If you are truly interested in agriculture and the effects of GMO’s, I highly recommend you spend some time on the Monsanto blog itself. They are very open to allowing dissenting opinions and take a great deal of time and effort to make their case . . . → Read More: Monsanto and Haiti]]> I believe every story has two sides… at least.

If you are truly interested in agriculture and the effects of GMO’s, I highly recommend you spend some time on the Monsanto blog itself. They are very open to allowing dissenting opinions and take a great deal of time and effort to make their case in a respectful way.

If you are getting all your information from places like Food Inc, Ralph Nader, etc, I highly encourage you to continue your education by looking at the full picture.

Maybe it won’t change your mind, but it will at least make you a more educated consumer.

In this case, I thought I’d put links to the Haiti discussions that have been going on at the Monsanto blog.

Here are the links to the Haiti seed donation controversy:

Monsanto Donates Corn and Vegetable Seed to Haiti – Monsanto Blog – Beyond the Rows

No, there are no contracts involved with Monsanto in the purchase of
this seed since this is a donation. Once the seed arrives in Haiti, the
WINNER project and the Earth Institute will handle distribution. There
will be no business transactions between Monsanto and Haitian farmers as
part of this donation.

Five Answers on Monsanto’s Haiti Seed Donation – Monsanto Blog – Beyond the Rows

It is a donation. That means farmers have no obligation to Monsanto. Yes, they can save the seeds. No, we would not sue them.

Take a look at the photo essay below and try to convince me that we aren’t insanely fortunate to have the food system we have here in the U.S.

Photo Essay: The End of Plenty

I’m sorry, but I’ve seen a lot of farm . . . → Read More: Food and Our World]]> Food is an incredibly important issue in our global society.

Take a look at the photo essay below and try to convince me that we aren’t insanely fortunate to have the food system we have here in the U.S.

Photo Essay: The End of Plenty

I’m sorry, but I’ve seen a lot of farm land this summer and we bicker about meaningless topics (organic, hybrid, etc). Thank GOD I am going to bed stuffed to the gills from amazing food… EVERY SINGLE NIGHT OF MY LIFE.

To the American farmer: Thank you for everything you do. Thank you for the incredible yields you push out. Thank you for safe food. Thank you for delicious food. Thank you thank you thank you!

I’m all for it ]]> Check out this article. It’s from a scientist who thinks we can live forever:
My bright idea: Aubrey de Grey on living longer | Science | The Observer

I’m all for it

Today, they link to an article by Roubini:

Calculated Risk: Roubini: “Reflections on the latest sucker’s rally”

People love Roubini because he pretty much called this economic situation spot on:

Nouriel Roubini – Wikipedia, the free . . . → Read More: Why I think we’re at the bottom]]> I follow the economic catastrophe at a variety of places. One blog I love is Calculated Risk.

Today, they link to an article by Roubini:

Calculated Risk: Roubini: “Reflections on the latest sucker’s rally”

People love Roubini because he pretty much called this economic situation spot on:

Nouriel Roubini – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fortune magazine wrote of him, “In 2005, Roubini said home prices were riding a speculative wave that would soon sink the economy. Back then the professor was called a Cassandra. Now he’s a sage.”[1] In September, 2006, he announced to a skeptical International Monetary Fund (IMF) that an economic crisis was brewing. “In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession,” according to the New York Times.[2] According to the Times, he accurately foresaw “homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt.” The NY Times even labeled him “Dr. Doom.” In hindsight, IMF economist Prakash Loungani has called him “a prophet,”[2] and the vice chairman of AIG said “Roubini was intellectually courageous, and he called the shots correctly.”

In the article I linked to above he is basically saying that we are in a “dead cat bounce”. Basically things are going to continue to get worse because we haven’t solved the heart of this issue.

I have been touting the fact that I think we are at the bottom. And while I agree with Roubini that the heart of this still has significant problems, I still feel confident that we are roughly at the bottom and will be heading up from here.

This is why I think this:
Confidence is truly at the heart of all this.

Things are contracting primarily because people are scared.

Economics becomes incredibly difficult to measure and predict because emotion plays a major factor in determining the ups and downs.

Because of that, I feel that egghead economists often times do not have a tool to accurately measure today’s confidence, much less predict it into the future.

Simply put: I believe people are tired of being scared and not buying.

I think people are ready for this to be over and so… it will be over.

I know that isn’t quantitative. But the driver of this mess is primarily psychological.

I’ve been predicting that March would be the end of this for quite some time.

It’s just because Spring is a good time to start anew.

You’ll see. I’m right. Roubini is wrong (this time).

Educated Americans love to sight the BBC as “unbiased, unfiltered news.” It’s just news that fits with their own bias.

I just read this fascinating story about the Dalai Lama:

Dalai . . . → Read More: Dalai Lama’s utter distortion of Tibet history]]> It’s truly rare for me to get an extremely clear perspective from a news organization that has a total different point of view.

