from graves newsletter--our state gov at work
Oversight Subcommittee on Unemployment Reform
I have been named to chair a special subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Ethics that will develop solutions to make the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency more efficient and effective. There have been two Auditor General reports that have showed that there are several serious flaws in our current UIA system and we need solutions that will make the process work properly. Among the discrepancies found in the reports were security and accessibility issues with the Michigan integrated Data Automated System (MiDAS), and problems with the phone center that caused 89 percent of the 263,726 calls made to the center to go unanswered during a two week period. This is unacceptable and we seek to effectively address the shortcomings and come up with realistic solutions.
the week may 13,2016 "for firms in the s&p 500 the gap bet official profits and 'adjusted 'ones is now about 20% well above the long term trend. more than ever, investors need to read between the lines. a mature company that can't make a profit using standard accounting rules should be approached w/a barge pole. companies need to be reminded that it's their responsibility to accurately report their performance, not to polish reality as if they were selling second hand cars"
(the economist) (adjusted profits = way of making the bottom lines look more flattering)
show to watch -- the night manager
one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. plato
list of 102 million in trump's charitable donations compiled by his campaign, he did not make a single gift of his own money. most of the 4844 donations listed were free rounds of golf at his courses for charity auctions and events. he also claimed that decisions not to fully develop his properties as charitable donations--washington post
requested dark money, homage to catalonia by george orwell
the week may 13,2016 "for firms in the s&p 500 the gap bet official profits and 'adjusted 'ones is now about 20% well above the long term trend. more than ever, investors need to read between the lines. a mature company that can't make a profit using standard accounting rules should be approached w/a barge pole. companies need to be reminded that it's their responsibility to accurately report their performance, not to polish reality as if they were selling second hand cars"
(the economist) (adjusted profits = way of making the bottom lines look more flattering)
show to watch -- the night manager
one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. plato
list of 102 million in trump's charitable donations compiled by his campaign, he did not make a single gift of his own money. most of the 4844 donations listed were free rounds of golf at his courses for charity auctions and events. he also claimed that decisions not to fully develop his properties as charitable donations--washington post
requested dark money, homage to catalonia by george orwell
cabinet cleaner -- orange oil polish or = 2 tablespoons olive oil, 4 TBLS white vinegar and enough water to fill 16 oz spray bottle. shake to mix, spray on 1 area at a time, use soft cloth to remove any dirt, then buff. shake before spraying again
american farm bureau federation pres bob stallman said the organ looks forward to working closely w/the new speaker....he highlighted some of the new speaker's successes in the eyes of farmers and ranchers like his support for sensible changes in enforcement of the endangered speciies act as well as open and fair trade. in addition ryan has 'fought chronic overreach by the EPA and has been working to bring needed relief on the tax burden farmers and ranchers face'
Mich farm news:
by
Carl Bednarski
- See more at: https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm-News/Fear-amid-the-labels-Lets-change-things/#sthash.Y4Uf8qfo.owabkSuv.dpuf
by
“These review processes that EPA facilitates are important, and needed, Robson said. “However, there needs to be a scientific part to the process, and a multi-year data-set created, to aid EPA in making their determination on whether or not to re-register a certain product.”
- See more at: https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm-News/EPA-scrutiny-on-fruit-insecticides-called-pseudo-science/?utm_source=Informz&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Michigan+Farm+Bureau#sthash.IxNbzz4a.dpuf
Mich farm news:
Fear amid the labels: Let’s change things
May 9, 2016 Category: Opinion
by Carl Bednarski
Why should people keep things in their heads when a Google search quickly brings everything they want to their fingertips? Here's why: Much of what they find is false.
Falsehood runs rampant in the debate over genetically modified organisms, most commonly and in some circles pejoratively called GMOs.
This process by which some crops are grown (there are only nine that use this technology) has been so maligned and slandered that most of the consuming public has no idea what it is, why farmers use it or why the world needs it. Instead, unsuspecting consumers go to the Internet. Almost instantly, up pops bad information, most of it propaganda from anti-agriculture sources with friendly-sounding names.
