While Bleeding Heartland users discuss yesterday’s straw poll in this thread and Tim Pawlenty’s departure from the scene here, this thread is for any other news on your mind this weekend. Links to some disturbing stories that caught my eye are after the jump.

We’re screwed, part 1:

Repeated use of the chemical glyphosate, the key ingredient in [Monsanto’s] Roundup herbicide, impacts the root structure of plants, and 15 years of research indicates that the chemical could be causing fungal root disease, said Bob Kremer, a microbiologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.

Roundup is the world’s best-selling herbicide and its use has increased as Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company, continues to roll out herbicide-tolerant “Roundup Ready” crops. […]

Though Kremer said research to date has not shown that glyphosate directly causes fungal diseases that limit crop health and production, but the data suggests that could be the case. […]

As well, Kremer said that research shows that these genetically altered crops do not yield more than conventional crops, and nutrient deficiencies tied to the root disease problems is likely a limiting factor.

Glyphosate has already been implicated in birth defects as well as miscarriages. Some plant scientists allege that genetically modified crops bred to tolerate Roundup applications are associated with “sudden death syndrome,” a devastating crop disease.

Farmers all over Iowa are planting Roundup Ready crops and spraying Roundup on their fields. Industry groups claiming to advocate for farmers, such as the Iowa Farm Bureau, aren’t concerned about Roundup’s impact on the environment. I guess they’re too busy fighting water quality rules to worry about small things like depleting the soil. No big deal, it’s only the foundation of the agricultural economy.

We’re screwed, part 2:

Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.

But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them.

Hmmm, should we push for policies that wouldn’t do much for the economy but could pass Congress and therefore become “achievements” for Obama? Or should we push for policies that would be helpful, but are dead on arrival in Congress and therefore highlight the contrast between Obama and his eventual Republican opponent?

That’s an argument about which set of talking points Obama should take into his re-election campaign. Either way, the economy won’t get the short-term stimulus it needs, and we are missing an opportunity to invest in projects that would help the country in the long term. Hale Stewart wrote recently,

Right now, we could borrow at 2.22% for 10 years and rebuild our infrastructure. The rate of return in terms of growth far outweigh the costs. This would ultimately increase the denominator of the debt/GDP debt ratio calculation (I know — math is a bit difficult for most people now). We could solve some of the basic problems faced in the jobs market.

Instead, politicians in both parties are emphasizing government spending cuts that will hurt the economy.

And how pathetic is it that Congressional Democrats need to talk the president into trying to help homeowners facing foreclosure? If Obama cared about getting those policies right, he wouldn’t have begged Timothy Geithner to stay on as Treasury secretary. The Treasury Department has been sitting on a lot of money that was supposed to be spent on housing relief.

It’s been a while since Bleeding Heartland covered an election law story. I recently came across a good piece by David Carroll Cochran, professor of politics and director of the Archbishop Kucera Center at Loras College in Dubuque. His article for the national Catholic weekly America argues that “New voter ID laws subvert democracy and Catholic teaching.” During the 2011 legislative session, the Republican-controlled Iowa House approved voter ID legislation, but the bill died in the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate. Secretary of State Matt Schultz campaigned on the voter ID issue and has vowed to keep advocating for a bill despite objections from county auditors who have studied the issue.

This is an open thread.