Educated Americans love to sight the BBC as “unbiased, unfiltered news.” It’s just news that fits with their own bias.

I just read this fascinating story about the Dalai Lama:

Dalai Lama’s utter distortion of Tibet history_English_Xinhua

According to the article, the Dalai Lama is a cruel dictator that was the true oppressor of people.

This article popped up on my Google News home page.

With a little researching I learned that the souce is:

Xinhua News Agency – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Xinhua News Agency is the official press agency of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the biggest center for collecting information and press conferences in the PRC

The Internet is so amazing because you get to see stuff like this.

It’s a well written piece that uses “facts” to make its case.

What impressed me was how fluid “facts” can be.

Jindal to refuse some stimulus money – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state . . . → Read More: Jindal Is Wrong – Expanding State Unemployment Insurance Is Temporary]]> I’m really curious about this whole thing of some Republican Governors not accepting part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 a.k.a: stimulus package:

Jindal to refuse some stimulus money – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

So, I set out to see what I could find.

First, I downloaded the Act.

Of course they put it in pdf format so it’s really hard to search and there certainly aren’t any hyperlinks.

It would have been nice of these governors to reference the specific section of concern. But alas, politicians don’t do that because they use information as a wedge by hording it and bluring it (all politicians do this, mind you. It pisses the the complete crap out of me.)

Because I’m not a lawyer, and I have other obligations besides slicing and dicing 13mb pdf files filled with legalese, in a quick scan, I think the section they are referring to is:

Division B

TITLE II—ASSISTANCE FOR UNEMPLOYED WORKERS AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES

Sec. 2005. Full Federal funding of extended unemployment compensation for a limited
period.

*********

But I could be totally wrong. I do, however, feel fairly confident that it is somewhere in this Division B, Title II. It is likely in one of these sections somewhere:

Sec. 2000. Short title; table of contents of title.
Subtitle A—Unemployment Insurance
Sec. 2001. Extension of emergency unemployment compensation program.
Sec. 2002. Increase in unemployment compensation benefits.
Sec. 2003. Special transfers for unemployment compensation modernization.
Sec. 2004. Temporary assistance for states with advances.
Sec. 2005. Full Federal funding of extended unemployment compensation for a limited
period.
Sec. 2006. Temporary increase in extended unemployment benefits under the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act.
Subtitle B—Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals
Sec. 2101. Emergency fund for TANF program.
Sec. 2102. Extension of TANF supplemental grants.
Sec. 2103. Clarification of authority of States to use TANF funds carried over from
prior years to provide TANF benefits and services.
Sec. 2104. Temporary resumption of prior child support law.
Subtitle C—Economic Recovery Payments to Certain Individuals
Sec. 2201. Economic recovery payment to recipients of social security, supplemental
security income, railroad retirement benefits, and veterans disability
compensation or pension benefits.
Sec. 2202. Special credit for certain government retirees.

*************

If you look at all those headings, Section 2005 appears to be the section. This is what it says:

SEC. 2005. FULL FEDERAL FUNDING OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FOR A LIMITED PERIOD.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of sharable extended compensation
and sharable regular compensation paid for weeks of unemployment
beginning after the date of the enactment of this section
and before January 1, 2010, section 204(a)(1) of the Federal-State
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (26 U.S.C.
3304 note) shall be applied by substituting ‘‘100 percent of’’ for
‘‘one-half of’’.
(b) SPECIAL RULE.—At the option of a State, for any weeks
of unemployment beginning after the date of the enactment of
this section and before January 1, 2010, an individual’s eligibility
period (as described in section 203(c) of the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970) shall, for purposes of
any determination of eligibility for extended compensation under
the State law of such State, be considered to include any week
which begins—
(1) after the date as of which such individual exhausts
all rights to emergency unemployment compensation; and
(2) during an extended benefit period that began on or
before the date described in paragraph (1).
(c) LIMITED EXTENSION.—In the case of an individual who
receives extended compensation with respect to 1 or more weeks
of unemployment beginning after the date of the enactment of
this Act and before January 1, 2010, the provisions of subsections
(a) and (b) shall, at the option of a State, be applied by substituting
‘‘ending before June 1, 2010’’ for ‘‘before January 1, 2010’’.
(d) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY FEDERAL MATCHING FOR THE
FIRST WEEK OF EXTENDED BENEFITS FOR STATES WITH NO WAITING
WEEK.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 5 of the Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–449) is
amended by striking ‘‘December 8, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘May
30, 2010’’.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by paragraph
(1) shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110–449).
(e) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—
(1) the terms ‘‘sharable extended compensation’’ and ‘‘sharable
regular compensation’’ have the respective meanings given
such terms under section 204 of the Federal-State Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970;
(2) the terms ‘‘extended compensation’’, ‘‘State’’, ‘‘State law’’,
and ‘‘week’’ have the respective meanings given such terms
under section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1970;
(3) the term ‘‘emergency unemployment compensation’’
means benefits payable to individuals under title IV of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 with respect to their
unemployment; and
(4) the term ‘‘extended benefit period’’ means an extended
benefit period as determined in accordance with applicable
H. R. 1—331
provisions of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation
Act of 1970.
(f) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Labor may prescribe any
operating instructions or regulations necessary to carry out this
section.

