Obama says ‘a couple of knuckleheads’ shouldn’t detract from work of Secret Service
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — President Barack Obama is calling the Secret Service prostitution scandal “a little distracting,” but praises the agency for protecting him and his family.
Obama says in an interview on NBC’s “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” show that a “couple of knuckleheads shouldn’t detract from what they do.”
Obama says, “What these guys were thinking, I don’t know. That’s why they’re not there anymore.”
A dozen Secret Service personnel and another 12 military personnel preparing for Obama’s visit to Cartagena, Colombia, are being investigated for cavorting with prostitutes. Six Secret Service agents have been let go over the incident.
Sites that may or may not interest you..
According to Whole Foods,
No More Red-Rated Wild Seafood in Our Stores
How to Make the Best Seafood Choices
The seafood they are no longer carrying is rated by the Blue Ocean Institute and Monterey Bay Aquarium as either overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or habitats. They are not making this decision on their own, and they are open to carrying the fish again if they be safely fish farmed or caught in sustainable ways.
They have said if they find sustainable sources and fisheries, and they invite the fisheries to implement sustainable initiatives and apply for MSC or BOI and MBA certiification.
this is the Monterey Label:
and the Blue Ocean:Presently caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment
Red rated fish is either not being caught within quotas or they're not bothering with the rating and quotas.Low abundance; fishing method seriously harms other wildlife or natural habitats.
I was the 7th person in my electoral district to vote in the primary today. I voted half an hour ago.
My parents were two of the other voters.
What Would Spidey Do?
The Worst Farm Bill Ever?
• Progressive food and ag programs on the chopping block. For decades, groups like Hoefner's have worked hard to create a set of programs designed to at least partially offset US farm policy's tendency to bolster Big Ag. The programs, which the Obama Administration in 2009 grouped under the banner of Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food, include initiatives designed to assist new farmers to get loans help communities roll out farmers markets, and reduce costs for farms to transition to organic.
Taken as a whole, Hoefner says, the programs amount to about $175 million per year—less than 1 percent of the non-food stamps portion of the farm bill. "These programs make up an extremely modest portion of the farm bill's budget, but they've had a large impact on communities nationwide," Hoefner said. Hoefner pointed to a wide-ranging recent USDA study documenting positive impact of the programs.Would you like a bad farm bill — or a terrible one?• Big Ag continues to get support for monster corn and soy crops. Large commodity growers will take a nominal hit in the next farm bill. For years, farmers in a few chosen crops—corn, soy, cotton, etc.—have received $5 billion per year in so-called "direct payments" based on the acreage under production. In order to receive direct payments, farmers had to sign so called "conservation-compliance" agreements, which obligated them to create conservation plans for highly erodible land and agree not to drain wetlands for planting. The conservation-compliance agreements were far from perfect, Hoefner says, but they did help slow soil erosion in the Corn Belt for years.
In the next farm bill, direct payments will almost certainly be scrapped, Hoefner says, and replaced by a revenue-insurance scheme that is projected to cost $3.5 billion per year, saving taxpayers $1.5 billion per year. Sounds like a step forward, right? Wrong. First of all, in current negotiations, there is no conservation-compliance requirement for revenue insurance—meaning that farmers will have incentive to drain wetlands to grow crops, as well as expand crops onto erosion-prone land. Moreover, the new scheme will likely insure prices at high levels—meaning that relatively small price dips could cost taxpayers serious money, potentially wiping out that promised $1.5 billion in savings.
Committee members are still planning deep cuts to crucial conservation funding that both keeps farmers from planting up every acre of available land and ensures that their farming techniques don’t endanger clean water and air. Meanwhile, blustery boasts of eliminating farm subsidies are highly exaggerated: Last week, for example, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that “farm subsidy days are numbered.” But as was decided last fall, the committee simply plans to shuffle the bulk of “direct payment” subsidy dollars over to crop insurance, where they will continue to prop up the “Big Five” commodity crops (corn, soy, wheat, rice, and cotton).The current mainstream farm bill proposals are anti-poor, anti-conservation, and pro-subsidies for huge corporations. Sign a petition against these versions of the farm bill here: Stop the giveaway to Big Ag. Support local foods in the Farm Bill!The House’s version of the bill would cut $180 billion from farm bill programs over the next decade. According to the Associated Press, that would include a whopping “$134 billion, or an average $13.4 billion a year, from the food stamp program.”
That’s a huge cut that would likely cause conditions for the poor in this country to get much worse. Science bears this out: A recent report [PDF] from the USDA’s Economic Research Service showed that food stamp (or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) benefits led to a 4.4 percent decline in poverty from 2000 to 2009. The current bill expires in September, and a final draft must be put in motion by Memorial Day if we’re going to get any bill this year at all. So these proposed food stamps cuts may just be a way for the GOP to stall or slow down the process. But if SNAP cuts like this did go through, the impact would be huge: One in six Americans — 50 million people — now rely on food stamps.
Join the Prime-Punch revolution!
Buy The Gathering!
Are the Romney's capable of opening their mouths without putting their foot in it?
When one side is basing their argument on bullshit and the other side is basing their argument on facts, it is not a violation of objectivity to point out where the bullshit lies.