Peanut Butter? Everyone's Allergic

A little less than a month ago, the Peanut Corporation of America issued a recall on 21 lots of peanut butter and peanut paste processed at their Blakely, GA plant due to a Salmonella outbreak that effected more than 600 people, and left 9 dead. Three days later, they expanded that recall to cover all peanut products processed at that plant. If that was the end of it, the story would have been sensational. But the story doesn't end there. Earlier today, the Peanut Corporation of America suffered further setback by being forced to issue a recall for all products shipped from their Plainview, Texas plant. This time, the Texas Department of Health discovered dead rodents, rodent excrement and bird feathers in the plant. Throughout all this, the executives at Peanut Corp. have refused to answer questions, even going so far as to plead the fifth at a congressional hearing.

This whole situation speaks volumes about the testing and reporting procedures issued by both state and federal food safety organizations. Under state laws in Georgia, Peanut Corp. was not required to report positive tests for salmonella or other contamination issues to state agencies. That same statue allowed the contamination to go unreported at the federal level as well. What is our government doing if they aren't protecting us? It should be obvious to require companies to report contamination, but it doesn't seem to be that important to regulators. The steps and groundwork are there to provide the system of accountability, but our government is about protecting the corporations, and not the people.

My solution to all this is simple. As one, this country should put it's foot down and say, "No! We will NOT buy your products. As of right now, we all have an allergy to peanut butter. And we are also allergic to any other products that don't report their testing procedures and results. We won't stand for this!" If we all did that as one, situations like this salmonella outbreak, and companies like Peanut Corp. would not be allowed to continue. There would be accountability, and there would be oversight. And, there would be a lot fewer deaths.

Dead rodents, excrement in peanut butter plant lead to recall

(CNN) -- The Texas Department of State Health Services on Thursday ordered the recall of all products ever shipped from the Peanut Corporation of America's plant in Plainview, Texas, after discovering dead rodents, rodent excrement and bird feathers in the plant.

Authorities issued a recall for all peanut products shipped from a plant in Plainview, Texas.

The order, which applies to products shipped since the plant opened nearly four years ago, came a day after the discovery of filth in a crawl space above a production area during a health services inspection, the department said in a news release.

Inspectors also reported that the plant's ventilation system was pulling debris "from the infested crawl space into production areas of the plant resulting in the adulteration of exposed food products," the release said.

Officials at the plant, which opened in March 2005, voluntarily stopped operations Monday night.

Under the order, they are not allowed to resume operations without health services approval.

The company's peanut butter and peanut paste products produced at its plant in Blakely, Georgia, have been linked to a nationwide outbreak of salmonella poisoning that has affected 600 people, killing nine.

A call to the company's telephone number, which was working earlier this week, elicited a recording that said it was no longer in service.

Source

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A Brief History and Viewpoint

The United States military has a long and proud history. In 1776, they fought against great odds and a superior force to win independence from a nation that didn't offer basic rights to their colonies. In 1861, they fought against their brothers and cousins to grant basic freedoms to an entire race of people. In 1941, we fought against an evil dictator and helped liberate a continent and end the tyranny and oppression against many ethnic, religious, and other minority groups. During all these conflicts, the military was segregated, bigoted, or otherwise opposed to varying religions, races or national origins.

Yet, in 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981. This order established equality in the armed forces for all men who served. Later, this was broadened to include female soldiers as well. Even with this executive order on the books however, gay men and women were routinely discriminated against while serving their country. Often times, the discrimination went as high as the President. Up until President Clinton took office in the early 1990's, the authority to ban gays and lesbians from serving in the military resided with the President. When President Clinton took office, he was set to reverse the ban, but during the compromise with opponents that resulted in 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', Congress took that power from the President and made it into law. This was unprecedented, and a huge setback for the gay rights movement.

