Let me have a "HAPPY MEAL"!

How sad it is getting a paycheck with a coercive voting instruction!
Employees of a McDonald's franchise in Canton, Ohio got their paychecks telling to vote for the Republican candidates.

The pamphlet appeared calculated to intimidate workers into voting for Republican candidates by making a direct reference to their wages and benefits, said Allen Schulman, a Democrat who is president of the Canton City Council and said he obtained a copy of the pamphlet on Wednesday.

Where it says, “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.” implicitly threats the employees who  seriously depend on the wages from the McDonald's. Allen Schulman states,

“This is an outrageous attack on one of the most fundamental rights our citizens enjoy – the right to vote for the candidate of his/her choice without economic fear or threat,”  “It is particularly egregious that in this time of harsh economic conditions, a corporation would stoop to this level of voter intimidation.”

It is also against Ohio Revised Code which employer shall not influence political opinions or votes of employees. This is a shameful incident that a powerful employer tries to intimidate his employees and to influence their votes.

I want to ask Mr. Paul Siegfried, the owner of  the McDonald's in Canton, "Can I get a discount on Happy Meal if I vote for the Republicans?"

"lifestyle choice"

Teddy Partridge of Firedoglake criticizes White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett that she used words "lifestyle choice" describing  a 15-year-old gay teenage Justin Aarberg ,who committed a suicide, as having "made a lifestyle choice".

He provides Michael Petrelis' commentary on the blog:

The last time I heard anyone use the obnoxious phrase "lifestyle choice" to describe a gay person’s sexual orientation was during the Bill Clinton presidency when the gays were accused of wanting "special rights."

Today the Washington Post’s gay kapo Jonathan Capehart shares a video interview he conducted on Monday with senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. She clearly states a belief that Minnesota gay teen Justin Aarberg, who committed suicide in July after being bullied, made a "lifestyle choice."

He argues that Valerie Jarrett made a "boneheaded remark," and we are "doomed."
He strongly criticizes Valerie Jarrett's remark as her being " the closest adviser to the President on LGBT issues"

           Number one: it’s not a lifestyle.
           Number two: it’s not a choice.
           Number three: Valerie Jarrett is an idiot.

 I don't think that she meant to disrespect the teenage boy or LGBT. But I agree that Valerie Jarrett made mistake by using wrong words. Like Teddy Partridge mentioned it's not a lifestyle and a choice. It was a poor choice of word. It doesn't really make any sense that  she referred to someone's sexual identity as a "lifestyle choice" after speaking about gay rights at the Human Rights Campaign dinner.

This video clip helped me to think one more time and to understand why Valerie Jarrett's remark, "lifestyle choice" was a mistake and a nonsense that  Democratic Party's "closest adviser to the President" should not make.

A label, for truth in packaging

"If scientists at the Food and Drug Administration finally decide that genetically engineered salmon are safe both for humans and the environment, they should not let the fish go to market without labels telling consumers they carry a gene from an eel-like poutfish".

In the Boston Globe's editorial, the author argues that the generally modified salmon should be labeled and separated from natural salmons before putting on market. The salmon is developed by AquaBounty Technologies by crossing the Atlantic salmon and a Chinook salmon which contains a gene from poutfish. It would be the first genetically "modified animal approved for human consumption" if it is approved by the FDA.

Senator Mark Begich and 10 other senators are trying hard to stop the approval for consumption of genetically modified salmon due to its environmental and safety issue. The author argues, even "if it finds that the genetically engineered salmon are safe to eat, it should still require that the fish carry a label identifying its genetic nature".


I strongly agree with the author that the genetically modified salmon should be labeled. I thing we have a right to know and to choose what we are eating as he said, "letting consumers know the true nature of the product, rather than leaving them guessing which salmon is natural and which is engineered".

 "Consumers want mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and feel outrage when they learn how many supermarket products already are produced through biotechnology, according to a Food and Drug Administration report. "