Please allow me to introduce myself

[Scuba]

[darkangel218]

1. Yikes. nt

[tblue]

2. No way!

Is that his job (FDA)?????!!!! Sorry, I am out of the loop. But DAMN! NO WAY! What a nightmare. What a mess!

[TheBlackAdder]

3. Really? This is joke right?

[prairierose]

5. No....... not a joke n/t

[snooper2]

4. Slim Shady?

[WinkyDink]

11. Sympathy For the Devil---Stones.

[dbackjon]

32. I read the title, and that song popped in my head

Very approriate for this man.

[Tom Ripley]

66. Inspired by Professor Woland in Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita

I like how Mick Jagger actually did become "a man of wealth and taste"

[lastlib]

79. he looks like "a man of wealth and taste"............

...and he could've been a general during the blitzkrieg.........

[ceejdre82]

150. I thought of that song and Digital Underground ...

Humpty Dance....ah, early 90's hip hop!

[Blue_Tires]

76. more like...

[snooper2]

77. Actually, we both got it wrong-

[Blue_Tires]

78. OH GOD YES

How in the hell did I *EVER* forget that?? I had the whole cassette AND the single...

[lunasun]

108. yes "Allow me to re-introduce myself"!!

[woodsprite]

6. I want to know why all these foxes are being asked to guard the hen houses? n/t

[L0oniX]

16. They are cheep & they work for bird food. n/t

yes ...cheep is misspelled intentionally

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. It's something about "keeping your enemies close," or so we've been frequently told.

[awoke_in_2003]

70. Who do you think...

really runs this country?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

71. We were told it was Obama. But then it appears that he doesn't even have the power to close Gitmo.

Or prosecute openly-admitted war criminals.

[woo me with science]

153. His DOJ is always working against his deeply held principles.

That must be extremely frustrating for him.

[Zorra]

102. They are there to insure that corporate interests and control are protected and promoted.

End of story.

[relayerbob]

7. sympathy for the .... what?

[Gold Metal Flake]

8. Hope and change?

[Orrex]

9. %$&!&# crummy workplace filters

Can't see the pics!

[One of the 99]

10. It should be noted

that Taylor left Monsanto in 2000. Before joining the FDA he spent years working for several non-profit organizations and was an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center.

[daleanime]

12. Isn't American for Prosperity a non-profit?

[One of the 99]

21. Taylor never worked there. nt

[daleanime]

59. Just pointing out that being non-profit isn't the same as .....

being good.

[One of the 99]

63. Never said it was.

But are there any problems with the non-profits that Taylor worked for?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

72. Why defending Taylor's appointment by referring to the non-profits unless that was your implication?

[One of the 99]

82. Just stating the facts.

Why are you so afraid of the facts?

[woo me with science]

141. Squirrels like nuts!

Jujubes have corn syrup in them!

Just stating the facts!

[whatchamacallit]

15. Your name + predictable corporate defense/image rehabilitation = ???

[One of the 99]

19. Not defending any corporation

Just noting the Taylor hasn't worked for Monsanto for over 12 years. Those are just the fact.

[NoMoreWarNow]

25. but he's a defender of GMOs no doubt, and Obama appointed him

[One of the 99]

26. You have proof of your accusation.

I beleive in innocent until proven guilty and not guilt by association.

[NoMoreWarNow]

85. there's a lot on him... see post #34 for instance

but here's the piece again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html



see also here:
http://farmwars.info/?p=594
and
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/24/michael_pollan_from_gmos_to_nycs

[One of the 99]

89. Maybe you should read post #18

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2425401

Especially since the HuffPo piece is about something that happened over 20 years ago.

[NoMoreWarNow]

118. I did read that

so nice to see Taylor has defenders here. So, I'm sure he is a very nice man who would never do anything unethical...
:eyeroll:

[One of the 99]

119. Not defending Taylor

Just saying that everything is not so black and white. Not as simple as the OP is trying to make it.

[sabrina 1]

145. Maybe that's the problem 'everything is not so black and white'. Maybe

we should be seeking people for office who GET IT RIGHT not trying to excuse those too stupid to do so, whether it was ten or twenty years ago.

There is nothing arbitrary about what Monsanto does. Has Taylor condemned what they are, what they have done, what they still do?

