The World According to Monsanto

First of all I'm glad I wasn't locked out of the blog today. I guess I'm a little paranoid in light of today's topic. Monsanto wants to corner the market on agricultural seed production. First of all I really didn't really understand the full ramifications of the term "genetic engineering" until yesterday. What they do is engineer their seed like computer software, to self destruct when used more than once. They say the seed is only good for one crop and if you try to use the new crop of seeds, dire things will happen to the crops, or any crops you crossbreed with. This monopoly would give Monsanto amazing leverage in the case of a major world famine. Everyone, they hope, would come to them to buy seed. They say that they have seed used for animal feed which produces its own insecticide. Also if you get poisoned by their insecticide, you can be made imune but only by ingesting crops grown with Monsanto seed. It's a major danger to world commerce and I am hoping the Dept. of Agriculture will take needed steps. There was a vote in the Kansas legeslature to keep seed producers from labeling their seed as either safe or unsafe. The governor vetoed this bizzare bill. Also with the hormones they are putting in cow's milk, the incidents of both prostate and breast cancer on the rise, but I don't know if that's a Monsanto product. You may remember Monsanto produced that "World of Matter" Disneyland ride. Now there is a movie you can rent called "The World According to Monsanto" and it can be obtained at the site seedsofdeception.com and I don't know if that will turn into a live link or not.

They say we've rounded the corner as far as the banking crisis is concerned. The banks are out of the woods, it's just the rest of us who are in trouble. They gave some "stress test" to the banks. (Did they run a tred-mill?) They passed the financial stress test but many say the test was too easy and that likely but negetive contingencies wern't tested for. But for the rest of us things don't look so good. I mistakenly told my brother last week I thought stocks had re-traced half of their losses. That isn't even true on a logerithmic scale. We aren't even close to a half way retrenchment. The long term pattern is still down. I say this because in 1982 while we were months away from the bottom, the market turned up decisively, and while we were still weeks away from the bottom, in November of 1982 the markets broke into new, high ground. I say this because some people still want to "get out at the break-even point". Make no mistake about it there will be a lot of "resistence" as stock technicians say, when we even approach the old highs. We have lost another five hundred thousand jobs. This is "less bad" than it has been, so I guess the resultant 8.9% unemployment figure is "less bad" than they expected.

Many people are still waiting for Obama to take the web site's advice and "Go Left". Nancy Skinner will be off the air for at least several months so liberals all over are popping their champaign corks today. She is in the extreme minority of KTLK talk show hosts on the position of prosecuting the members of the Bush Administration for war crimes and civil rights violations. They are putting bills through congress to regulate Mortgages as to what they can no longer do, and to spell out rights more completely for consumers. Also they have slapped a limit on intrest rates the credit card companies can charge. There will be no more 24% or higher charges. That is 24% in real money with little inflation with a base price of zero, so that is pure profit for them, taxed at the bargain basement rate of 15% courtesy the Bush adminestration. This is a very different "real interest rate" situation from what existed thirty years ago. Also in the news today is the exclusion by Congress and whoever of anybody in favor of the Single Payer Health Cars system. They aren't even allowed to sit at the table or participate in discussion or to help in the formulation of policies. I think what exasperates many on the left with President Obama is that he "gives everything away" right off the top, so that the left have no chips left with which to bargain. The H M O's are ripping everybody off. They'll offer you a fifty dollar cute in rates if you'll agree to have the deductable jacked up to $7,500. Of course if I have it right the government wants to tax the health plan you have at work as actual income. People in Europe and other nations are laughing at us paying such high rates for health rate coverage, when we don't even have it. It's an idea whose time will come - sooner or later.

Lady Liberty, as it were, has been in mourning since 9 - 11 because they haven't allowed public tours up to the viewing platform in the crown. But that all will be changing soon as tourists will once again be allowed, on a lottery basic, to make that long, winding trek up to the top. I consider it an important symbolic act, to make "liberty" accessable to all.

People are worried about Pakistan and Afghanistan. The question is who to side with in that region of the world- - the Shiites or Al Qaeda or the Pakistini government that may be falling apart. It's always been my contention that you side with the group that is the least insane, and to my way of thinking that's the Shiites at this point. If we could become their friends- - and Ronald Reagan wanted to do it- - perhaps they would look to us rather than China for financial aid and guidence. They always say "Keep your friends close and your enemies closser". If we gamble on the Pakistani government - - and Al Qaeda overruns the place, we are kind of out of political amunition. In siding with Iran, we can maintain our war with Al Qaeda and perhaps realize that illusive goal of capturing Bin Laden - - and we know they aren't going any where. They will still be there tomorrow. We can't say that about Pakistan. Our P R in that part of the world hasn't been too good with our drone planes killing civilians. In the past I have viewed the Afghan situation with more rosey colored glasses. But if the tide goes against us now- - we could have the whole region including Russia on our backs. It would seem to me that if we picked one ally with whom our credibility isn't too damaged, and stuck with them, this would be better. I am not anti Israel. Even Israeli leaders have said there needs to be a Palistinian nation. If I were President I think I'd try and nail down all the previous ambiguities in communacation and tie all the loose ends together and hammer out a situation I really think both people would prefer if they thought about it rationally. In StarTrek there was this episode about a negotiator who just "wore out" both sides untill they both agreed to the terms that he set down.