That is implicit acknowledgment this bill is a POS. Since we are all aware it needs improvement why are passing and attempting to celebrate this abortion? If it needs improvement then let's improve it now. you don't build a house so that it's falling down and then go back and try and fix it. that's simply tossing good money and effort after bad.

I say scrap the Health Insurance Bail-Out and Guaranteed Profit and Customer Act

Some fascinating history in there as well.

If Iraq is a quagmire, and a good argument that it is can certainly be made, then Afghanistan is a deeper quagmire filled with molasses and excrement.

When New Mexico, where the standard greeting is red or green?, referring to your preference for chile salsa is starting to muck about with the genetics of chile peppers you know this whole GMO thing has gotten out of hand.
--###--

original-santafenewmexican

GMO-crop crisis a rapidly growing concern

COMMENTARY

Jessica Emerson | For The New Mexican

10/21/2008 - 10/22/08
Grass-root seed and food conferences are springing up everywhere, it seems, and there is a common thread woven through each one — genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

We have had several such conferences in Northern New Mexico: San Ildefonso and Santa Clara pueblos partnered for a spring conference and seed exchange; the Dixon Community Seed Exchange met in April.

Along with the agricultural experts talking about how to propagate and save traditional seeds at the 3rd annual symposium for Sustainable Food and Seed Sovereignty held at Tesuque Pueblo in late September, was longtime canola farmer Percy Schmeiser, who fought the agri-business company Monsanto all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. (Monsanto had sued Schmeiser for patent infringement because the company found its herbicide-resistant canola growing in Schmeiser's field; Schmeiser said the seed had blown there and counter-sued Monsanto for not preventing its genetically modified seed from contaminating his fields.)

Genetic modification of seeds, such as those that invaded Schmeiser's fields, involves the splicing of genes — from plant, human or nonhuman sources — into the DNA of a plant. The new life forms are called transgenic, genetically modified, genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms.

Existing transgenics include:

* A tomato that delays softening and ripening, thus extending shelf life. This tomato is also antibiotic resistant.

* Potatoes that have been altered with the gene from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. When an insects eats the plant's leaves, the enzymes in its stomach digest the Bt protein and convert it to a lethal toxin that causes paralysis and death. (These GMO potatoes, however, turned out to be vulnerable to other insects; Bt does not deter sapsuckers like aphids.)

Bt does not degrade; it's at its full potency all the time, even when ingested. Long-term effects of ingesting Bt products are unknown. When Dr. Arpad Pusztai released the report of a study of GM potatoes fed to rats, the Roweth Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland fired him. His results, as reported in the medical journal The Lancet in 1999: The rats experienced stunted organ and brain growth and breakdowns in their immune systems.

* The Brazil nut gene was spliced into the soybean to improve the nutritional value of the soy nut. One cup, or eight large Brazil nuts, contain 4 grams protein; one cup of soybeans contains 34 grams protein — so what is the advantage here? Brazil nuts can trigger allergic reactions in some people, and companies do not have to label their products as genetically engineered.

We are growing GMO crops in New Mexico — corn, cotton and alfalfa. New Mexico State University is working with Syngenta, a large biotech corporation that genetically engineers seeds and sells them around the world. They are researching genetically engineered Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant chile. NMSU has received $250,000 from the state of New Mexico to study, research and grow out GE chile plants.

In February 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a report that showed that "virtually all participants surveyed in focus groups want labeling." To date, there is still no mandatory labeling required for GE products.

Most genetically modified products carry fully functioning antibiotic-resistant genes — used as "selectable markers." According to a 1999 article in The Journal (Newcastle, UK), the presence of these antibiotic-resistant genes in a plant indicate that the organism has been successfully engineered.

In an Internet posting, The Union of Concerned Scientists says that "eating these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease." Hospitals around the world have increased incidences of infections from Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. This organism has mutated and cannot be killed by most antibiotics. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 90,000 Americans a year get deadly infections from MRSA. In 2005 the CDC reported 18,650 deaths associated with MRSA infections. Do we need more antibiotic-resistant organisms?

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

The question that will be asked is how can we afford this, when the real question is how can we not afford this?
--###--

original-NRDC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Report: Green Investment Will Yield Two Million New Jobs in Two Years

Report Outlines Rapid Recovery Economic Program That Moves America Toward A Clean Energy Future

Washington, D.C. (September 9, 2008) -- As America confronts the current energy crisis, a new report released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and partner labor and environmental groups shows that the U.S. can create two million jobs by investing in clean energy technologies that will strengthen the economy and fight global warming. The report finds that investing in clean energy would create four times as many jobs as spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.