Is this country so limited in IQ that we can never seem to find people for high office that actually ALWAYS knew the difference between right and wrong?

Do you always have to have people trying to 'explain' to us why someone who got things so wrong deserves a second chance by placing them in positions of power just so we can find out?

How about we treat people seeking positions of power the way people applying for jobs are treated? How about we look at THEIR resumes and decide based on those resumes, whether or not they are suitable for the job? Why the different standards for people asking us to trust them with our very lives??

What has Taylor done since leaving Monsanto to demonstrate that he in any way has changed his mind about what they do?

And surely we have a few people in this country whose resumes are better suited to this important job?

[One of the 99]

146. This is just guilty until proven innocent thinking

as well as guilt by association. The hasn't worked for Monsanto for over 12 years. Yet he is being demonized for it. That is the same BS the right does.

[stevenleser]

18. It's better than that. He has recused himself in the past from decisions involving Monsanto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

Thorough investigations have been done on charges of conflict of interest and they have been found meritless. When you actually read the details, it sounds like this person is very aggressive about maintaining strictly ethical conduct whatever he does.

The other thing is that this person is an attorney and they generally are able to represent people and entities with whom they disagree or are indifferent. They can go from one side to the other in jobs and not have it impact their ability to represent their client. In this case, Mr. Taylor seems to have recused himself multiple times in situations where there could seem to be a conflict of interest.

I am not sure there is any 'there' there.

[One of the 99]

22. Why bother with facts

when you can demogogue the issue instead. LOL

It really bothers me when some on the left adopt the same dishonest tactics as the right.

[EastKYLiberal]

29. I call people like that over-informed...

They read so many books and watch so many documentary films by quacks not cool enough to sit at the establishment table that the information in their brain merges into a deregulated information superhighway.

On the superhighway, every piece of information that enters their brain is cross-referenced with the alternate reality created for them by these quacks.

And all information that supports this quack reality is automatically stored and regurgitated in a binary "YES" or "NO," "BLACK" or "WHITE" fashion.

They shut out the real world and continue to slobber over every obscure piece of information that supports their cynical views of the world and any decent leader the world presents to them. They can't, after all, take a look from all angles after some "very smart people" in a book or documentary told them everything that's down is up.

They wouldn't have that false sense of enlightenment that entitles them to be smug around those of us who accept things for face value.

[freshwest]

41. You're correct. Note the seed planted by the insert of a sneering Obama with a bow-tie in the pic.

That is used all the time on right wing sites without context, and it's being used here to ride over any argument that this could be a good pick for the job. No facts are necessary and won't change the minds of those seeing that subliminal. The misuse of the body language is used to say by right wing propaganda every day:

'See, he's an elitist, not one of us. He is laughing at your pain and wants to hurt you.'

It works just as well on the left as the right, as you can see from the piling on here. Even Sarah Palin's terminology is being used, without anyone daring to oppose it. It's a subtle way to make Obama seem untrustworthy, evil, the anti-Christ, that they've employed since 2008. It sets into the mind until those who followed the truth of these details, but won't be listened to.

They know in their gut that Obama can't be trusted to do anything good - because a video with the words edited out is so effective to create an aural memory; but even more powerful is a picture which carries more information to the subconscious and never leaves. And every conclusion jumped to goes through that filter.

[KoKo]

122. An inquiring mind is "over-informed" better to not inquire and to

be with the people who "accept things for face value."

We wouldn't want to question or have any information that might be informative of the positions and polocy of any "decent leader the world presents to them."

------------

[freshwest]

42. You spoil sport. Fact-free Obama bashing is so cool, you know?

[2naSalit]

74. Thanks for doing some

homework on that. The OP is pretty damning and I was hoping to find something positive about the guy.

I hope your speculations are correct.

[treestar]

92. He wasn't even an employee?

But represented them as a lawyer?

Then he would know the regulations.

Trying to malign him and Obama over that - malicious and deliberate ignorance.

[One of the 99]

110. No he was a VP at Monsanto

after he was there lawyer but he left that job in 2000.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Don't confuse people with complexities: all thinking must be black/white and hero/villain

Binary clarity above all else!