It wouldn't be so bad if people were questioning the technology, actually looking for answers and then accepting the best, most unbiased information from the most trusted sources. But often, the first things they see plant fear and fertilizes it with propaganda. These opportunists seek financial gain from sowing fear, and they're succeeding.
Some people say there is no bad information. Their opinion is that we can only make a decision after we know everything.
First, it's impossible to know everything. Ask the Internet to define love or tell you where the laws of motion came from; or grow a tree from nothing.
First, it's impossible to know everything. Ask the Internet to define love or tell you where the laws of motion came from; or grow a tree from nothing.
Second, we can't know the future. Thirdly, when information contains deceit, it's bad information. If it's bad information, it's wrong, and it leads us to some very wrong conclusions. It's like planting crops without knowing what seed is in your bag.
Similarly, there is no productivity in the vitriol against the GMO process. But let's step back from the lies and fear and look from a thousand-foot perspective.
That view tells me we need to fight the misinformation, not the technology. It is misinformation, and fear of that misinformation, that has paralyzed Congress on the issue. Most lawmakers, being privy to the best information about the technology — that is, the unbiased, scientific data — know that the GMO process does not produce poison, does have time-tested, careful scientific evaluation behind it and does provide a service to feed a hungry world.
But our lawmakers also understand that there are a lot of voters who have chosen to believe the bad information and will vote based on the deceit. So the lawmakers, at this point, won't sow any seed.
What can we do about it?
We have to step up. Sadly, many people don't know any better. Instead of going to the universities or the scientists who performed the tests, they look to the self-proclaimed experts (quite often celebrity "experts") to tell them what they want to hear.
We need to be more aggressive on issues we know are being fertilized by wrong information. We need to go beyond our social circles to people who are being deceived, and offer them the right information. We need to ask them if they'd prefer to listen to an expert or the Internet? The answer could tell us a lot about our culture.
Not long ago, I had a conversation with a woman during a visit to a county Farm Bureau president's farm. She is a highly educated career person with a stable mind, but she'd been buffaloed by fear amid the labels.
She said she would always choose non-GMO labeled food, would always choose natural (thinking it is organic, which it is not), and would never buy milk with hormones in it.
We asked her if she knew what a GMO is, and she said "it's bad for you." She didn't know why. Conversely, she assumed that food labeled as "non-GMO" must be a good choice.
We explained to her that genetic modification is a process, not an ingredient. We asked her if she would deny her children antibiotics when they're sick. We explained that all milk has natural hormones.
After our conversation, she admitted that she never knew these things. No one had ever explained them to her. She trusted the label, not thinking that labels are marketing tools, not endorsements for health.
That conversation showed me just how important it is to educate the public about their food, to make them aware of deceptive labeling and to help them understand that farmers deal in food and nutrition, not marketing and labeling.
On an even bigger scale, we need to educate consumers and change our culture. The overall culture needs to be more like farmers. We don't listen to celebrities. We look at science, and for many of us, we're uncomfortable making decisions until we have the scientific facts. And we don't take the first person's word we find on Google.
We need to take opinion further, too. We need to understand that there is profit in marketing misunderstanding. There also is profit in variety, and there's the paradox. If everyone was selling the same product, prices would all be the same. But because things are slightly different — conventional, organic, local, etc., marketing comes into play.
I understand that it's sometimes easy to fall for marketing ploys. But just because a product claims something on the label doesn't mean it has any reality behind it.
Sugar is a good example. Soon you're going to see labels that say this package of sugar is GMO-free. However, there is no scientific test that can prove it. GMO tests come from protein, and sugar has none of it. So marketers can make all the claims they want. I simply ask them to prove it. I ask the celebrity mouthpieces to show us where they obtained their "expertise."
The overall point is this: Let's get our minds churning toward a solution to the public's confusion about things we farmers know well. As you spend time in your fields this spring, think about solutions to the public's woefully inadequate and manipulated thinking about the food you grow. Remember it's the best-quality food in the world, and you should be rewarded for doing that, not cowed by marketing campaigns that create doubt over everything you do.
I highly recommend that your visit gmoanswers.com or a number of other websites that will give the truth about technology. More importantly, you as farmers need to tell deceived consumers the truth. You don't need a public relations degree. You just need the truth and the willingness to share it.