“This new report shows that investing in clean energy is a win-win solution. Shifting to clean energy will put more people to work, provide consumers relief at the pump, help reduce global warming pollution and revitalize our economy at a time when many Americans are hurting,” said Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC.

“Green Recovery – A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy” analyzes the potential for a two year $100 billion green investment program – which would be comparable to the size of the April 2008 federal stimulus package dedicated to consumer rebates – to be an engine for job creation in the U.S. This type of investment is a component of a broader clean energy strategy to create a low-carbon economy and reduce global warming pollutions.

The program could be paid for with proceeds from auctions of carbon permits under a global warming cap-and-trade program that will drive private investments into clean energy and raise public revenue through carbon permit auctions. A cap-and-trade program will enable America to reduce global warming pollution to the levels science indicates are needed to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

The package is illustrative of the potential for clean energy – and specifically green infrastructure investments – to create new jobs and strengthen the economy. The specific package would invest in six green infrastructure priorities: retrofitting buildings to improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and freight rail, constructing “smart” electrical grid transmission systems, wind power, solar power, and next-generation biofuels.

The report also shows that the vast majority of the two million jobs gained from this initial $100 billion investment in clean energy would be in the same areas of employment that people already work in today, in every region and state of the country; for example: constructing wind farms creates jobs for sheet metal workers, machinists and truck drivers, among many others. Increasing the energy efficiency of buildings through retrofitting requires roofers, insulators and building inspectors. Expanding mass transit systems employs civil engineers, electricians, and dispatchers.

In addition to creating two million jobs nationwide over two years, a $100 billion initial investment in our clean energy future would:


* Create nearly four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry and 300,000 more jobs than a similar amount of spending directed toward household consumption.
* Create roughly triple the number of good jobs — paying at least $16 dollars an hour — as spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.
* Bolster employment especially in construction and manufacturing. Construction employment has fallen from 8 million to 7.2 million over the past two years due to the housing bubble collapse. The Green Recovery program can, at the least, bring back these lost 800,000 construction jobs.


The report proposes that the $100 billion of initial investments fund:


* $50 billion for tax credits. This would assist private businesses and homeowners to finance both commercial and residential building retrofits, as well as investments in renewable-energy systems.
* $46 billion in direct government spending. This would support public building retrofits, the expansion of mass transit, freight rail and smart electrical-grid systems, and new investments in renewable energy.
* $4 billion for federal loan guarantees. This would underwrite private credit that is extended to finance building retrofits and investments in renewable energy.


The report was written by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, under commission by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and released by NRDC and a coalition of labor and environmental groups. The authors of the report are Robert Pollin, Heidi Garrett-Peltier, James Heintz, and Helen Scharber of PERI. For the complete report findings go to

--###--

.
.
.
complete release including links to the full reports and fact sheets here

Thank-you so much. AS one member of the angry left to another, that was spot on, m'friend.

original-ACLU

The ACLU has scores and scores of them they got through the FOIA and have posted in scanned original and PDF. straight from the soldiers/sailors/airmen involved. It's pretty whack. I've only read a few so far, but a typical one is an interrogation team takes a quick break to 'regroup' and while they're out some special forces guys go into the room. when the interrogation team returns the prisoner is on the floor w/ the SF guys surrounding him blowing smoke in his face. He's been beaten some and is in such a state that it takes the interrogation team lots of time to calm the guy down just o they can start asking questions again, much less get back to the point they were at before the SF guys came around. I highly recommend taking some time and perusing a few of these just to get an idea of what is and has been going on with authorization right from the top.

original-marketwatch

Unanimous Decision of New Jersey Supreme Court Results in Precedent-Setting Victory for Farm Animals
"The Court therefore strikes as invalid the definition of 'routine husbandry practices'"