[freshwest]

43. Knee-jerk thinking won't work otherwise. Subliminals don't allow for reflection, either.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Working for a "non-profit" only means that he worked for a corp that does not have stockholders.

The phrase "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" is a technical term under the law. It does not mean that the corporation does not intend to make a profit, that it does not make a profit, pr that its funds are distributed, for example, charitable purposes.

A corporation which has a "non-profit" charter is one that does not have shareholders. The particular statutes authorizing the charter of non-profit corporations have language that can vary from State to State, but the basis concept is the same.

Unless a non-profit corporation has a charter in which the founders organized the corporation for charitable purposes, the non-profit corporation doesn't have to engage in any charitable purposes as well. The same is true for other purposes by which a non-profit corporation may be organized.

In some cases, forming a non-profit corporation is a tax dodge for those who form the corporation.

Saying that Taylor "spent years working for several non-profit organizations" is meaningless by itself. If you are implying that he held a non-profit intent and only worked for a modest salary, your assertion that he worked for non-profit organizations doesn't not establish that. If you know that he held a non-profit intent and only worked for modest salaries while working at the non-profit organizations, please post more information showing that.

[One of the 99]

37. I'm not implying anything

I'm just reporting a fact. And the fact is that Taylor didn't go directly from Monsanto to the FDA as the OP implies. Interesting that you don't seem to have a problem with that.

And if you had bothered to any research, you would have found out that Taylor worked for Resources for the Future http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources_for_the_Future

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Actually, what I wrote was "If you are implying that he held a non-profit intent and only worked for

a modest salary, your assertion that he worked for non-profit organizations doesn't not establish that."

I, for one, think that you were implying that.

Since you say that I didn't seem to have a problem with an implication that Taylor went directly from Monsanto to the FDA, when you imply that, I'll let you know.

Anyone who conducts even a modest search on the web would be informed that Taylor didn't go directly from Monsanto to the FDA. Even you know that.

[One of the 99]

47. That's what the OP is implying

and you know it.

And I never implied anything. I simply noted the facts. If you read anything into that, it says far more about you than it does about me.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

52. You implied exactly what was said above. That's the reason why you took the energy to

say more than "Taylor left Monsanto in 2000."

That's the reason why you took the energy to unnecessarily add "Before joining the FDA he spent years working for several non-profit organizations and was an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center."

You did more than "simply noted the facts." You took on the role as an advocate to minimize the relationship between Taylor's relationship with Monsanto and his most recent appointment to the FDA.

[One of the 99]

62. No you read into my statement of the facts

Yet you had no problem with what the OP was implying.

Like I said, it says far more about you than about me.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. Wrong again.

[One of the 99]

81. I think I touched a nerve

Which is why you keep responding.

[treestar]

99. It should be minimized if it's been 13 years

When the OP tried to misinform us that it was just yesterday.

We also don't know a thing about Taylor, just that he once worked for (which turns out to be represented as a lawyer, another question) Monsanto, which is supposed to mean he is evil personified.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

121. Some attorneys are not evil, but it is reasonable for some people to believe that an attorney who

played a leadership role at Monsanto may be. Whether such an attorney should be considered "evil personified" by you or anyone else depends upon the facts. I don't claim that he is evil personified, but I wish that the Obama Administration would stop appointing foxes to guard the hen houses.

Taylor's background at Monsanto is significant and important. Taylor, no doubt, included that on his resume. The Obama Administration, no doubt, considered that as a qualifying factor. No doubt, the Obama Administration considered that to be more important than his background of working for non-profits and being a lecturer or adjunct professor.

If you know of any important qualification unrelated to his role at Monsanto, what is it?

[treestar]

126. Most of that post is dictated by a pre-decided mind

I don't think there is any intent to be objective about Taylor.

A lawyer who knows a lot about FDA laws is qualified. Lawyers who prosecute can later make good defense lawyers - the criminal law remains the same. Lawyers do not take sides, they advise their client son the law.

In fact some personal injury civil lawyers represent both defendants and plaintiffs. It is called arguing a case - a lawyer doesn't personally take one side and then represent only people who agree with him/her.

Many domestic relations lawyers represent both men and women. I can just picture posts about how evil and sexist it is to represent men in family court. Unbelievable.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

131. "Lawyers do not take sides ..." Too funny.

