Land O'Lakes International Development Division Begins Final Phase of Iraqi Women’s Dairy Development Program
Land O’Lakes International Development Division (IDD) announces the commencement of Phase Three of the Fallujah Widow’s Dairy Development Program in Iraq. The goal of the multi-phased program, which started in October 2008, is to create a sustainable source of income for dairy farmers in Fallujah, Iraq, by providing a market for their excess milk and enough dairy products to meet consumers’ demand. Phase Three of the program is to build a Modular Milk Collection plant that will provide training and employment opportunities for women, as well as introduce raw and value-added dairy products such as pasteurized milk in bulk, sachets and yogurt in different sized packaging.
“The dairy plant will have the capacity to collect and process 1,000 liters of milk per day,” said Zaheer Baber Land O’Lakes Regional Director for Asia, Middle East, Latin America and Eastern Europe. “The plant will be manufactured in India, assembled in Iraq, and will supply products to local restaurants and other institutions.”
The Fallujah Widow’s Dairy Development Program began Phase One in the fall of 2008. At that time, a report was issued to the United States Marines which outlined the current state of the dairy sector in Fallujah, Saqlawiyah and Ramadi sub-districts of the eastern Anbar Province. It also assessed the feasibility of establishing a dairy processing plant for the Fallujah Women’s Cultural Center (FWCC). In late 2008, the U.S. Marines bought 50 local mixed-breed cows, 44 of which were pregnant, and distributed them to widows and impoverished women throughout the region.
Under Phase Two of the program, which began in February 2009, Land O’Lakes dairy experts provided training in animal husbandry and milk production and collection to the women who received the cows. Improving the care of the cows, the quality and quantity of the milk produced and the collection system has increased the incomes of the women, which has also improved the economic situation of their families.
Phase Three is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2010. Upon successful completion of this phase, the U.S. Marines, Land O'Lakes and the local government will decide whether or not to develop more opportunities like this in other regions.
Prosperity Worldwide, a 501(c)(3) organization closely affiliated with Land O’Lakes IDD, is accepting donations for those who would like to contribute to the purchase of more cows for Iraqi women.
Visit prosperityworldwide.org for more details. For more on this IDD program, visit idd.landolakes.com.
About Land O’Lakes IDD
Land O’Lakes International Development division (www.idd.landolakes.com) has been making a difference in people’s lives and local economies since 1981. Land O’Lakes International Development has participated in more than 170 development projects in 70 nations, serving as an implementing partner in projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, among others. Through public and private partnerships, Land O’Lakes agricultural development promotes agricultural productivity and competitiveness; food processing, product development and quality assurance; enterprise, association and cooperative development; food security and livelihoods; and health and nutrition worldwide. Land O’Lakes International Development is grant-funded, non-profit division of Land O’Lakes, Inc., a national, farmer-owned food and agricultural cooperative with annual sales of approximately $12 billion. Land O’Lakes is a Fortune 250 company which does business in all 50 states and in more than 50 countries.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Mondale and United Way
I was invited to a Community Builders breakfast for United Way. The first week of Oct is United Way week at LOL and they always have some kick-off events prior; one of them being this breakfast meeting with a guest speaker. Last year we had Frank V from Kare 11…this year it was Walter Mondale. It was so awesome! VP Mondale talked about the importance of giving in our community – how the economy has greatly increased the needs and also he did a little political Q&A. Community Builders are people who give a certain amount to UW and are considered leaders at their place of employment. I think it is funny I am in the mix because most people are Directors and above – there are some other manager types but I think I am the only real peon in the room.
Anyway – you know I think giving back through time or money or both is important so I encourage you to give to someone – you may not like United Way but please consider a gift of your time or money to something or someone.
Some local stats:
*Approx. 580k in Metro are living in or at the edge of poverty.
*nearly 435k households use a food shelf
* family of 4 needs 39k for basic needs including a 2br apt – yet half of the open jobs in MN pay 22k
*by 2030 nearly 50% of all elderly households will be one-person households, doubling the number of persons over 65 who live alone.
This statement from the UW brochure says it nicely “When a child succeeds in school, when families are financially stable and when people have good health, the benefits ripple across the entire community”
Anyway – you know I think giving back through time or money or both is important so I encourage you to give to someone – you may not like United Way but please consider a gift of your time or money to something or someone.
Some local stats:
*Approx. 580k in Metro are living in or at the edge of poverty.
*nearly 435k households use a food shelf
* family of 4 needs 39k for basic needs including a 2br apt – yet half of the open jobs in MN pay 22k
*by 2030 nearly 50% of all elderly households will be one-person households, doubling the number of persons over 65 who live alone.
