xocetaceans
xocetaceans's JournalBreitbart "eulogizes" Ted Kennedy: "This duplicitous bastard...Even til the end, he was a prick."
It seems that Breitbart's own words should be used as his epitaph:
@AndrewBreitbart
This duplicitous bastard spit on GWB's face when he reached across party lines. Twas a grade school trick. Even til the end, he was a prick.
http://twitter.com/#!/andrewbreitbart/status/3552948159
USDA/FSIS Standards for Beef: A Sampling of the Array of "Meat Products" Available in the USA....
After seeing a story regarding Jamie Oliver, his campaign to make people aware of the use of so-called "pink slime" in beef products and McDonald's, it seemed appropriate to look up one of these processing factories to find what their "meat products" are actually called. Here is a product description page from a randomly selected processor, HRR Enterprises, INC.:
HRR specializes in producing several unique protein products including, but not limited to, Finely Textured Beef (FTB), Lean Finely Textured Beef (LFTB), Premium Black Angus Finely Textured Beef (PBAFTB), Angus Finely Textured Beef (AFTB), Beef Trimmings, Finely Textured (BTFT) and Partially Defatted Chopped Beef (PDCB). These proteins are "all beef" quality meat products that are used as an economical replacement for a portion of lean boneless beef in most product formulations. These products provide economic and competitive advantages without reducing the quality, appearance or flavor of the finished product.
FTB, LFTB, PBAFTB, AFTB and BTFT are high quality lean beef products, considered beef by USDA/FSIS standards. All are manufactured from only the freshest USDA inspected raw material under a HACCP system and are in the form of small chips which have been Instantly Quick Frozen (IQF). Color and texture are excellent. These products are commonly used in the meat industry by wholesalers and retailers as a 94% lean beef ingredient during formulation to achieve a formula specific lean requirement. They will give you economic and competitive advantages during formulation. There are many uses for these products: they are commonly used in frozen hamburger patties, can be added to ground beef without "patty" labeling restrictions, Salisbury steak, beef steaks, meat loaf, meat balls, meat toppings for Italian foods, meat fillings for Oriental foods, retail frozen items, chili, meat fillings for tacos, burritos, enchiladas, tamales and other Mexican food, breaded beef items, sausage, corn beef hash and a variety of canned goods.
As a 90% lean beef ingredient (+or-2%), PDCB, is also used as a replacement in part for lean boneless beef. This product is manufactured with USDA/FSIS inspected raw material and under USDA/FSIS supervision. This beef product is commonly used in the same categories as the FTB, PBAFTB, AFTB and BTFT including, meat fillings for Mexican food items and Italian foods like pizza toppings, ravioli, spaghetti, chili meat, corn beef hash, beef patties, etc.
HRR also produces Edible Beef Tallow which is sold under AFOA trading rules. HRR's beef tallow is used in the manufacturing of many products, including but not limited to: shortening, cooking oil, soup, soaps, pet food, cosmetics and livestock rations.
http://www.hrrenterprises.com/Products.html
It is also interesting to see this company's homepage as it has a changing image that illustrates the extent of use of the above "meat products": http://www.hrrenterprises.com/index.html.
Bon appétit!
EPIC Obama FAIL:
Education is critical for a democratic society.
This country needs to stop seeing education as a matter of a personal investment. It is not. Education is an investment in the country's future: for example, with an adequately educated populace, there would be no policy debate on whether global climate change is real.
This country needs to adopt a policy that allows all to go to school up through the Ph.D. level at virtually no cost.
This is the sort of competition that this country faces:
How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work
By CHARLES DUHIGG and KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 21, 2012
...
Another critical advantage for Apple was that China provided engineers at a scale the United States could not match. Apples executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufacturing iPhones. The companys analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.
In China, it took 15 days.
Companies like Apple say the challenge in setting up U.S. plants is finding a technical work force, said Martin Schmidt, associate provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In particular, companies say they need engineers with more than high school, but not necessarily a bachelors degree. Americans at that skill level are hard to find, executives contend. Theyre good jobs, but the country doesnt have enough to feed the demand, Mr. Schmidt said.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&ref=general&src=me
Elaboration On Edit:
Work-study is a time drain. It takes away from study time. If a person is committed to his or her field of study, that is all that one is in school to do. The fundamental point is that education needs to be funded so that students can get in to universities, apply themselves fully to their various fields of study, get their degrees at whatever level they can accomplish, and get out without the burden of debt. Innovation seldom occurs without freedom, and debt is the antithesis of freedom.
It is possible to provide stipends that cover the cost of living to students: Germany, for example, provides money to students while they are in school to defray the cost of living. Their system while not totally free of loans (http://www.bmbf.de/en/892.php) would seem to provide an excellent example of what can be achieved, but, for whatever reason, our policies are continually misdirected. Unless someone in power (say...a president...maybe) has the vision to articulate and fight for a better policy, there will be no meaningful change. Sadly, the policy of calling for more work-study is not that far distant in spirit from turning teenage students into janitors.
Here is an interesting rap anthem that has been around for a while and is worth listening to....
An Amnesty International USA Web Log Post Regarding the NDAA....
Tom Parker, January 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM
There has been a great deal of confusion over whether the indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) apply to US citizens or not the simple answer is that it is too early to tell.
The NDAA provisions greatly strengthen a framework for detaining suspected members of Al Qaeda or its affiliates that is derived from the law of armed conflict. Under the law of armed conflict belligerents can be detained until the conflict ends or until they no longer pose a threat.
The NDAA drafters draw a clear distinction between US citizens and non-US citizens which is itself problematic since equality before the law is one of the most fundamental principles of justice and a core human right.
The NDAA requires that non-US citizens be treated as enemy combatants rather than as criminal suspects unless the President issues a waiver in the interests of national security.
...
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/can-us-citizens-now-be-detained-indefinitely/
Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky at the Brattle Theatre, Part 1
This video is from:
Glenn Greenwald discusses
With Liberty and Justice for Some:
How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful
in conversation with NOAM CHOMSKY
Saturday
October 29, 2011
1:00 PM
Brattle Theatre
40 Brattle St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
The other parts, if any, do not seem to be on YouTube yet.
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540)
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2008, 03:38 PMNumber of posts: 4,149