Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SFVS] Prop 37

Expand Messages
  • Thoi Pham
    Hi Kalpana, Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. One thing I didn t like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Kalpana,

      Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

      One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

      Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

      Thanks, Thoi

      On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
       

      Hi folks,
      We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
      Kalpana


    • Michael Bedar
      Hi Thoi, Nice to hear from you on this topic. My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is. But
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        Hi Thoi,

        Nice to hear from you on this topic.  My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is.  But one is dishonoring his word to label GMOs and the other is working for labeling them.  Just want to point that out for consistency in whose credibility you and we all look up to.

        With love,
        Michael

        On Nov 7, 2012 11:23 AM, "Thoi Pham" <thoipham@...> wrote:
         

        Hi Kalpana,

        Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

        One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

        Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

        Thanks, Thoi

        On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
         

        Hi folks,
        We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
        Kalpana


      • Thoi Pham
        Thanks Michael. I ve been more interested in influencing the admittedly hypocritical politician with his hands on the big levers because I think there s more
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Michael.  I've been more interested in influencing the admittedly hypocritical politician with his hands on the big levers because I think there's more potential and net gain here.  I don't see that changing at the moment, but I'm (somewhat uncomfortably) open to new possibilities :)

          On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Michael Bedar <thelivingmichael@...> wrote:
           

          Hi Thoi,

          Nice to hear from you on this topic.  My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is.  But one is dishonoring his word to label GMOs and the other is working for labeling them.  Just want to point that out for consistency in whose credibility you and we all look up to.

          With love,
          Michael

          On Nov 7, 2012 11:23 AM, "Thoi Pham" <thoipham@...> wrote:
           

          Hi Kalpana,

          Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

          One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

          Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

          Thanks, Thoi

          On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
           

          Hi folks,
          We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
          Kalpana



        • kalpana mehta
          Thoi,I do tend to agree with Michael. Our interest is mainly about labelling GMO foods. We should not exclude someone just because they eat meat Dr. Marcola
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Thoi,
            I do tend to agree with Michael. Our interest is mainly about labelling GMO foods. We should not exclude someone just because they eat meat Dr. Marcola and his group has been an Ardent advocate of non GMO foods. We need not be judgemental. Our president has appointed Monsanto man head head of research at FDA.
            We need to really be visible.
            There is a suggestion on the blog of Millions against Monsanto that all 400k+ who said Yes to 37, we ashould handwrite individual letters and send them to the white house.
            In my opinion, our campaign was not planned properly. We let Monsanto TV ads do too much damage not anticipating . We need to be more visible constantly pounding about our right to know. One suggestion I have is to make thousands of new flyers, not the ones associated with this election, and flood California with them every where.even billboards.
            Then we can reach those individuals who said NO and try to tell them facts about this  labeling issue and GMO health hazards. We have almost half of Ca population in favor of this, we can do it just by uniting, staying visible all the time and constantly divicing new stragegies.It is how Obama campaig did it by reaching as many people.
            Kalpana
             

            To: SFVeg@yahoogroups.com
            From: thoipham@...
            Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:36:29 -0800
            Subject: Re: [SFVS] Prop 37

             
            Thanks Michael.  I've been more interested in influencing the admittedly hypocritical politician with his hands on the big levers because I think there's more potential and net gain here.  I don't see that changing at the moment, but I'm (somewhat uncomfortably) open to new possibilities :)

            On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Michael Bedar <thelivingmichael@...> wrote:
             


            Hi Thoi,
            Nice to hear from you on this topic.  My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is.  But one is dishonoring his word to label GMOs and the other is working for labeling them.  Just want to point that out for consistency in whose credibility you and we all look up to.
            With love,
            Michael

            On Nov 7, 2012 11:23 AM, "Thoi Pham" <thoipham@...> wrote:
             
            Hi Kalpana,

            Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

            One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

            Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

            Thanks, Thoi


            On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
             

            Hi folks,
            We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
            Kalpana






          • Maynard S. Clark
            They may not be pro-vegan TODAY, but we CAN (a) educate and enlighten them about the morally normative STATUS of veganism and (b) urge them to move in that
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              They may not be pro-vegan TODAY, but we CAN (a) educate and enlighten them about the morally normative STATUS of veganism and (b) urge them to move in that direction with a goal of BECOMING fully vegan as a family - for all the virtue, consequentialist, and deontological reasons for being vegan.