[treestar]

135. Context is everything, you know

When I pointed out they can represent both sides of a general question in the courts - men or women in divorces, plaintiffs or defendants in civil cases on the same type of subject, or for that matter the FDA or people who oppose cases imposed by the FDA (and yes, even Monsanto is allowed to challenge government action against it). So your deliberate misrepresentation can easily be seen through as malicious.

[treestar]

94. That's exactly what the OP wants you to do

And that Taylor worked directly for them as a CEO, was highly paid, and personally in on some alleged "poisoning" of food.

And then went directly to the FDA.

And it's sad how many of the posters immediately agree with that with no desire to find out more first.

[One of the 99]

111. I know it is sad

These are the same tactic that the right use. It's unfortunate that so many on the left resort to them too.

[Dawgs]

49. So what? Obama has done this many times does it really matter any more?

Why is he against appointing that would actually make a change, instead of these so-called "experts" that were once working against us?

It's gotten pathetic, both from the President and those that think he can't do anything wrong.

[One of the 99]

51. So many times?

What's really pathetic are those that don't bother to examin all the facts before passing judgement.

[Dawgs]

60. I agree. And that's how I know he's done it many, many times - in both terms. n/t

[One of the 99]

65. Examples?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

73. Start with the links at #17, below.

[One of the 99]

83. Pretty weak

[woo me with science]

137. Weak. Reeeeally..

A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner...

It's a very interesting opinion you just posted. Kinda makes one wonder....in a horrified, dystopian sort of way... what "strong" would have to look like, in your eyes...

[One of the 99]

138. 5 out of hundreds or thousands of appointments

Very weak. Especially since most of what they are being accused of is unproven, based on half-truths and things that happened over a decade ago.

[woo me with science]

139. Oh my WORD.

"Just five out of thousands."

Pffffftt. Treasury, Attorney General, SEC, CIA, FDA. "Just five out of thousands." Just unimportant little jobs in the grand scheme of things...



Let me take a breath for a moment, because that was...breathtaking.

Thank you for participating here. I truly, truly mean that. For anyone who still had any doubt at all, that illustrates with breathtaking chutzpah how outrageous, pathetic, and utterly desperate the arguments of the corporate defenders have been forced to become.

[One of the 99]

140. No it illustrates

just how fact free those with Obama derangement syndrome have become. As Obi-Wan would say, "give up your hate".

[woo me with science]

142. And there it is. The desperate end to which all such arguments inevitably go. nt

[One of the 99]

143. Let me know when you actually make an argument.

Instead of just throwing insults.

[woo me with science]

144. ROFL! You can't make this sort of irony up. nt

[One of the 99]

147. Obviously YOU can!

Which is why you keep throwing insults rather than engage in any kind of intelligent discourse.

[woo me with science]

148. Oh, my. Let's recap this subthread, shall we?

Let's recap this subthread, shall we?

Someone commented on the disturbing pattern of Obama appointees who represent the very worst of corporate interests.

You replied, "Examples?" (which was funny in itself, because examples are all over this thread)

The poster replied by referring you to my post, which gives MULTIPLE examples.

Your one-word response was, "Weak."

I humored you with just a partial devastating list of the outrages you are trying so hard to deny:

A serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; the architect of "Kill Lists" and supporter of torture, drone wars, and telecom immunity for the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety for the FDA. An Attorney General who has not prosecuted a single large bank but wages war against medical marijuana users and *for* strip searches and warrantless surveillance of Americans. And let's not forget Tim Geithner.

You then offered the jaw-dropping exclamation that that's just "five out of hundreds or thousands"!

Against my better judgment, I refrained from letting that hilarious comment stand all by itself as the conclusion to this subthread, and instead decided to restate and make explicit your ludicrous attempt to minimize the importance of the positions of Treasury, SEC, CIA, FDA, and Attorney General.

At that point, you called me an Obama Hater.



I think the subthread pretty much speaks for itself. I need a sandwich now.