Today, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is a law that is sporadically enforced at best. As often happens during war time, policies such as these are ignored. Yet, once the fighting subsides, they come to the forefront again. In the current war in Iraq, the first Marine injured has since come out as being a gay man. "It was like carrying this enormous secret that you want to share with someone," Retired Staff Sgt. Eric Fidelis Alva, 36, of San Antonio said in February of 2007. "I eventually formed close bonds with other Marines and did confide in them. They treated me with the same respect and dignity afterward. We were still buddies."

Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding sexual minority members; of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve. This is supported by recent surveys which show an overwhelming support across the nation, and even in the armed forces, to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. In a recent poll, as many as 1 in 4 troops know of at least one gay or lesbian member serving with them, and many found out from that person directly (Source). Of those surveyed, the majority harbored no ill will or felt any apprehension against serving with those members. This speaks volumes. It also shows how disconnected the Brass is with their soldiers. While serving as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace stated, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." This was said in support of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', and it highlights just how far removed many of the leaders of the armed forces are. But, not all of the leaders feel this way. Retired Army general John Shalikashvili, who served as chairman after General Colin Powell, also wants it removed from the books.

Personally, I'd like to see 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' removed, and quickly. While I have faith that it will be repealed during President Obama's term, I won't hold my breath.

Reexamining "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

By Mark Thompson/Washington Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2007

Amid the turmoil of the Iraq war and the scandal at Walter Reed, the last thing the nation's top military officer should want to do is generate more controversy by renewing the debate over gays in the military. Yet that's just what Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has done in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, telling the paper that "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

His comments have not surprisingly sparked a flurry of criticism from gay advocacy groups and lawmakers, but they are unlikely to change the status quo. Ultimately, many military officers believe, openly gay men and women will be allowed to serve in uniform, but it's just not going to happen very quickly. And for that, ironically, you can blame the most gay-friendly President ever: Bill Clinton.

Prior to Clinton taking office, the rule barring gays from serving was set solely by the President — and could be lifted by him, or her, as well. But once Clinton came in pledging to lift the ban, the opposition of his chairman of the Joint Chiefs — Colin Powell — and the hapless efforts by his first defense secretary, the late Les Aspin — ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill. As the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise was hammered out, Congress took the extraordinary step of removing the policy from the President's hands and writing it into law.

"General Pace1s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," says C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington (the 65,000 estimate is a UCLA study's estimate, the group said). "Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace's praise, not his condemnation. As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks." Tuesday afternoon, Pace stuck to his guns but backed away a bit from the morality angle. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy," he said in a statement, "and less on my personal moral views."

Three weeks ago, the first Marine seriously injured in Iraq declared he was gay and called for "don't ask, don't tell" to be tossed out. Retired Staff Sgt. Eric Fidelis Alva, 36, of San Antonio, lost his right leg to a land mine in the war's opening days. His wound got him a Purple Heart from President Bush, as well as a profile in People magazine and an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show. "It was like carrying this enormous secret that you want to share with someone," he said last month. "I eventually formed close bonds with other Marines and did confide in them. They treated me with the same respect and dignity afterward. We were still buddies." A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office showed that about 10,000 service personnel have been discharged since the policy took effect, including 54 Arabic specialists.

Alva is not alone. Senator Hillary Clinton, who was first lady when Congress wrote "don't ask, don't tell" into law, wants it repealed. Retired Army general John Shalikashvili, who served as chairman after Powell, also wants it removed from the books. But far more important is the view from the ranks. A recent poll by the Military Times newspapers showed that only 30 percent of respondents think openly gay people should be allowed to serve, compared to 59 percent who are opposed. Until those numbers are reversed, "don't ask, don't tell" won't change.

Full Article

US Education: What a Joke

As a citizen of the United States, I'm proud to live in a country where we are granted certain inalienable rights. The right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to prevent unlawful searches, and the right for freedom of religion. But the right to a free education? Well, we have it, but is it worth it? In this country, I'd say no.

