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. "

Will the Tea Party help or hurt Obama?

"The Post asked political experts whether the Tea Party will help or hurt President Obama. Below are responses from Robert Shrum, Ed Rogers, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Dan Schnur and Donna Brazile. "

    While the Tea Party movement is being a big political issue, the Washington Post posted an interesting article that listed different perspectives of political experts on the Tea Party movement on affecting the President, Democrats, and the Republicans. Some says the Tea Party will help President Obama, and some says it will hurt the President. It is worth to read the different perspectives on the Tea Party effect and to see how it will affect the politics and elections, especially the upcoming 2010 congressional elections.

Robert Shrum - The Tea Party is the best thing happened to President Obama and the Democrats.
The Tea party "produced unwanted and unabashedly extreme candidates who will kill the Republicans' best hopes for 2010."

Ed Rogers -" The Tea Party is a big problem for President Obama and his party this year and probably through 2012." "After the November elections, however, many Republican leaders will be intimidated by the Tea Party's success and will worry about the challenge its candidates could present in the Republican primaries in 2012. The result: GOP elected officials will not want to be accused of compromising with Obama on anything." "Obama, in turn, will have to pander to his base, making governing all but impossible"

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend - "So the Tea Party may help the president not only in this election but, most interestingly, with policy." "By constantly raising the issue of the long-term deficit, it is forcing a discussion on how we pay for programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which take up a large part of the federal budget." "The Tea Party will provide the president precisely the opening he needs."

Dan Schnur - "While the national reputation of the Tea Party movement does not appear to strongly affect swing voters in one direction or another, and while the broader political and economic trends work strongly against the party in power, the individual eccentricities of insurgent Republican candidates could provide opportunities for the Democrats pick off a few seats here and there."

Donna Brazile - It will neither help nor hurt Obama. "Polls show that 50 percent of Americans have no opinion of the Tea Party."