[One of the 99]

152. And the examples were weak,

You just refuse to admit it. You start from a premise then fill in based on half truths anything that you think supports that premise. Just look at the subject of the OP, Taylor. He hasn't worked for Monsanto for over 12 years. He doesn't support the premise no matter how much you think it does.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

154. Yea, sure.

[One of the 99]

155. Weak comeback!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

156. Obviously, your response at #152 was a "weak comeback!" That's not news.

[One of the 99]

157. Yes, so weak you couldn't refute them.

[Skittles]

64. yes - the Groupies are supremely uninformed

AGREED

[One of the 99]

84. Unfortunately there are many on the left

who follow the same tactics as those on the right. They use half truths and guilt by association tactics. The OP is a perfect example of this. Glad I'm not the only one here who realizes that.

[Skittles]

86. and there are many on the left who see REALITY

we care about AMERICA more than the (D) on a person's name

[One of the 99]

87. Yes there are

Too bad there are some like the OP that use right wing tactics.

[Skittles]

104. so sorry your little feelings are hurt

[One of the 99]

109. No need to be sorry

My feelings are not hurt at all. Sorry if I gave you that impression.

[treestar]

95. How did the OP really try to inform us about Taylor?

That graphic is meant to promote jumping to conclusions based only on what it claims. Which is very broad brush.

[treestar]

91. Stop, stop

The OP wants us to jump to conclusions. Worked for Monsanto = evil = evil Obama for appointing him.

We are not to learn more about him or it might get too muddy.

We're also to assume Monsanto "poisons" our food - which may be a leap. We're still alive. And that this guy will let them poison our food, do nothing to enforce the laws, etc.

[woo me with science]

113. "We're still alive."

Is that going to go on a bumper sticker?

[treestar]

127. Monsanto poisons our food

I think it's a leap that we are to 1) believe that and 2) if true, it is intentional; 3) that is will kill us all 4) that Taylor would never enforce the law and just plans to use the position to get a chance to poison us all, because he was with the company 12 years ago; 5) That Obama knows that and is down with it, and thus plans on poisoning us all.

Some people will use anything they can find to try to make a case against Obama for the most evil things they can think of. This happens daily on DU for the last 4 years.

Taylor may be a bad pick. But there is no attempt to give us accurate information on this and every attempt to stir people up - people who will believe it based merely on that graphic. Which requires a big heap of conclusions.

In short, our intelligence is being insulted.

[woo me with science]

128. "We're still alive!"

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2013, 06:46 PM - Edit history (4)

Treestar, these posts really do not merit a serious response, but here are my final words to you, because I think it's important at least to recap what you've done here:

First, you suggest downthread that the House must approve these Presidential appointments. That should have been the first signal that something was wrong, because you clearly need to do some basic reading...not just about Monsanto, but about Government 101.

Then you attempt to counter the documented food safety outrages by this executive from Monsanto by exclaiming, "We're still alive."

"We're still alive"! A retort worthy of my ten-year-old nephew.

And now the inevitable attempt to shift the entire argument from a discussion of this appointee's background to the stale strawman of crazed Obama haters who are merely looking for blood to throw on his suit, rather than voters appalled by the systemic corruption of our government at all levels by the flood of corporate money that now drives policy. No, vast numbers of Americans across the country have not been infected by a mysterious psychopathological "hatred" of our President that drives bizarre and aberrant attempts to smear him at every turn. What you are seeing is deep worry and outrage about the fact that corporate ethics and profit-seeking at the expense of human health and well-being are being welcomed and installed into the halls of our government, over and over again.

It's telling that you actually wrote, "Some people will use anything they can find..." Well, yes. Looking carefully into the background of political appointees is a necessary thing to do when determining the fitness of those people for office. How shocking that we would "use what we find" to help us evaluate an appointee, rather than refraining to do so out of Deep Loyalty and Trust for our President. And, frankly, the abuses of Monsanto and this VP were not difficult to "find."

Here's the upshot: You have offered absolutely *nothing* to counter any of the extremely disturbing information that is in the public record about this appointee, but instead have responded with the juvenile retort, "We're still alive!" and predictable outrageous personal accusations against anyone who dares criticize the disturbing pattern of corporate enablement in the halls of government under this President.

That sort of behavior around here gets very, very old.

[L0oniX]

13. Monsteranto. n/t

[tavalon]

14. Recommended for a highly appropriate reference to a Stone's song

The Devil indeed. Fuck us, eh?