Across the planet, every nation has some standard of education. Every place varies in one way or another, but every country agrees that it is important enough to be mandatory for children. That is true. Without a basic education for it's populace, a country could not function. But how much money a nation pours into education, and the requirements to graduate, varies greatly depending on where you look. In some nations, like France, the Federal government pours almost $100 Billion (USD) into education. Other nations, such as India, contribute just over $9 Billion (USD) to their education system. And The US? Well, we fall somewhere in the middle, with approximately $70 Billion. By many standards, that's not a small amount. But, when you consider that the US has about 5 times as many people living here, that number makes less of an impact.

Consider this. In the United States, educational budgets have become stagnant in recent years, yet costs have risen. This means that more and more districts are in the red, and are having to make drastic cuts to their budget, or forgo purchasing up to date equipment or books. Many school districts are using older editions of books that have changed greatly in recent years, especially in the realm of science. This is causing our country to fall behind others in the science and technology sectors, which are the fastest growing sectors on the planet. And what do we do about it?

Recently, President Obama recently proposed a huge stimulus package to jump start the economy. It would have given boosts to businesses who created new jobs, lessened the tax burdeon on many Americans, not just the rich, and it would have given almost $70 Billion to the education system. But do you think it could pass the first time around? Of course not. And what was cut? The education budget of course. As one republican opponent said, “I love schools; I love children,” but continues to state that education boosts “don’t belong in this bill.” Really? Because I tend to disagree. The only way this economy can rebound is to bring some of those high-paying tech jobs back to the United States from overseas. And, without an adequately funded education system, we have no hope of acheiving that.

Throwing schools out the window

By Nicholas Kristof

So this is what the Senate seems to be coming down to: keeping bridges and throwing students out the window. The effort to prune the stimulus package to make it more palatable to Republicans is focused on slashing money for education.

The proposed cuts, by various accounts, include $40 billion to help states (in large part with education budgets), possibly $14 billion for Pell grants, and $14 billion for other education programs (though late word from the Washington Post is that the Pell grants may have survived). The argument is that these would be ongoing programs, not a short-term stimulus, and conservatives are very wary of expanding education programs in ways that will increase the federal presence in the education space or the burden on taxpayers. They particularly don’t want Headstart and school construction in the stimulus. Mel Martinez says: “I love schools; I love children,” but he adds that such measures “don’t belong in this bill.”

He’s wrong, for a couple of reasons. First, the priority has to be to get the stimulus passed, and it’s better to err on the side of a big stimulus than a small one. I lived in Japan from 1995 through 1999 and saw how crucial it is for a government to act decisively – and, rather like Colin Powell’s doctrine of “overwhelming force” – with real power in confronting an economic crisis. Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke and Larry Summers were all close students at the time of Japan’s mess, and that’s why they’re all determined to get enough of a stimulus and avoid a lost decade. And constructing schools or paying Headstart teachers delivers just as much economic stimulus as a new bridge or road; indeed, the economic multiplier effect is probably greater in low-income communities than in America as a whole.

Second, I’m increasingly of the view that our nation’s top priority — which I used to think was a national health care system — must be revitalizing our education system. The good suburban schools are great, and do just as well as Singapore’s or Hong Kong’s. But our inner city schools are a disaster, and they fail the students and our country’s economic future.

My thinking shifted partly after reading The Race Between Education and Technology, by Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, one of last year’s most important books. As I wrote at the time, they argue that the central reason America became the most important economy in the world was its emphasis on broad education, at a time when Europe educated only the elites. Yet that edge has disappeared, and America is the only country today where parents are more likely to graduate from high school than their children. If we want to maintain America’s economic greatness, then we need roads and bridges, yes, but we also need a more educated work force.