EPA scrutiny on fruit insecticides called ‘pseudo-science’
May 18, 2016 Category: Fruits & Vegetables
by Farm News Media
Four insecticides important to Michigan's fruit industry are under fire by the Environmental Protection Agency this summer, but the EPA scrutiny is not because of its supposed mission to protect the planet, according to Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau.
"All too often, EPA makes decisions based on false truths, emotions, and theoretical pseudo-science, provided by small-interest activist groups," he said. "These groups are most likely made up of folks who regularly consume the safe, healthy, fruits and vegetables that are free of insects and pathogens because of the very crop protection materials they are speaking out against."
The following are fruit insecticides under EPA regulatory action, according to John Wise, MSU Extension entomologist. More information may be found atMichigan State University Extension bulletin E0154, "Michigan Fruit Management Guide," product numbers are in parenthesis ().
Lorsban (32) (chlorpyrifos). There are a number of actions ongoing that are impacting the future of Lorsban, including review by the EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, Wise said.
"Dow AgroSciences expects that chlorpyrifos products will continue to be utilized and sold under the existing labels and tolerances through at least 2017. If EPA actions are taken such that chlorpyrifos becomes immediately unable to be sold, Dow will work with growers and distributors to manage inventory of DAS chlorpyrifos at that time," he said.
Belt (89) (flubendiamide). EPA requested Bayer CropScience to voluntarily withdraw registrations for flubendiamide-containing products. Bayer refused that request and have asked for a formal hearing before the EPA's Administrative Law Judge, which is expected to be finalized by July 2016.
The Administrative Law Judge agreed to a 22-day extension of the before-mentioned 75-day deadline for the administrative law hearing regarding BELT insecticide and has now communicated the "Order Scheduling the Hearing and Prehearing Procedures."
With this extension, Wise said, "we now expect a final decision about the future path forward for the registration of flubendiamide on or about July 6, 2016. While under review, farmers and retailers can continue to buy, sell and use the product in their operations."
Closer (8) (sulfoxaflor). On Nov. 12, 2015, EPA cancelled the registrations of sulfoxaflor-containing products as required in a Sept. 10, 2015, decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The cancellation affects Transform WG, Closer SC and Seeker insecticide products, which contain sulfoxaflor.
"It is our understanding that Dow AgroSciences is working with EPA to achieve new registrations, and submitted new labels for consideration to EPA in late 2015," Wise said. "In addition, it is our understanding that several states are now in the process of submitting or developing Section 18 applications for the 2016 use season. According to the terms of the existing stocks provision of the cancellation order, any Transform, Closer or Seeker that have been in the grower's possession since Nov. 12, 2015, may be used according to the previously approved labeling. There is no deadline for this product to be applied by the grower. The product in grower's hands may also be used for any Section 18 Emergency Exemption that may be granted."
Calypso (62) (thiacloprid). Bayer CropScience notified EPA of a voluntary cancellation of the Calypso insecticide registration, including the technical registration of thiacloprid. This decision has to do with EPA's registration review process and the new water model, adopted by EPA in early 2013. Bayer CropScience has notified states and requested that Calypso be allowed for use through the existing stocks provision. Bayer CropScience will plan to maintain the state registrations through 2016.
"It is critically important that we file comments to EPA regarding these fruit insecticides," Robson said. "Michigan Farm Bureau has filed comments in support of the re-registration of Chlorpyrifos, has submitted comments in support of Bayer's refusal to withdraw Flubendiamide, and just recently submitted comments supporting the use of Paraquat-dichloride, and its application techniques."
It seems, Robson said, that the EPA is intent on promoting the radical environmentalist agenda rather than examining real evidence with an unbiased view.
"It's so frustrating," he said. "I look forward to a time when we can submit comments to EPA, thanking them for a job well done, making decisions that are based on FIFRA guidelines.
"These review processes that EPA facilitates are important, and needed, he said. "However, there needs to be a scientific part to the process, and a multi-year data-set created to aid EPA in making their determination on whether or not to re-register a certain product."