This statement from the UW brochure says it nicely “When a child succeeds in school, when families are financially stable and when people have good health, the benefits ripple across the entire community”
Friday, September 4, 2009
The far right says Obama is bad for our kids
from Salon.com piece by Joan Walsh
One of the greatest things about electing Barack Obama as president, for me, was his appeal to young people, especially disaffected kids of every group, including (OK, maybe especially) young African-Americans. In a country where schools are overcrowded and underfunded (as liberals complain), while many families and communities can't or won't take their kids' education seriously enough (what conservatives and some liberals say), Obama has always been someone who's able to balance both critiques. And he speaks to young people with passion, conviction and humor (plus references to L'il Wayne that John McCain couldn't pull off) about taking responsibility for their own education.
So I was thrilled to hear he was going to deliver a back-to- school speech next week. I like seeing him play that paternal role, Father in Chief, not just for his own daughters, but for all of our children. All of our kids need to be reminded that education is a precious opportunity they must seize, whether they live behind the high gates of a tony private community or in a violence-plagued housing project. After all the fighting of the summer, finally something we can agree about, right?
Wrong. I never imagined the outbreak of right-wing crazy that Obama's gesture would provoke, and this time it's hard not to see racism behind the hysteria. The message is "Obama's coming for our children!" the standard cry against scary boogeymen in every culture. I mean, really, what besides Obama's race could make him so scary to these people? That he's a Marxist socialist fascist Nazi? I'd argue that the only reason those extreme epithets have taken hold goes back to reason No. 1: Our first black president is provoking some outsize and irrational reactions.
Especially since, as has now been well-documented, President George H.W. Bush addressed American students in 1991, and Ronald Reagan did so via C-SPAN in 1988. (Bush talked mainly about the importance of education, while Reagan hailed the benefits of low taxes and the line-item veto.) President George W. Bush appealed to "the children of the country" to back the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, to no public criticism. Admittedly, some Democrats accused his father of playing politics in '91, while Newt Gingrich ardently defended him. (Waiting for Gingrich to defend Obama. Still waiting.)
But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama's planned speech (which school principals are free to ignore if they so choose) to any of the other presidents' statements to students. The Florida Republican Party went into full-tilt crazy against Obama's plan to spread his "socialist ideology," claiming "schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president." State party chairman Jim Greer called Obama the "Pied Piper" -- you remember, the shady guy who lured kids away from home. Since Obama merely plans to tell students to stay in school and work hard -- an early draft of lesson materials that asked them to talk about ways they could help the president was scotched -- Politifact gave the Florida GOP its "Pants on Fire" designation.
But that's not stopping other blowhards of the Pants on Fire Party. Lunatics like Pamela Heller of Newsmax, radio host Brian Fischer and WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh are trying to organize parents to take their kids out of school for the day. Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he's "troubled" by Obama's speech. Crazy Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are raging against "indoctrination" while Townhall's Meredith Jessup is calling it "a massive abuse of government power."
And lest you dismiss these rantings as confined to the lunatic fringe and ratings-crazed talk-show hosts, the backlash has had an effect. First, after school administrators in mostly red states expressed concerns about exposing kids to the speech without knowing what's in it, the president's office said he'd make it available on Monday so they can read it in advance. OK, that's nice of the president, but is anybody else a little rattled that some right-wing bullies appointed the nation's unelected school administrators to vet our president's speech? And even that wasn't enough for administrators in six states: Districts in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia and Texas are telling reporters they won't show Obama's speech to students on Tuesday. (I'd urge parents of kids in those districts to protest by keeping their kids home, except liberals value education too much to do that.)
Where to start to explain this hysteria? Since the height of Sarah Palin's dishonest and divisive campaign last September, I've been alarmed by the unique way in which Obama's opponents paint him as "the other." For the life of me, I can't think of another American politician -- not even Hillary Clinton, although it's close -- who has spurred such visceral, irrational hatred. (Tell me if I've missed anyone in comments.) Sure, John Kerry was "French" and Michael Dukakis was Greek (and looked like a pinhead in that dumb helmet), but only Obama is a Marxist Communist who pals around with terrorists and wants to harm your children.
The hysteria Obama inspires in his far-right foes is primeval, primordial. From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth -- which lets them obsess about his origins in miscegenation -- to the paranoia that he's coming for the children, there's a deep strand of irrational paranoia that can't be anything other than racial. These people don't merely disagree with him, they distrust and dislike him viscerally. He's not merely wrong, he's scary; even terrifying.
