Welcome to Valko’s Bite Sized Movie Reviews If you are anything like me, when reading a review of a movie there are three things you want to know: 1. A brief description of what the movie is about. 2. Who stars in it. 3. Was it good, or not, according to the reviewer’s opinion.
Bite Sized Movie Reviews offers the above three criteria only (and sometimes not even all of them). The reviews are simply my self-determined, selfish, cocky opinion of the movies I watched. Think of me as the guy you went to the show with. When it was over, and we were walking out of the theater, you asked: “Well, what did you think?” My answer are the reviews you see here.

Bite Sized Movie Reviews rating system:

Scrupulous
Delicious
Tasty
So so
Awful

By James Valko

Call me old fashioned, but when a person promises to do something I expect them to do it. Or, at the very least, attempt to do it—especially if it’s the President of the United States and his promise affects the health and well-being of every man, woman and child in America.

In 2007, while campaigning for President, Obama stated, “Here’s what I’ll do as President: I’ll immediately implement country of origin labeling (on foods) because Americans should know where their food comes from. . . we’ll let folks know their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they are buying.”

As usual, Obama’s speech was greeted with loud yelps of enthusiasm and applause from the crowd on hand that day. Also, as usual, Obama did not say the above words as casual, off-hand, remarks. He read from a scripted speech, which means the words he spoke were preconceived and well thought out. “We’ll let folks know their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they are buying.”

Fast forward to the fourth year into Obama’s Presidency and we find that not only did Obama not immediately implement the labeling of genetically modified foods (as promised), he recently appointed Michael R. Taylor, the former Vice President for Public Policy of the Monsanto Corporation to advise the FDA on food safety. Some might say this is the equivalent of hiring Osama bin laden (were he still alive) to advise Homeland Security on the safety of air travel in the US.

What Obama did is the height of hypocrisy. By hiring Taylor, not only has Obama not kept a promise, he spit in the face of all those who voted for him.

In case you don’t know, a genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic makeup has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. This experimental technology merges DNA from different species, creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding. Monsanto Corp. is the major creator of GMOs in the world.

In essence, Monsanto are literally creating new foods in a test tube. These “foods” are then consumed by us without our knowledge, since they are not labeled as GMOs.

The Purpose Behind GMOs
A major purpose of GMOs is to have insect-resistant crops. Simply stated, with GMOs large yields of crops can be grown without having to use pesticides to keep the bugs off of them. At least that’s what we’re told.

If you listen to Monsanto’s PR department, they will tell you that GMO crops have made a tremendous positive impact on agriculture. They say that GMOs make it possible to feed the world. They say that GMOs are more nutritious than non GMOs. They say that herbicide tolerance allows crops to be grown with less or no tillage, thereby conserving soil, fuel and water. They say a lot of good things about their products.

On the other side of the fence those that oppose Monsanto will tell you that GMOs may bring death to mankind as we know it, and Monsanto is the Devil in disguise. For the purpose of this article, I’m not going to list all the negative effects on health and the environment that enemies of GMOs cite (which there are many). Rather, I’m going to pose a question and let you come to your own conclusion. My purpose here isn’t to detail the horrors of GMOs, instead, it is to shine a light on Obama’s hypocrisy relating to this issue. Here’s the question:

Why aren’t GMOs labeled?
If all the positive benefits of GMOs are true, that Monsanto claims are true, why have they worked so hard to keep GMO labels off genetically modified foods? Why wouldn’t they want a bold red label put on cereal boxes (for example) stating, “This product contains GMOs!” Or, you’d think they’d want a nice round sticker on cucumbers stating, “This is a GMO!”

Instead, Monsanto has fought tooth and claw to keep GMO labels off the foods that they genetically modify. Monsanto has worked very hard to keep people in the dark about GMOs. Why? If GMOs are so great, if Monsanto believes in their product, why are they not shouting from the rooftops, “This product is a GMO!!!?”

Draw your own conclusion.

My rub is with Obama. Whether you are for or against GMOs you must agree that we have a right to know what we are putting into our mouths. In 2007 Obama obviously thought we had such a right, otherwise he wouldn’t have made a promise to “immediately” require that GMOs be labeled, when he became President.

Rather than doing what he promised Obama hires the VP of Monsanto, a guy who’s obviously been instrumental in keeping the American public ignorant about GMOs, a guy who’s fought to keep GMO labels off of our foods, to advise the FDA about food safety. The only other word I can think of for Obama’s actions, beside hypocrite, is liar.

Of course we can criticize Obama for breaking other promises as well. For example, he promised to decrease the national debt by half as well as get unemployment down below eight percent. He also promised to close Guantanamo Bay. Fine, whatever, those are big broad promises that require the support of congress and many more people. I don’t forgive him for not making good on those promises, but I can cut him a little slack.

Obama’s promise to label GMOs is different, however. It was a very specific promise where he didn’t need the permission of anyone to at least move forward on it. Again, instead of taking steps to label GMOs he appointed Taylor, the former VP of Monsanto, to advise the FDA on safe foods. This, in my opinion, is unforgivable.

Obama is supposed to have the backs of Middle America. He’s supposed to care deeply about the environment. His wife, Michelle, started a nationwide movement (Let’s Move) to slow the rate of obesity in children and get children eating less processed foods and more natural foods. What the h . .?

You’re Fired
When George Bush was President he had said, “Read my lips, I will not raise taxes.” He then went ahead and raised taxes. Many experts agreed that that one broken promise was enough for him to not be granted a second term by voters. I say this one broken promise by Obama, to label GMOs because “we deserve know what we’re buying,” is enough to not get him reelected.