Last update: 2:49 p.m. EDT July 30, 2008
TRENTON, N.J., Jul 30, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In a unanimous landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court today struck down the New Jersey Department of Agriculture's (NJDA) regulations exempting all routine husbandry practices as "humane" and ordered the agency to readdress many of the state-mandated standards for the treatment of farm animals. A broad coalition of humane organizations, farmers, veterinarians, and environmental and consumer groups, led by Farm Sanctuary and represented by the public interest law firms Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, Washington, D.C., and Egert & Trakinski, Hackensack, N.J., brought the case to the state's Supreme Court. In this monumental case, the Court ruled that factory farming practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used, setting a legal precedent for further actions to end the most egregious abuses on factory farms throughout the U.S. The Court also rejected the practice of tail-docking cattle, and the manner in which the NJDA had provided for farm animals to be mutilated without anesthesia.
"This is a major victory for farm animals in New Jersey, and will pave the way for better protections of farm animals nationwide," said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. "Setting a legal precedent in a unanimous vote that clarifies that commonly used practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used will build on our momentum in challenging the cruel status quo on factory farms."
Many states have an exemption to their cruelty code for "routine" or "commonly accepted" practices which leaves animals confined in factory farms unprotected from abuse. However, in 1996, the New Jersey Legislature directed the NJDA to develop appropriate "standards for the humane raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, and sale of domestic livestock." Eight years later, on June 7, 2004, the agency finalized regulations that specifically authorized many cruel farming practices and essentially gave blanket protection to all common agriculture practices.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

Ain't this grand?! Hopefully it passes and starts a trend, eh? I mean if we're gonna give a flippin corporation the same rights as a person I don't see why we shouldn't apply at least the same level of protection to the environment.
--###--

original-climateandcapitalism

Ecuadorian Assembly Approves Constitutional Rights for Nature
July 10, 2008

On July 7, the 130-member Ecuador Constitutional Assembly, elected countrywide to rewrite the country’s Constitution, voted to approve articles that recognize rights for nature and ecosystems.

“If adopted in the final constitution by the people, Ecuador would become the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights,” says Thomas Linzey, Executive Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.

The following clauses will be included in the constitution that will be submitted to a countrywide vote, to be held 45 days after Assembly finishes its work later this month.

Chapter: Rights for Nature

Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

A long but very informational article complete w/ video breaks containing a wealth of information re: how the power elite are setting up(or have set up) the system to control our very sustenance.
--###--

original-permaculture

Orchestrating Famine - a Must-Read Backgrounder on the Food Crisis

Food Shortages, Global Warming/Climate Change, Population, peak oil — by Craig Mackintosh

The era of cheap food is over — this means disaster for millions, and mega-profits for a few. How did we get into this mess?

Most objective observers of the current food crisis are understandably concerned. Around 45% of the world’s population live on two dollars per day or less. Skyrocketing food prices are now bringing stress to two billion people, and despair to millions — around one hundred million, actually. The situation is only expected to further deteriorate as: the price of oil continues to soar; climate change-related disasters increase in frequency and intensity, and as policy decisions such as mandated biofuel quotas in our fuel supply further strengthens the already strong price connection between fuel and food. It is a humanitarian disaster that’s well underway, and one which seriously threatens to destabilize international security. As I’m sure you can appreciate, a hungry man is an angry man.

Making a killing

And yet, this situation is playing into the arms of large corporations who are making windfall profits out of desperate demand for the most basic of needs, and who see even greater opportunities for a lot more of the same in the coming months and years.

Much of the news coverage of the world food crisis has focused on riots in low-income countries, where workers and others cannot cope with skyrocketing costs of staple foods. But there is another side to the story: the big profits that are being made by huge food corporations and investors. Cargill, the world’s biggest grain trader, achieved an 86% increase in profits from commodity trading in the first quarter of this year. Bunge, another huge food trader, had a 77% increase in profits during the last quarter of last year. ADM, the second largest grain trader in the world, registered a 67% per cent increase in profits in 2007.

Nor are retail giants taking the strain: profits at Tesco, the UK supermarket giant, rose by a record 11.8% last year. Other major retailers, such as France’s Carrefour and Wal-Mart of the US, say that food sales are the main sector sustaining their profit increases. Investment funds, running away from sliding stock markets and the credit crunch, are having a heyday on the commodity markets, driving prices out of reach for food importers like Bangladesh and the Philippines.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

More evidence that the Ag Biotech industry only cares about the bottom line, and the the only beneficiary is AgBiotech itself, not the farmer, not the consumer and most definitely not the environment.
--###--

original-soilassociation

New Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more - sometimes less
PRESS RELEASE 04/10/2008 (version 1)
Categories: GMO | Policy Paper | Press Releases 2008 |

Coinciding with a manifesto from Country Life launched today, which urges people to 'learn to love GM crops', the Soil Association has published a report on the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said:
"GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures. As oil becomes scarcer and more expensive, we need to move away from oil dependent GM crops to producing food sustainably, using renewable energy, as is the case with organic farming."