Come on, senators, education is the best way to fight poverty, the best way to break the cycle of the underclass, the best way to ensure a broader distribution of opportunity in America, the best way to preserve our country’s economic competitiveness. And it’s just as good for stimulus purposes as repaving a road — and you still want to throw those school children out the window?

full article

Why This Country is Backwards

This country has it's priorities backwards. Not only do we imprison more juveniles than any other nation, but we do it for LONGER than any other nation. Out of the 195 countries on the planet, we are the only one that imprisons CHILDREN for life without parole. That, to me, is ridiculous. We don't allow children to see violent movies, we don't allow them to smoke, we don't allow them to vote, and we don't allow them to have sex. Why is this? Because their mental capacities are less than adults, or so say many experts and the government. Their sense of right and wrong is inhibited, and their ability to realize their mistakes is lowered. Again, this is according to experts and the government. Then why does this same government allow children to be put away for life without parole? Children are still pliable. They are learning, and they are able to be influenced. Out of all criminals, children have the best hope of being rehabilitated. That is what we should be doing, rehabilitating them and teaching them. Instead of spending the money to incarcerate them, teach them and make them better people. Don't put them with felons who will do the opposite. All that does is create more victims, both their future victims, AND the children.

The situation is further compounded when the offender is African American. That is the great irony of the justice system. Justice is supposed to be blind, but frequently it is not. If you are African American, you're in trouble. It's not right, and it shouldn't be allowed, but it frequently is. Tell me this. How is a one day trial resulting in a 13 year old African American boy going to prison for life fair or just? Answer: It isn't. In this instance the lawyer was disbarred, but that is frequently not the case. Honestly, the kid was convicted based off a 72 year old woman's memory. That alone speaks volumes.

Defining ‘Cruel and Unusual’ When Offender Is 13

In 1989, someone raped a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola, Fla. Joe Sullivan was 13 at the time, and he admitted that he and two older friends had burglarized the woman’s home earlier that day. But he denied that he had returned to commit the rape.

The victim testified that her assailant was “a colored boy” who “had kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small.” She said she “did not see him full in the face” and so would not recognize him by sight. But she recalled her attacker saying something like, “If you can’t identify me, I may not have to kill you.”

At his trial, Mr. Sullivan was made to say those words several times.

“It’s been six months,” the woman said on the witness stand. “It’s hard, but it does sound similar.”

The trial lasted a day and ended in conviction. Then Judge Nicholas Geeker, of the circuit court in Escambia County, sentenced Mr. Sullivan to life without the possibility of parole.

Mr. Sullivan is 33 now, and his lawyers have asked the United States Supreme Court to consider the question of whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment extends to sentencing someone who was barely a teenager to die in prison for a crime that did not involve a killing.

According to court papers and a report from the Equal Justice Initiative, which now represents Mr. Sullivan, only eight people in the world are serving sentences of life without parole for crimes they committed when they were 13. All are in the United States.

And there are only two people in that group whose crimes did not involve a killing. Both are in Florida, and both are black.

On the other hand, the question of whether life without parole for juveniles is constitutional is the logical next step following the court’s 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, which struck down the death penalty for crimes committed by 16- and 17-year-olds. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that even older teenagers are different from adults. They are less mature, more impulsive, more susceptible to peer pressure and more likely to change for the better over time.

Mr. Sullivan’s trial, for instance, lasted a day. He was represented by a lawyer who made no opening statement and whose closing argument occupies about three double-spaced pages of the trial transcript. The lawyer was later suspended, and the Florida Bar’s Web site says he is “not eligible to practice in Florida.”

There was biological evidence from the rape, but it was not presented at the trial. When Mr. Sullivan’s new lawyers recently sought to conduct DNA testing on it, they were told that the state had destroyed it in 1993.

“I don’t think it’s possible to say that a 13-year-old will never change and that life without parole is an appropriate punishment,” Mr. Stevenson said.

Aside from Mr. Sullivan’s case, it seems there is only one other appeals court decision about whether young teenagers may be locked away forever for rape. It was issued 40 years ago in Kentucky, and it involved two 14-year-olds. The court struck down the part of the sentences precluding the possibility of parole.

Juveniles “are not permitted to vote, to contract, to purchase alcoholic beverages or to marry without the consent of their parents,” the court said. “It seems inconsistent that one be denied the fruits of the tree of the law, yet subjected to all of its thorns.”

Full Article