I've said this before, to little result, but it's past time for mainstream, responsible Republicans to stand up against this latest irrational attack on the president. I've clashed with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough over the years, and I haven't been a guest on "Morning Joe" for many, many months, but he deserves credit for calling out the people on his side of the aisle for the bile they're spewing. “Seriously, why don’t we want the president of the United States, any president of the United States, delivering the message to kids: work hard, stay in school, succeed,” said Scarborough, adding, “Get your ratings if you want, you’re just screwing your political party.” Scarborough's right, it's turning the GOP into the lunatic fringe, but I think it's also hurting the president, and hurting the country.
One of the greatest things about electing Barack Obama as president, for me, was his appeal to young people, especially disaffected kids of every group, including (OK, maybe especially) young African-Americans. In a country where schools are overcrowded and underfunded (as liberals complain), while many families and communities can't or won't take their kids' education seriously enough (what conservatives and some liberals say), Obama has always been someone who's able to balance both critiques. And he speaks to young people with passion, conviction and humor (plus references to L'il Wayne that John McCain couldn't pull off) about taking responsibility for their own education.
So I was thrilled to hear he was going to deliver a back-to- school speech next week. I like seeing him play that paternal role, Father in Chief, not just for his own daughters, but for all of our children. All of our kids need to be reminded that education is a precious opportunity they must seize, whether they live behind the high gates of a tony private community or in a violence-plagued housing project. After all the fighting of the summer, finally something we can agree about, right?
Wrong. I never imagined the outbreak of right-wing crazy that Obama's gesture would provoke, and this time it's hard not to see racism behind the hysteria. The message is "Obama's coming for our children!" the standard cry against scary boogeymen in every culture. I mean, really, what besides Obama's race could make him so scary to these people? That he's a Marxist socialist fascist Nazi? I'd argue that the only reason those extreme epithets have taken hold goes back to reason No. 1: Our first black president is provoking some outsize and irrational reactions.
Especially since, as has now been well-documented, President George H.W. Bush addressed American students in 1991, and Ronald Reagan did so via C-SPAN in 1988. (Bush talked mainly about the importance of education, while Reagan hailed the benefits of low taxes and the line-item veto.) President George W. Bush appealed to "the children of the country" to back the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, to no public criticism. Admittedly, some Democrats accused his father of playing politics in '91, while Newt Gingrich ardently defended him. (Waiting for Gingrich to defend Obama. Still waiting.)
But there was nothing like the frenzied reaction to Obama's planned speech (which school principals are free to ignore if they so choose) to any of the other presidents' statements to students. The Florida Republican Party went into full-tilt crazy against Obama's plan to spread his "socialist ideology," claiming "schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president." State party chairman Jim Greer called Obama the "Pied Piper" -- you remember, the shady guy who lured kids away from home. Since Obama merely plans to tell students to stay in school and work hard -- an early draft of lesson materials that asked them to talk about ways they could help the president was scotched -- Politifact gave the Florida GOP its "Pants on Fire" designation.
But that's not stopping other blowhards of the Pants on Fire Party. Lunatics like Pamela Heller of Newsmax, radio host Brian Fischer and WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh are trying to organize parents to take their kids out of school for the day. Texas Gov. Rick Perry says he's "troubled" by Obama's speech. Crazy Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin are raging against "indoctrination" while Townhall's Meredith Jessup is calling it "a massive abuse of government power."
And lest you dismiss these rantings as confined to the lunatic fringe and ratings-crazed talk-show hosts, the backlash has had an effect. First, after school administrators in mostly red states expressed concerns about exposing kids to the speech without knowing what's in it, the president's office said he'd make it available on Monday so they can read it in advance. OK, that's nice of the president, but is anybody else a little rattled that some right-wing bullies appointed the nation's unelected school administrators to vet our president's speech? And even that wasn't enough for administrators in six states: Districts in Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Virginia and Texas are telling reporters they won't show Obama's speech to students on Tuesday. (I'd urge parents of kids in those districts to protest by keeping their kids home, except liberals value education too much to do that.)
Where to start to explain this hysteria? Since the height of Sarah Palin's dishonest and divisive campaign last September, I've been alarmed by the unique way in which Obama's opponents paint him as "the other." For the life of me, I can't think of another American politician -- not even Hillary Clinton, although it's close -- who has spurred such visceral, irrational hatred. (Tell me if I've missed anyone in comments.) Sure, John Kerry was "French" and Michael Dukakis was Greek (and looked like a pinhead in that dumb helmet), but only Obama is a Marxist Communist who pals around with terrorists and wants to harm your children.