Latest Research on GM Crop Yields

GM crops as a whole
First generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are in no way intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.

* An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that “currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. <…> In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars”. (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)
* The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004). This is not surprising given that first-generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are not intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.
* A 2003 report published in Science stated that “in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative”. (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite the authors being strong supporters of GM crops.
* Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly - depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)


Roundup Ready (RR) GM soya
Studies from 1999 - 2007 consistently show RR GM soya to yield 4 – 12% lower than conventional varieties.

* A 2007 study by Kansas State University agronomist Dr. Barney Gordon suggests that Roundup Ready soya continues to suffer from a yield drag: RR soya yielded 9% less than a close conventional relative.
* A carefully controlled study by University of Nebraska agronomists found that RR soya varieties yielded 6% less than their closest conventional relatives, and 11% less than high yielding conventional lines (Elmore et al, 2001). This 6% ‘yield drag’ was attributed to genetic modification, and corresponds to a substantial loss in production of 202 kg/ha.
* In 1998 several universities carried out a study demonstrating that, on average, RR soy varieties were 4% lower in yield than conventional varieties (Oplinger et al., 1999). These results clearly refuted Monsanto’s claim to the contrary (Gianessi, 2000).
* Yields of GM soybeans are especially low under drought conditions. Due to pleiotropic effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water stress), GM soybeans suffer 25% higher losses than conventional soybeans( Altieri and Pengue, 2005)
* 5 studies between 2001 -2007 show that glyphosate applied to Roundup Ready soybeans inhibits the uptake of important nutrients essential to plant health and performance. The resultant mineral deficiencies have been implicated in various problems, from increased disease susceptibility to inhibition of photosynthesis. Thus, the same factors implicated in the GM soya yield drag may also be responsible for increased susceptibility to disease. (Motavalli, et al., 2004; Neumann et al., 2006; King, et al.,2001; Bernards,M.L, 2005; Gordon, B., 2007).
* The yield drag of RR soya is reflected in flat overall soybean yields from 1995 to 2003, the very years in which GM soya adoption went from nil to 81% of U.S. soybean acreage. By one estimate, stagnating soybean yields in the U.S. cost soybean farmers $1.28 billion in lost revenues from1995 to 2003 (Ron Eliason, 2004).
* More recent evidence shows that the kilogram per hectare ratio of soybean has been in decline since 2002, leading to the conclusion that RR soy does not have an impact on yield (ABIOVE, 2006a).


Bt Maize
Only maize shows a persistent trend of yield increase into the biotech era, but even here the rate of increase is no greater after than before biotech varieties were introduced.

* A rigorous, independent study conducted in the U.S. under controlled conditions demonstrated that Bt maize yields anywhere from 12% less to the same as near-isoline (highly similar) conventional varieties (Ma & Subedi, 2005).


Bt Cotton
Despite claims of increased yield, Bt cotton has had no significant impact in real terms.

* Average cotton yields have increased 5-fold since 1930, and staged an impressive surge from1980 to the early 1990s. Cotton yields then went flat, and continued to stagnate during the seven years of GM cotton’s rise to dominance. The steep yield and production increases in 2004 and 2005 were chiefly attributable to excellent weather conditions (Meyer et al., 2007).
* Bt cotton, introduced to Australia in 1996, has not offered a boost to the cotton sector, and since its adoption has not provided improvements in either yield, or quality (ISAAA, 2006b).
* Cotton South Africa show constant yield levels before and after adoption of Bt cotton (Witt et al 2005, cited in FoEI Who Benefits 2007), in contradiction to ISAAA claims that Bt has brought about a 24% yield increase in the region.
* Outbreaks of the secondary pests that are not killed by the Bt insecticide have rendered Bt cotton ineffective in China (Connor, S., July 27, 2006), and are also becoming a problem in North Carolina (Caldwell, D. 2002) and Georgia (Hollis, P.L., 2006).
* An article in Nature Biotechnology notes that the poor performance of Bt cotton varieties used in India (which were developed for the short U.S. growing season) is linked to the loss of their insecticidal properties late in India’s longer growing season, and because Bt cotton insecticide is not expressed in 25% of the cotton bolls of India’s preferred hybrid cotton varieties (Jayaraman, K.S., 2005)



During the Government's 2003 'national debate' on whether or not to allow commercial planting of GM crops, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which represents land agents amongst others, predicted 'long-term chaos' and possible declines in land values if GM crops were planted. <1> Recent research in Sweden has confirmed that GM seeds can remain active in farmland for at least 10-years, adding scientific support to the RICS's concern about the impact on land values of growing GM crops.