              I wrote:
              We urge you and your family to go vegan as a family to spare your two lovely daughters the far higher risks associated with consuming the SAD - Standard American Diets AND to set the stage for a truly progressive administration going forwar
              d.

              Further, both symbolically around Thanksgiving AND as a "first day" effort ("today is the first day"), please SHOW compassion, not merely to your bested competitor, but also two these two lovely oxen in Vermont, Bill and Lou.

              Further, both symbolically around Thanksgiving AND as a "first day" effort ("today is the first day"), please SHOW compassion, not merely to your bested competitor, but also two these two lovely oxen in Vermont, Bill and Lou.

              I want to get the word "vegan" "out there" to Sasha, Malia, Michelle, AND Barack (and to Mrs. Robinson, who likely chooses the family's diet "with a heavy hand") !!

              Maynard         
              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              Maynard S. Clark, MS (Management: Research Administration)
              Google Voice (617-615-9672) reaches all phones | GoogleChat: Maynard.Clark | Skype: MaynardClark
              RAC/GCRA, CIPP, RTP, NIH rDNA, REACH Intermediate certificates (+others)
              Blog Links LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Google Profile | ResearchGate | Academia.edu | Google+ | Xing
              Maynard.Clark@... and/or MClark@...

              Welcoming connections on LinkedIn and FANS at Facebook




              On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Michael Bedar <thelivingmichael@...> wrote:
               

              Hi Thoi,

              Nice to hear from you on this topic.  My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is.  But one is dishonoring his word to label GMOs and the other is working for labeling them.  Just want to point that out for consistency in whose credibility you and we all look up to.

              With love,
              Michael

              On Nov 7, 2012 11:23 AM, "Thoi Pham" <thoipham@...> wrote:
               

              Hi Kalpana,

              Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

              One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

              Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

              Thanks, Thoi

              On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
               

              Hi folks,
              We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
              Kalpana



            • Larry Fishman
              I agree that our campaign was not planned properly and that we let Monsanto TV ads do too much damage not anticipating. I do not have all the answers but I
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree that our campaign was not planned properly and that we let Monsanto TV ads do too much damage not anticipating. I do not have all the answers but I feel that our campaign made a lot of strategic blunders, the main ones being starting the TV ad campaign too late after much damage had been done and more importantly using such a weak ad with no credible people (farmers, doctors, scientists, or professionals for example) stating the facts. Here is an email I sent to Sofia, our Oakland leader (I also sent part of it to the OCA):
                 
                Your email is quite good, and makes a lot of good points in a clear,
                concise manner. It is too bad that the "Yes on 37" ad does not have
                people on it making those very points. I am greatly disappointed that
                the main "Yes on 37" ad is so terrible that it may cost us the election.
                Why don't the "Yes on 37" ads have any farmers, doctors, professionals,
                etc. on it to present those facts (and possibly combat the  "No on 37"
                lies)? The ad is so weak that it turns me off. I was told last Thursday at
                the "Yes on 37" event at 14th and Broadway that the focus group did not
                like the aggressive ads. In my opinion, we need to fight fire with fire.
                I feel that the decision to use such a weak ad with no people stating
                the facts may turn out to be a major strategic blunder, but I hope not.
                I even asked the OCA if there any chance of using a hard-hitting ad in
                the last few days, but have received no response.
                 
                 
                On Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 01:12 PM, kalpana mehta wrote:
                 

                 

                Thoi,
                I do tend to agree with Michael. Our interest is mainly about labelling GMO foods. We should not exclude someone just because they eat meat Dr. Marcola and his group has been an Ardent advocate of non GMO foods. We need not be judgemental. Our president has appointed Monsanto man head head of research at FDA.
                We need to really be visible.
                There is a suggestion on the blog of Millions against Monsanto that all 400k+ who said Yes to 37, we ashould handwrite individual letters and send them to the white house.
                In my opinion, our campaign was not planned properly. We let Monsanto TV ads do too much damage not anticipating . We need to be more visible constantly pounding about our right to know. One suggestion I have is to make thousands of new flyers, not the ones associated with this election, and flood California with them every where.even billboards.
                Then we can reach those individuals who said NO and try to tell them facts abou t this  labeling issue and GMO health hazards. We have almost half of Ca population in favor of this, we can do it just by uniting, staying visible all the time and constantly divicing new stragegies.It is how Obama campaig did it by reaching as many people.
                Kalpana
                 