The hysteria Obama inspires in his far-right foes is primeval, primordial. From the Birthers' obsession with the facts of his birth -- which lets them obsess about his origins in miscegenation -- to the paranoia that he's coming for the children, there's a deep strand of irrational paranoia that can't be anything other than racial. These people don't merely disagree with him, they distrust and dislike him viscerally. He's not merely wrong, he's scary; even terrifying.
I've said this before, to little result, but it's past time for mainstream, responsible Republicans to stand up against this latest irrational attack on the president. I've clashed with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough over the years, and I haven't been a guest on "Morning Joe" for many, many months, but he deserves credit for calling out the people on his side of the aisle for the bile they're spewing. “Seriously, why don’t we want the president of the United States, any president of the United States, delivering the message to kids: work hard, stay in school, succeed,” said Scarborough, adding, “Get your ratings if you want, you’re just screwing your political party.” Scarborough's right, it's turning the GOP into the lunatic fringe, but I think it's also hurting the president, and hurting the country.
yes - more healthcare
Some of the things that makes me so mad about the healthcare debate - it isn’t a debate – it’s Cons lying to scare and intimidate people. It’s Dem’s being too chicken to push for real reform.
There are no death panels – end of life planning make sense – ever heard of a living will? Doctors should get paid to help people figure out what kind of treatment they desire as their life nears and end – especially if they have a terminal condition – and the time to discuss that is before it is needed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090303833.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009090303848
The fact is most Republicans I have heard don’t even care much about the bill if they even know what’s in it – what they care about is defeating it, purely due to partisanship – stomp out Obama at any cost – even at the cost of you and me.
Demint has called health care Obamas Waterloo. His goal is to derail the process no matter what.
DeMint was ranked by National Journal as the most conservative United States Senator in their March, 2007 conservative/liberal rankings,[3] and again in 2008.[4]
At $1.5 Million a Day, Health Sector Lobbying Far Outpaces Oil & GasBy Dan Eggen
But the biggest spenders in Washington were the drugmakers, hospitals and other health-care firms that are fighting to influence reform legislation being pushed by President Obama. The sector as a whole reported spending $133 million on lobbying from April to June, up slightly from its expenditures in the first quarter of the year. More than half the total was spent by the drug industry, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America trade group (PhRMA) and firms such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline.
Many firms have increased their lobbying compared to a year ago, in some cases dramatically, the data show. Pfizer nearly doubled its spending from the second quarter 2008, to $5.6 million, while Blue Cross/Blue Shield, PhRMA, Eli Lilly and others were also up significantly. One North Carolina firm, Talecris Biotherapeutics, increased its quarterly spending from just $20,000 last year to $1.64 million this time.
The health sector calculation does not include most major insurance companies, which have spent $81 million on lobbying so far this year and are counted by CRP as part of the financial sector. That means that added together, the health sector and insurance industry are spending well over $2 million a day on lobbying.
There are no death panels – end of life planning make sense – ever heard of a living will? Doctors should get paid to help people figure out what kind of treatment they desire as their life nears and end – especially if they have a terminal condition – and the time to discuss that is before it is needed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/03/AR2009090303833.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2009090303848
The fact is most Republicans I have heard don’t even care much about the bill if they even know what’s in it – what they care about is defeating it, purely due to partisanship – stomp out Obama at any cost – even at the cost of you and me.
Demint has called health care Obamas Waterloo. His goal is to derail the process no matter what.
DeMint was ranked by National Journal as the most conservative United States Senator in their March, 2007 conservative/liberal rankings,[3] and again in 2008.[4]
At $1.5 Million a Day, Health Sector Lobbying Far Outpaces Oil & GasBy Dan Eggen
But the biggest spenders in Washington were the drugmakers, hospitals and other health-care firms that are fighting to influence reform legislation being pushed by President Obama. The sector as a whole reported spending $133 million on lobbying from April to June, up slightly from its expenditures in the first quarter of the year. More than half the total was spent by the drug industry, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America trade group (PhRMA) and firms such as Pfizer, Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline.
Many firms have increased their lobbying compared to a year ago, in some cases dramatically, the data show. Pfizer nearly doubled its spending from the second quarter 2008, to $5.6 million, while Blue Cross/Blue Shield, PhRMA, Eli Lilly and others were also up significantly. One North Carolina firm, Talecris Biotherapeutics, increased its quarterly spending from just $20,000 last year to $1.64 million this time.
The health sector calculation does not include most major insurance companies, which have spent $81 million on lobbying so far this year and are counted by CRP as part of the financial sector. That means that added together, the health sector and insurance industry are spending well over $2 million a day on lobbying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