Ends

For media enquiries please contact Clio Turton, Soil Association senior press officer, 0117 914 2448 / cturton@soilassociation.org

Notes to editor:

<1> Extract from an article published in Daily Telegraph: GM crop trials 'pose threat to property prices'
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor (4 June 2003)
Property prices could be undermined if land is polluted with traces of genetically modified crops, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said yesterday at the start of a Government-sponsored debate on whether Britain should approve commercial GM varieties.
Surveyors and land agents warned of "long-term chaos" in the property market unless buyers were provided with information on the farms, allotments and gardens where GM crops were or had been grown.
The RICS said accurate information on where GM crops were planted was essential to buyers wishing to purchase or rent land for non-GM or organic production and to financial institutions lending against land and property.

References:

ABIOVE, 2006a. Sustainaibility in the Legal Amazon. Presentation by Carlo Lovatelli at the Second Roundtable on Responsible Soy. Paraguay, 1 September 2006. http://www.abiove.com.br/english/palestras...

Altieri, M., Pengue, W., 2005. GM Soya Disaster in Latin America: Hunger, Deforestation and Socio-ecological Devastation.

Bernards, M.L. et al, 2005. Glyphosate interaction with manganese in tank mixtures and its effect on glyphosate absorption and translocation. Weed Science 53: 787-794.

Caldwell, D. 2002. A Cotton Conundrum. Perspectives OnLine: The Magazine of the
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University,Winter 2002. http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/w...

Connor, S., July 27, 2006. Farmers use as much pesticide with GM crops, US study finds. The Independent.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/...

Elmore et al, 2001. Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines, Agron J 2001 93: 408-412, quote from the University of Nebraska press release online at http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.sht...

European Commission, 2000. Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on theAgri-food Sector. http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publ...

FAO, 2004. The State of World Food and Agriculture 2004. Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor? http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/... /

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell. April 2006. Genetically Engineered Crops in the UnitedStates. USDA/ERS Economic Information Bulletin n. 11.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11...

FoEI, January 2007. Who Benefits from GM crops? An analysis of the global performance of GM crops (1996-2006)

Gianessi, L.P., April 2000. Agriculture Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, p. 63.
http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/rrsoy...

Gordon, B., 2007. Manganese nutrition of glyphosate-resistant and conventional
soybeans. Better Crops, Vol. 91, No. 4: 12-13

Hollis, P.L., February 15 2006. Why plant cotton’s new genetics? Southeast Farm Press. http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_... /

ISAAA, 2006b. GM crops: the first ten years- Global Socio-Economic and Environmental impacts. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publication... -
36-2006.pdf

Jayaraman, K.S., November 2005. Monsanto’s Bollgard potentially compromised in
India. Nature Biotechnology.

King, A.C., L.C. Purcell and E.D. Vories, 2001. Plant growth and nitrogenase activity of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in response to foliar glyphosate applications. Agronomy Journal 93:179-186.

Ma & Subedi, 2005. "Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines," Field Crops Research 93 (2-3): 199-211, at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...

Meyer, L., S.MacDonald& L. Foreman,March 2007. Cotton Backgrounder. USDA Economic Research Service Outlook Report.

Motavalli, P.P. et al., 2004. “Impact of genetically modified crops and their management on soil microbially mediated plant nutrient transformations,” J. Environ. Qual. 33:816-824;

Neumann, G. et al., 2006. “Relevance of glyphosate transfer to non-target plants via the rhizosphere,” Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 20 63-969.

Oplinger, E.S et al., 1999. Performance of Transgenetic Soyabeans, Northern US.
http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean_perfor...

Qaim, M. and Zilberman, D., 7 February 2003. “Yield Effects of Genetically Modified
Crops in Developing Countries” in Science, vol. 299, p. 900.