I don’t care if Obama calls himself a democrat, a republican or a libertarian. Relating to this issue of GMOs he is a hypocrite and a liar. If we don’t start holding our politicians accountable for the promises they make before they get elected then we are doomed as a society. After all, we vote for politicians based on their promises. When they don’t fulfill them, or don’t even try to, as in this case, then how can we trust them? I say you’re fired, Mr. President. Reason? You’re a hypocrite and a liar.

That’s my take. What’s yours?

“The battle lines are being drawn. What happens to Wikileaks (and its founder) as a result of the website publishing secret documents may forever change our freedom relating to the Internet. I believe it’s important for each of us to take a side. Here’s my take:

Preceding the American Revolution our forefathers printed news bulletins opposing Great Britain’s rule and secretly distributed them to the American population. It was what they needed to do to gain acceptance for the revolution which eventually lead to our independence from Britain. In Germany in 1941 and 1942 a group of intellectuals who called themselves The White Rose issued underground publications that opposed Hitler. If enough Germans had been allowed to read their publications history may have turned out different, thousands of lives may have been saved. Instead, Hitler put a stop to their communications, tracked down the six leaders of the White Rose and had them executed.

In the history of the world the only way any group has ever gotten out from under the suppressive grasp of a corrupt or unfair leader, or political party, has been by the common person having the ability communicate to others, whether by word-of-mouth, printed material or, as it may apply today, via cyberspace.

Arguably, Freedom of Speech is our most valuable constitutional right.

But what happens when “secret” documents are stolen and communicated broadly for anyone to read, as in the case of Wikileaks? Does Wikileaks have a “right” to publish such documents? Do we have a “right” to read those documents? After all, the documents that Wikileaks published were originally written only for specific people to read. What if someone hacked into your email account and published your emails online for anyone to read, should the publishing of your emails be allowed as a right of Freedom of Speech?

In case you’ve been living under a rock lately, Wikileaks is a whistle blowing website that has a history of publishing secret documents. Not just government documents but private business documents, documents about individuals, and church documents. Wikileaks works under the umbrella of Freedom of Speech.

Wikileaks seems to feel they have a right to publish any piece of communication anywhere on the planet and share it with anyone and everyone.

So, on one hand you have Freedom of Speech as a right that can potentially keep populations out of the oppressive grasp of not-so-well-intended political leaders, and on the other hand you have the right of individuals and governments to protect their “speech” from being read by the masses.

As with all freedoms, the Freedom of Speech has its price.

Freedom of Speech is a double edged sword. In the case of the secret government documents Wikeleaks has published, on one side it gives the average person a direct look at what our government is doing behind the scenes, and how it is spending our money. On the other side, publishing these documents could be a risk to national security and could put lives at risk.

Presently, the battle lines are being drawn: there’s those in on the side of Wikileaks, and those on the side of the government who wants to penalize Wikileaks.

Freedom of Speech is an issue here, but there is a deeper issue I think we need to look at.

The reason many want the secret government documents published is because presently in our society there is a massive mistrust of the government. After 9/11 we invaded two countries. The purpose of the Afghanistan invasion was to find the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and “root them out of their caves and bring them to justice.” Nine years later the man allegedly most responsible for 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, has not been found, nor has any other terrorist been found, captured, tried and convicted in direct relationship to 9/11. The other country we invaded was Iraqi. We did this because Saddam Hussein was supposedly building Weapons of Mass Destruction. Of course, no WMD were ever found. Many people feel the “war on terror,” and the invasion of Iraqi in search of Weapons of Mass Destruction were just excuses to get us into war. Many Americas also feel 9/11 was a False Flag operation designed to instigate anger and fear among Americans: the impetus needed to send our troops to Afghanistan as well as create the Patriot Act and other liberty eroding practices.

Presently the U.S. has military operations in 130 countries around the world. Aren’t we supposed to be a peace loving nation? I could go on. The bottom line is there’s plenty of reason not to trust our government. Americans are demanding transparency. Rather than getting watered down, often false reports from our political leaders and major media, people want to look behind the curtain and see for themselves what’s really happening.

There are many conspiracy minded people who believe that Wikileak’s release of the secret documents could have been stopped or avoided by the government, but wasn’t because the government wants to hang Wikileaks in a public arena. In other worlds, the Wikileaks debacle is another sort of False Flag operation. Just as 9/11 gave the government the perfect excuse to invade Afghanistan, etc., Wikileaks will give the government the perfect excuse to monitor the Internet and restrict our Freedom of Speech via the Internet. Such people believe that the Thought Police are right around the corner, and they just may be right.

When we judge what is right or wrong concerning Wikileaks, I think we have to evaluate it based on what would potentially be the greatest good and the greatest harm to the most people. Personally, I feel the Internet may be our last hope for real Freedom of Speech. Most of the television and radio airwaves are controlled by about 20 private business and corporations. Newspaper are run by special interest groups. The Internet is the one avenue that allows the “common person” to communicate to other people without restriction.

If you string up Wikileaks you had better also hang every major media outlet that is publishing the secret documents for the world to read. The average person doesn’t weed through the thousands of documents on Wikileaks, journalists read those documents and then publish bits in pieces for the rest of us to read.
The government and others condom Wikileaks because the publication of the documents are a threat to our Security. Those that feel that Wikileaks should be able to publish the documents do it in the name of Freedom.

I’m going to go with Thomas Jefferson on this one. Quote: “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

I’m choosing Freedom. I’d love to hear your opinion.