                To: SFVeg@yahoogroups.com
                From: thoipham@...
                Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:36:29 -0800
                Subject: Re: [SFVS] Prop 37

                 
                Thanks Michael.  I've been more interested in influencing the admittedly hypocritical politician with his hands on the big levers because I think there's more potential and net gain here.  I don't see that changing at the moment, but I'm (somewhat uncomfortably) open to new possibilities :)

                On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Michael Bedar <thelivingmichael@...> wrote:
                 


                Hi Thoi,
                Nice to hear from you on this topic.  My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is.  But one is dishonoring his word to label GMOs and the other is working for labeling them.  Just want to point that out for consistency in whose credibility you and we all look up to.
                With love,
                Michael


                On Nov 7, 2012 11:23 AM, "Thoi Pham" <thoipham@...> wrote:
                 
                Hi Kalpana,

                Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

                One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

                Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

                Thanks, Thoi


                On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
                 

                Hi folks,
                We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
                Kalpana

                 

                 


                 

                 

                 
              • Ronald Halfhill Dba Verdant Ventures
                My first thought about the loss was one of disappointment, then anger, then I thought about it all and have changed my mind to declare it a victory. Before
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 7, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  My first thought about the loss was one of disappointment, then anger, then I thought about it all and have  changed my mind to declare it a victory.  Before you question my sanity,
                  consider that this campaign forced Monsanto to come out in the open and fight, which exposed their game plan.  This was a battle, but it was not the war.  Now we know their tactics
                  and those tactics expose their weaknesses.  Their primary weakness is lack of truth, deceptive, blatant lies and misleading advertising.  All of these are CRIMES and can be proven and
                  punished.  If the Yes on 37 campaign devoted one third of what was spent on this campaign to exposing Monsanto for the demonic villian it really is, and presented that evidence in
                  court in a way that could not be ignored, they and their kind (including the unethical advertising companies helping them, or more precisely, whoring for them) would be run out of
                  this state and this country or at least reduced to an innocuous state.  This is exactly what has been done to the tobacco industry in America. For those of us who remember life when
                  smoking cigarettes was "cool", think where those evil merchants of disease and suffering are now.

                  To repeat, a boxer will not rush into a fight without first sizing up his opponent so as to build a strategy for winning the fight. Along the way, in the first few rounds, he may sustain a few hits and bruises, but ultimately he will find a way too identify his opponent's weaknesses and win.   Monsanto has exposed their unsupportable agenda and can be made accountable for it which gives us an edge based upon the truth.  We know if we wave a cape in front of them, they will come after us and break laws in the process.  That's when they make their mistake, just like a charging bull.  The same could be same for the recent successes against the factory farming companies; their own defensiveness will be used against them to expose the truth to the public.

                  And if Yes on 37 wanted to raise another million dollars for more legal remedies, why hasn't anyone in that organization opted to seek legal remedies against Monsanto for violating the Anti-trust laws against restraint of trade and unfair monopolistic practices?  Simple remedy. It could ruin them if the Federal courts were used to expose their illegal practices.  Three plus million dollars spent on a campaign that was vulnerable to
                  deceptive media manipulation of otherwise ignorant citizens, when that money could have been spent on destroying Monsanto in Federal court.