Ron Eliason, 2004. Stagnating National Bean Yields. 2004 Midwest Soybean
Conference, cited by Dan Sullivan, “Is Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready gene
responsible for a flattening of U.S. soybean yields,”NewFarm.org, September 28, 2004, online at http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybe...

























complete release including links to related sources here

original-ananova

GM 'failing to keep promises'

Genetically-modified crops are not delivering on the promised benefits of increased yields or reduced pesticides, Friends of the Earth has claimed ahead of a report from the industry on the growth of GM.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) is expected to detail the rise in GM crops and the contribution they are making to tackling world hunger and poverty.

But a Friends of the Earth report released ahead of the biotech industry's annual announcement said damaging pesticides are on the increase as a result of widespread farming of the plants.

And rather than tackling poverty in developing countries, much of the GM crops grown - the vast majority of which are in the US and South America - are used for animal feed or for biofuels, the environmental group's report said.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

Thanks for your service Mr Nack, and thanks for this account.Good luck in your future endeavors
--###--

original-registerguard

War without glory

By Sean Nack For The Register-Guard

Published: February 10, 2008 04:38AM

Iwish I could tell you a story. There would be a believer, a young man, a proud soldier unhindered by doubt, knowing in his heart that he is fighting, ultimately, for the greater good, and that in his lifetime he would see the fruits of his labors — that he could, with his blood, buy the freedom of a people, of a nation.

That is not my story.

My story begins in boredom. From boredom my Army career burst forth, a misguided Athena from the furrowed brow of a confused Zeus. I didn’t so much drop out of Southern Oregon University as I weaned myself off of it. The classes slowly slipped away, the earnest intellectual enthusiasm with which I had attacked my education slowly ebbing and finally dying the slow death that it sought.

Like many of my generation, I needed a direction, a purpose. I needed something, anything, to change. I needed a new horizon. Funny thing about horizons; you never catch one. I’ve followed mine steadily eastward, first to Fort Benning, Ga., School of the Infantry, then to Fort Drum, N.Y., and then Paktika Province, Afghanistan. I wish I could tell you a dramatic story of violence, war, glory and honor on the battlefield.

But that is not my story.

In my story we fight, certainly. We get in more regular TICs (Troops In Contact) than anywhere else in Afghanistan. We roll down a “road,” a rain-carved wadi in the midst of this insane terrain, before we are accosted by explosions. What starts as the whoosh of a rocket-propelled grenade soon becomes a cacophony, a wall of sound and lead that shakes your bones, fear that shakes your soul, panic that shakes your nerve, tempered by a will to strengthen your resolve.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here

Ah, the wonders of NAFTA.How Do *YOU* say slavery in the 21st century?
--###--

original-organicconsumers.org|

Corporate Globalization: Standing at the End of the Road
By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, February 11, 2008

Standing at the end of Avenida Madero (Madero Avenue) on the last day of January 2008, a stone throw from the Zocalo or City Center of Mexico City, I am swept along in a sea of thousands of farmers and laborers, carrying signs and banners. Streaming from the historic statue of the Angel of Independence, symbolically setting fire to a decrepit tractor, one hundred and fifty thousand small farmers, teachers, workers, and neighborhood activists are marching to repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and end the illegal "dumping' by Cargill, ADM, and Monsanto of billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidized U.S. agricultural crops-beans, rice, sugar, powdered milk, soybeans, and genetically engineered corn--onto the Mexican market.

NAFTA, pushed through in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. in 1994 over the opposition of the majority of North Americans, is literally driving Mexico's thirty million small farmers and villagers off the land and into the slums of Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Tijuana, Juarez, and other cities; or else, following the path of twelve million others before them, across the increasingly dangerous border into the United States to find work. Rural villages in Mexico have become literal economic ghost towns of women, children, and the elderly. In some municipalities, 80-90% of the men and boys are gone, increasingly joined by the young women.

A dark-skinned peasant woman, wearing her kitchen apron, approaches me. I stand out in the crowd, an obvious gringo with my Code Pink anti-war T-shirt and my Organic Consumers Association baseball cap. The farm woman patiently explains to me how NAFTA has broken up her family. Her two sons and her daughter, like millions of other “jovenes” (young people), she explains, desperate for a living wage, did not want to leave their community or abandon their families, but they had no choice. And now, with the militarized border, so-called illegal aliens, like her children, can no longer take the risk of coming back home to visit. Her sons and daughter, like most other immigrants, send back "remesas" (money) to help support their families. This twenty-four billion dollar annual lifeline is the only thing standing between Mexico's rural population and utter poverty.

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article here