[countryjake]

68. Oh yeah!

Woo, who!

Fuck Monsanto!

[woo me with science]

17. But it's ALL BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE THE HOUSE!

Obama's not a KING, you know!

Obama Puts Fox In Charge of Henhouse at SEC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022275024

Obama’s Top Choice for OMB Led Walmart Foundation Program
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384909

5 Most Terrifying Things About the Likely New CIA Head John Brennan, "Kill List" Architect
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022153194

Report: Eric Holder To Stay In Obama Administration Beyond First Term
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251251944

Obama Chooses REI Executive to Lead Interior Dept.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014391895

[GoneFishin]

27. Yeah, Obama is playing 3 dimensional chess

against progressives, and he is kicking our ass.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Progressives? When his former chief of staff referred to liberals as being "fucking retarded,"

he may have been referring to us liberals.

[GoneFishin]

35. Yeah, another thing he said that pretty much told the whole story was

"where else are they (liberals) going to go", as in screw them, you don't need to do squat for them, there is nobody else for them to vote for.

[treestar]

96. Do they have to be confirmed by the House or Senate?

And who do you propose for these jobs? People with no experience in the fields?

[woo me with science]

103. Are you being facetious?

Are you seriously suggesting that, because our majority is slim in the Senate, Obama had to choose a serial defender of corrupt bankers for the SEC; a supporter of "Kill Lists," torture, and telecom immunity at the CIA; and a Monsanto VP who has lied and been involved in extremely disturbing claims regarding food safety, for the FDA?

[Skittles]

105. how else can that bastard be defended, woo me?

[woo me with science]

107. Whoa! Thank you, Skittles!

You always slap the sense back into me!

I guess I need some sleep or something.

[Skittles]

114. from wiki:

Taylor is featured in the documentaries The Future of Food and The World According to Monsanto[23] as a pertinent example of revolving door since he is a lawyer who has spent the last few decades moving between Monsanto and the FDA and USDA.

yeah, he has changed!!!

[woo me with science]

130. Obama wouldn't pick him

if he hadn't!

[geardaddy]

20. Monsatan n/t

[11 Bravo]

23. Sorry, Mike, you are clearly a man of wealth ... but taste? Not so much.

[Bake]

33. I was thinking the same thing. Now I have that song stuck in my head!

Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name!



Bake

[Divernan]

34. This man is despicable - lied about Monsanto's own studies

The Milk Man Cometh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply. The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.
__________________________________
(End of quote)
After reading this link, I'm switching to organic milk -

[rhett o rick]

58. But, but, dont you see? That was before Pres Obama appointed him. Now he is an angel. Just look

at the threads above.

Let's look at the arguments in favor of Taylor as expressed above.
Yes he was a corporatist with no care for humans vs. his bottom line. But now he is a good guy looking out for us vs. corporations.
Shame on the OP for including Pres Obama's picture because that might give the impression that Pres Obama approves of him.
The OP left out something insignificant so the whole OP is worthless. Taylor must be golden.

It appears that some here have no clue what the "revolving door" means. When he is thru with the FDA guess who he will go to work for? A local charity? I would say, probably one of the companies that he gets to like thru his good work at the FDA.

[Egalitarian Thug]

61. No, no, no. The revolving door is only bad when it's "them" going through it.

When it's "us" doing it, we would never, ever in a million years even think of using our offices to feather our nests.

Silly liberal...

[zeemike]

36. Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name.
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game...

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me lucifer
Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, ....

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Bio from Wikipedia:

He worked for the FDA before he worked for Monsanto; now back @ FDA. Revolving door guy. Pro-GMO, pro carcinogen.

We're so fucked.