                  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
                   
                  Ron Halfhill, Assoc. AIA
                  Verdant Ventures
                  570 E. El Camino Real
                  Sunnyvale, CA   94087
                  408.720.9146
                  408.245.9146 (fax)




                  From: Larry Fishman <larfishm@...>
                  To: sfvs <SFVeg@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Wed, November 7, 2012 4:17:09 PM
                  Subject: Re: [SFVS] Prop 37

                   

                  I agree that our campaign was not planned properly and that we let Monsanto TV ads do too much damage not anticipating. I do not have all the answers but I feel that our campaign made a lot of strategic blunders, the main ones being starting the TV ad campaign too late after much damage had been done and more importantly using such a weak ad with no credible people (farmers, doctors, scientists, or professionals for example) stating the facts. Here is an email I sent to Sofia, our Oakland leader (I also sent part of it to the OCA):
                   
                  Your email is quite good, and makes a lot of good points in a clear,
                  concise manner. It is too bad that the "Yes on 37" ad does not have
                  people on it making those very points. I am greatly disappointed that
                  the main "Yes on 37" ad is so terrible that it may cost us the election.
                  Why don't the "Yes on 37" ads have any farmers, doctors, professionals,
                  etc. on it to present those facts (and possibly combat the  "No on 37"
                  lies)? The ad is so weak that it turns me off. I was told last Thursday at
                  the "Yes on 37" event at 14th and Broadway that the focus group did not
                  like the aggressive ads. In my opinion, we need to fight fire with fire.
                  I feel that the decision to use such a weak ad with no people stating
                  the facts may turn out to be a major strategic blunder, but I hope not.
                  I even asked the OCA if there any chance of using a hard-hitting ad in
                  the last few days, but have received no response.
                   
                   
                  On Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 01:12 PM, kalpana mehta wrote:
                   

                   

                  Thoi,
                  I do tend to agree with Michael. Our interest is mainly about labelling GMO foods. We should not exclude someone just because they eat meat Dr. Marcola and his group has been an Ardent advocate of non GMO foods. We need not be judgemental. Our president has appointed Monsanto man head head of research at FDA.
                  We need to really be visible.
                  There is a suggestion on the blog of Millions against Monsanto that all 400k+ who said Yes to 37, we ashould handwrite individual letters and send them to the white house.
                  In my opinion, our campaign was not planned properly. We let Monsanto TV ads do too much damage not anticipating . We need to be more visible constantly pounding about our right to know. One suggestion I have is to make thousands of new flyers, not the ones associated with this election, and flood California with them every where.even billboards.
                  Then we can reach those individuals who said NO and try to tell them facts abou t this  labeling issue and GMO health hazards. We have almost half of Ca population in favor of this, we can do it just by uniting, staying visible all the time and constantly divicing new stragegies.It is how Obama campaig did it by reaching as many people.
                  Kalpana
                   

                  To: SFVeg@yahoogroups.com
                  From: thoipham@...
                  Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:36:29 -0800
                  Subject: Re: [SFVS] Prop 37

                   
                  Thanks Michael.  I've been more interested in influencing the admittedly hypocritical politician with his hands on the big levers because I think there's more potential and net gain here.  I don't see that changing at the moment, but I'm (somewhat uncomfortably) open to new possibilities :)

                  On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Michael Bedar <thelivingmichael@...> wrote:
                   


                  Hi Thoi,
                  Nice to hear from you on this topic.  My reply would be to keep in mind, for perspective, that the President is no more pro-vegan than Mercola is.  But one is dishonoring his word to label GMOs and the other is working for labeling them.  Just want to point that out for consistency in whose credibility you and we all look up to.
                  With love,
                  Michael


                  On Nov 7, 2012 11:23 AM, "Thoi Pham" <thoipham@...> wrote:
                   
                  Hi Kalpana,

                  Thanks for your efforts to make food choices transparent. 

                  One thing I didn't like was finding out that Mercola.com, an anti-vegan group, was a major sponsor for carighttoknow.org's phone banking campaign.  For me, anything associated with Mercola.com reduces its credibility and the detriment outweighs the benefits of the financial support provided.

                  Like you, I'll keep a lookout for future opportunities to regroup, look at all the opposition arguments, and develop a strategy for winning in the next round.  Thank god a progressive president is keeping the White House--that would be a great place to make a difference.

                  Thanks, Thoi


                  On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:43 PM, kalpana mehta <Shonumehta@...> wrote:
                   

                  Hi folks,
                  We may have not won this time on Prop 37, but  we need to keep this fight alive, now that we have a momentum. We should start a blog for brainstorming what our next move can be and stay in the loop. IT is important for us to stay visible. Any suggestions?
                  Kalpana

                   

                   


                   

                   

                   
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.