requires farms to become specialized -- either
grain or livestock.
The huge size has made farms become industrialized, which has brought problems,
such as pollution to the soil and water, erosion, GMOs, and dangerous working
conditions. The USDA's policies for decades have given the U.S. farmer the options of
getting big or getting out, which has destroyed our farm base and rural communities.
Under current policy, the small family farmer has become an endangered species. As of
2002, there were more prisoners in the U.S. penal system than farmers growing crops.
We remain deeply indebted to the dedicated people who produce our nation's food, and
I continue to strive in every way to improve their well-being.
Bigger and bigger equipment creates
compaction problems in the fields. Pesticides kill the beneficial insects and microbial life
in the soils. Animals are confined in tiny spaces, whereas they naturally need to range.
Confined animals are being treated with heavy doses of antibiotics and growth
hormones and are being fed a diet they were not meant to eat. (Cows eat grass, not
grain and meat, for example.) None of this makes sense to the stewards of the land, but
it is all part of industrialized agriculture.
NAFTA and the WTO have made things far worse for the U.S. farmer by opening up
markets that can produce commodities far more cheaply than can the U.S. farmer.
Problems Beyond the Farm
Beyond the individual farm, the detrimental impacts of industrial farming affect the
health and well-being of everyone in our suburbs and cities. Runoff of farm chemicals
and the manure runoff from confined feeding operations (CFOs) or factory farms has
dramatically adverse effects on our streams, rivers, and drinking water. Antibiotics in
animal meats are being consumed in large quantities by our population, which is
thereby made immune to the restorative effects of these important drugs. Growth
hormones, which are linked to cancer, are being passed on to unaware consumers.
GMO grains are in almost all processed foods, with no labeling to inform the consumer
of that fact. Because of trade agreements like NAFTA, more and more of our food
comes from abroad. America depends upon a rich supply of diverse foods at a good
price, but this food also needs to be completely safe. And our government is not doing
nearly enough to verify the safety of what we are eating.
Fewer than 0.002% of our cattle are ever inspected for anything.
The Organic Farming Alternative
Organic farming draws on traditional methods and is an alternative way of farming that
is becoming prominent worldwide. Organic methods, which have their philosophical
origins in the early 20th century in Austria and England, were introduced to the U.S. by
people like J.I. Rodale in the 1950s and Rachel Carson in the 1960s. The movement
has grown steadily and is now a clear option for both farmers and consumers. Organic
agriculture is based on improving soils, because healthy soils lead to healthy plants and
animals. Healthy soils mean a farmer has less need of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides,
which are prohibited in organic agriculture. Rather than making their operations bigger
and more like factories, organic farmers concentrate on understanding the needs of the
plants and the animals, and focus on production in harmony with nature.
Organic farmers often choose to market their goods directly to the public through
farmers markets, CSA's, and farm stands, rather than going through the wholesale
commodity markets. In 2002, after a decade of discussion, the USDA took over the
certification of organic farms in the U.S. from the 66 independent organic certifying
agencies (which now operate under USDA rules). The idea was to get all the certifying
agencies to operate under one rule so the consumer would have no confusion as to
what organic means. When the USDA took over, big agribusiness players such as
Coca-Cola, ADM, and General Mills came into the game. Now the organic farmers are
being asked to get big or get out. But there are still many tenacious family farmers in the
U.S. who are still organic but not getting big and staying in. They do it by selling their
food locally.
Reasons to Support Organic Farm Families
• Organic farms must follow stringent regulations that include precise record
keeping in order to become certified.
• Organic farming preserves and rebuilds the soil and many farmers are concerned
with preserving endangered seeds and animals.
• Organic farming produces crops without relying on petroleum-based synthetic
pesticides and fertilizers, thereby dramatically decreasing the impact of farming
pollution on the local air, soil, and water.
• Organic farming assures us that all its products are completely free of genetically
modified substances.
• Organic farm and production operations are inspected at least annually, to
ensure compliance with all of these standards.
• The organic farm produces an alternative to chemically raised foods that may
well be more nutritious and is usually tastier, all while giving the organic grower a
decent livelihood from farming (organic farmers usually don't have to work off the
farm to make ends meet).
• The organic movement provides America with a new product we can export in
the name of human and environmental health.