He received a B.A. degree in political science from Davidson College and a law degree from the University of Virginia. In 1976, after passing the bar examination, Taylor became a staff attorney for the FDA, where he was executive assistant to the Commissioner.[1][2]
In 1981 he went into private practice at King & Spalding, a law firm, one client of which was the biotechnology company Monsanto,[3] where he established and led the firm's food and drug law practice.[1][2]
In 1988 he published an article entitled "The De Minimis Interpretation of the Delaney Clause: Legal and Policy Rationale "in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology (now called the International Journal of Toxicology), which he had previously presented in December 1986 at a symposium on Topics in Risk Analysis, sponsored by International Life Sciences Institute Risk Science Institute, Society for Risk Analysis, and Brookings Institution.[4] The paper was delivered and published during the midst of a debate and litigation over federal agencies' interpretation of the Delaney clause, a part of federal law written in 1958 that on its face, literally prohibits any chemical from being added, in any amount, to food that is processed, if that agent is carcinogenic. As analytical instrumentation increased in power and more and more agents were found to be carcinogenic at very low levels, the agencies had developed a quantitative risk assessment approach to interpreting the Delaney Clause, which stated that if a carcinogen was present at levels less than 1 in 1,000,000 parts, the risk of that carcinogen was "de minimis" and it could be allowed on the market.[5] In the article, Taylor presented arguments in favor of this approach. Advocates in favor of organic food have criticized Taylor for taking this stance and have attributed the stance not to a good faith effort to reasonably regulate, but to an alleged desire to benefit Monsanto financially.[6]
On July 17, 1991, Michael Taylor left King & Spalding, returning to the FDA to fill the newly created post of Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During that time, he signed the Federal Register notice stating that milk from cows treated with BGH did not have to be labeled as such.[1][7] His name is not on the FDA’s 1992 policy statement on genetically engineered plant foods,[8] but he is said to have been a co-author.[1] Both of these documents grew out of, and fall within, the regulatory policy framework that was developed starting in the mid 1980s under the Reagan and Bush Administrations to ensure safety of the public and to ensure the continuing development of the fledgling biotechnology industry without overly burdensome regulation.[9] The policy had three tenets: &quot 1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of GM techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."[9]

[treestar]

98. If enforcing a law, it is possible to do it

even if you don't agree with the law.

And who should get the job then? People who are judging these decisions never mention just who is knowledgeable about the laws who is pure and clean in their past resumes.

[Skittles]

115. self-deleting

not really worth the time

[MessiahRp]

117. Unbelievable mindless shilling...

Seriously, is there anything you won't defend Obama on? If he fucks up, the fact that he's "ours" doesn't make this shit excusable. If he killed a kitten you'd be on here explaining away how the kitten deserved it.

[treestar]

124. I am not even defending him

But calling out OP for expecting us to go along with conclusions about Taylor. Then seeing other posts with more information. Is there anything you won't use as an excuse to try to get people to think Obama has done something terrible? Anything you won't dig for to try to make the most of? The narrow mindedness is yours. You're just mad that we won't just swallow it whole, then calling names when we don't.

[MessiahRp]

133. When Obama routinely picks corporate shills to head up regulatory groups...

he deserves the call out. All one needs to do is go through your post history to see that you are constantly shilling for Obama and covering him no matter one. I don't think you have a single post out there critiquing a single move he's made. That is a shill. It's not name calling when definition-wise, it's the truth. You may hate the facts and considering your posts defending some indefensible stuff Obama has done you do, but it is indeed reality.

This guy is a fraud, a corporate tool and the fox guarding the henhouse thing has happened way, way too often in this Administration.

[treestar]

134. He deserves this call out only is proven

But we are to believe it whenever its stated.

You seem frustrated that you can't get me to hate Obama.

And I don't have to be pro-Obama at all to defend him from unfair attacks, such as the ones routinely made here. They always take some real searching and some real exaggerating or some real disingenuousness. And it's sad anyone falls for them. And it adds to the impression that there is nothing really to see here.

[MessiahRp]

136. I support Obama in general and on things he's clearly doing the right thing on...

But I reserve the right and hell it's our patriotic duty to call him out for putting the very people that are tied to the worst of the worst in Corporate America in charge of the regulatory bodies that control them and he just keeps doing this. If it's to appease Republicans (much like the Chained CPI giveaway and the propping up of HMOs in his Health Care Reform Bill did) then he's a fool. They will give him nothing. He picked one of their buddies for Sec. of Defense and they went after him like rabid dogs. Very, very few of them sacrificed a vote for his HCR plan and none of them will vote for his other plans. So putting these total fuckheads in charge of the industries they have helped wreck to appease those assholes is a total fail.

And if it's not just to appease political opposition then it's something more sinister, like complicity with corporate corruption.

[woo me with science]

132. It's breathtaking, isn't it. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

120. He pushed for the law to permit higher levels of carcinogens in food.

[treestar]

125. It might be nice if someone had information about that

So we could decide for ourselves.

[RedstDem]

45. he's a man of wealth and taste?

sorry, couldn't help myself....

[indepat]

48. Oh, the deliciousness of such dichotomous

appointments analogous to the fox guarding the hen house.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. On a positive note, at least Jesse Jackson, Jr. wasn't appointed to the post.

[Initech]

50. Why do I suddenly have "Sympathy For The Devil" stuck in my head?

[patrice]

53. Prove you're not a murderer, Michael, BRING BACK THE FAMILY FARM. I'm sure you know how

all of the nuts and bolts of that work together, because of your resume.

Now, how about a little TRANSPARENCY for those who have not been on the government AG-SUBSIDY sugar tit with the likes of Kevin Yoder and SUBSIDY-Sam of the serfdom of BrownKOCHistan, the late great state previously known as Kansas.

[patrice]

55. Let's ask Michael Taylor if he knows the Yoder family. nt

[yodermon]

88. um what

[patrice]

90. Relations? They're in the EWG Agricultural Subsidy database, linked below, several times over about

about a decade in Kansas, where we are recently now "represented" by Kevin Yoder, R, Ks, in one of the most Democratic districts in the state, and ruled by Governor SUBSIDY-Sam Brownback who got his start in politics with about a decade of running the state department of agriculture (before going off to D.C. as a senator, God's Senator, you may recall from the Rolling Stone, living at least part of that time in the religious commune house on C Street, before he ran in the Presidential primaries in 2004), which state Dept of Ag it would be not be surprising if they assisted folks in applying for their ag-subsidies, all in the home-state of Bob Dole, one of Monsanto's most powerful and long-standing allies in his time. Even some moderate conservatives say those decades of Ag Subsidies are an economic travesty that helped end family farming.

Do you have family in Kansas?

[yodermon]

101. embarrassed to share a name.

isn't this the rep that went skinnydipping in the sea of Galilee recently? *shudder*

I have so many rightwing relatives it's depressing.
some of them I'm sure are in Kansas. I try not to think about it. Thanks for the info though.

[patrice]

106. I'm glad you asked. I have seen you around and wondered. There are right wingers in my

family too, but we love one another anyway; there's stuff we just don't talk about on purpose.

Yep. That's the guy. Proof positive that we live in a mediocrecy.

I haven't looked into it, but it may be possible that at least some of these Kansas Yoders are traditional Mennonites, whom I admire and respect in most other regards, other than living on Uncle Sugar-tit's subsidies and possibly directly, or at least indirectly, buying this office for Kevin's skinny butt even though he ran kind of a sleazy, "It's easier to say your sorry than it is to get permission" style campaign, against a long-time nurse and mother of 7, who, though qualified, could have been a stronger campaigner.

[patrice]

97. Yoders in Kansas receiving AG-Subsidies:

http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?search_input_text=Yoder&search_input_image.x=15&search_input_image.y=6

[HiPointDem]

56. i'm a man -- of wealth & taste....

[countryjake]

67. Stole many a man's soul to waste...

Woo, who...

[patrice]

57. Resources > Environmental Working Group - Agricultural databases, link:

http://www.ewg.org/

[limpyhobbler]

75. awesome cronyism. gobama.

[Delmette]

80. We're all screwed!!!!!

He will help cover up and make everything pretty and harmless.

[Milliesmom]

93. Calm down please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

[bigtree]

149. still, ugh

[Milliesmom]

158. I agree

[jazzimov]

100. "... I'm a man of wealth and taste..."

Oh, why appoint someone who was intimate in the crimes?

Maybe because they know where the bodies are buried?

Just guessing.

[Blue_In_AK]

112. Is this the asshole who's going to be approving Frankenfish???

[Rex]

129. Yes.

nt.

[Jasana]

116. And they ignorantly think this system is not broken. NT

[The Wizard]

123. Hail Satan (NT)

[forestpath]

151. Obama has shown repeatedly whose side he's on.