Genetically Engineered Food
Genetically engineered food (GEF) poses grave risks, and much serious research into the
potential harms is needed. The dominant voices in the public debate over genetically
engineered food have been those of the agri-business and biotechnology industries. These
multinational companies have invested millions of dollars into the research and development of
GEF. They claim that genetically engineered food is safe and that it is associated with good
environmental practices. Of course, there is a huge conflict of interest when the leading
authorities on GEF are the same industries that hope to profit by them.
Genetically engineered food is produced with the use of bacteria and "gene guns" along with
other unnatural techniques to aggressively insert foreign genetic material into a plant or animal.
Genetic engineers also use viruses and genes that are resistant to antibiotics in order to
activate these foreign genes.
These methods lead to questions about the introduction of allergens and toxins into the food,
the reduction of nutritional value of the food, and how consuming the food might lead to
resistance to antibiotics. Environmental concerns also arise. The biggest push in GEF has been
for creating plants that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides. Crops that encourage the
increased use of pesticides that already have a negative impact on our eco-systems are a step
in the wrong direction. Despite the obvious concerns that these practices cause, the FDA has
maintained since 1992 that genetically engineered food is "substantially equivalent" to
conventional food.
Proponents of genetically engineered food have said that this technology will end world hunger
because increased crop yields will create more food. This simplistic argument does not take into
account the true causes of hunger. In the past we have consistently produced more than
enough food to feed the people of the world. The United Nations has predicted that growth in
agriculture will continue to exceed population growth. The real cause of world hunger is not a
shortage of food, but poverty. Food is not distributed well enough to the areas that need it, and
hungry people are too poor to buy that which is available, or they lack the land and resources to
grow it for themselves.
People must have a right to select foods for themselves and their families that are proven to be
safe and environmentally friendly. In Congress, I have introduced legislation in support of
regulating genetically engineered food. I have argued for scientifically valid testing of the safety
of all GEF. I have opposed the introduction of genetically engineered fish, because the
ecological effect was not adequately considered. I have worked to empower farmers against the
GEF industry. I have worked to require that all foods containing GEF be labeled as such.
To accomplish these goals, we should create a fund, financed by genetically engineered food
corporations, for farmers who incur losses caused by GEF. We should fund research institutions
that help family farmers make the transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture. We should
also provide funding to assist independent farmers in qualifying for organic certification.
Cow Disease
The unfortunate discovery of a dairy cow in Washington State infected with Mad Cow
Disease, or BSE, is a result of irresponsible U.S. agricultural policies. BSE in the United
States is preventable, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture (UDSA) and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) must do more to protect American consumers.
In 2003, the USDA tested only 19,990 cattle believed to be at risk for Mad Cow
Disease, out of a population of about 96 million, or 1 out of every 5,000 cattle. By
contrast, in Europe every single animal above a given age gets tested for this fatal
brain-wasting disease (one out of every four cattle).
As President, I will lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments. I will also lead in fighting for clean, affordable and accessible drinking water. I have worked hand-in-hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.
NBC un-plugs Kucinich from Presidential debate
Less than 44 hours after NBC sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network notified the campaign this morning it was changing it announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that, although Kucinich had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards.
The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders.
In an email to the Kucinich campaign at 2:35 p.m. on Wednesday, January 9, Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote:
“Congratulations on another hard-fought contest. Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”
Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that the network had decided to change the criteria and limit participation in the debate to only three candidates.
Kucinich is the only remaining Democratic Presidential candidate who: voted against the original Iraq War authorization in 2002 and every war-funding measure since; voted against the so-called Patriot Act; advocates a national, not-for-profit health system that covers all Americans; has called for the repeal of NAFTA and withdrawal from the WTO; and proposes a national back-to-work program (Works Green Administration) patterned after the Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA).
The Kucinich campaign, which filed an emergency complaint with the Federal Communications Commission last week because of ABC's decision to exclude the candidate from a nationally televised debate, is considering legal action to address “the blatant disregard of the public interest in silencing public debate that dissents with the views of NBC, its parent company, GE, and all of the military contractors and their candidate-funding corporate interests. Corporate control of the media is one issue. Corporate media control of the information that is allowed to reach American citizens is much more dangerous, much more sinister, and much more un-American.”
“When ‘big media' exert their unbridled control over what Americans can see, hear, and read, then the Constitutional power and right of the citizens to vote is being vetoed by multi-billion corporations that want the votes to go their way,” the Kucinich campaign said.
(Answer to question at top of message: DENNIS J. KUCINICH)
Dennis Kucinich
Comment: #3
Posted by: Cynthia Bennekaa
Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:41 PM
|
|
|