***********

I also found a part of Section 2002 interesting:

…from SEC. 2002. INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
(e) APPLICABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—An agreement entered into under this
section shall apply to weeks of unemployment—
(A) beginning after the date on which such agreement
is entered into; and
(B) ending before January 1, 2010.
(2) TRANSITION RULE FOR INDIVIDUALS REMAINING ENTITLED
TO REGULAR COMPENSATION AS OF JANUARY 1, 2010.—In the
case of any individual who, as of the date specified in paragraph
(1)(B), has not yet exhausted all rights to regular compensation
under the State law of a State with respect to a benefit year
that began before such date, additional compensation (as
described in subsection (b)(1)) shall continue to be payable
to such individual for any week beginning on or after such
date for which the individual is otherwise eligible for regular
compensation with respect to such benefit year.
(3) TERMINATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, no additional compensation (as described in
subsection (b)(1)) shall be payable for any week beginning after
June 30, 2010.

I’m pretty sure Jindal is talking about this money:

$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week

If that’s the sticky wicket, then that is found here:

SEC. 2002. INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS.
(a) FEDERAL-STATE AGREEMENTS.—Any State which desires to
do so may enter into and participate in an agreement under this
section with the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’). Any State which is a party to
an agreement under this section may, upon providing 30 days’
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.
(b) PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT.—
(1) ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.—Any agreement under this
section shall provide that the State agency of the State will
make payments of regular compensation to individuals in
amounts and to the extent that they would be determined
if the State law of the State were applied, with respect to
any week for which the individual is (disregarding this section)
otherwise entitled under the State law to receive regular compensation,
as if such State law had been modified in a manner
such that the amount of regular compensation (including
dependents’ allowances) payable for any week shall be equal
to the amount determined under the State law (before the
application of this paragraph) plus an additional $25.

*************

The interesting part of that section is this: “Any State which is a party to
an agreement under this section may, upon providing 30 days’
written notice to the Secretary, terminate such agreement.”

Therefore, I conclude that Jindal and others like him are wrong. This money can have a sunset clause on it and they are using this as a way of trying to make something out of nothing.

If Republicans want to make a path for themselves they are going to have to come up with something better than manipulating people into believing things that aren’t true.

Republicans have a valuable role in the 2 party system. But this isn’t it.

This is a Thomas Friedman (“Hot Flat and Crowded”) piece. He is writing it from Asia. There are many, many Americans who often feel embarrassed by their country and fellow countrymen. One reason is because we are so self-obsessed that we hardly acknowledge there are . . . → Read More: America on Center Stage]]>

Op-Ed Columnist – Paging Uncle Sam – NYTimes.com

This is a Thomas Friedman (“Hot Flat and Crowded”) piece. He is writing it from Asia. There are many, many Americans who often feel embarrassed by their country and fellow countrymen. One reason is because we are so self-obsessed that we hardly acknowledge there are other countries outside of our boarders.

In that light, we must not forget that the entire world is in economic meltdown right now. And it appears, if Friedman is right, the rest of the world is looking for us to pull everyone out of this mess (even though we were the ones who put the whole world here in the first place)>

“No other country can substitute for the U.S.,” a senior Korean official remarked to me. “The U.S. is still No. 1 in military, No. 1 in economy, No. 1 in promoting human rights and No. 1 in idealism. Only the U.S. can lead the world. No other country can. China can’t. The E.U. is too divided, and Europe is militarily far behind the U.S. So it is only the United States … We have never had a more unipolar world than we have today.”

Americans, as a people, should realize how many hopes and expectations other people are putting on their shoulders.”

But I know I’m not the only one who does this. Factcheck.org points out an important fact:

Why all the uncertainty among first-rate economists? Well, for one thing, economists have very little data with which to work. There are plenty of . . . → Read More: My Prejudice]]> I fight with a known prejudice I have concerning this whole economic thing.

But I know I’m not the only one who does this. Factcheck.org points out an important fact:

Why all the uncertainty among first-rate economists? Well, for one thing, economists have very little data with which to work. There are plenty of theoretical models out there, but those models are largely untested. See, economics is a relatively new discipline, with much of its most important work having been done just within the last 50 years. Fortunately for most of us, the world hasn’t seen many serious, worldwide economic crises during that time. Unfortunately for us, our long period of relative prosperity means that economists haven’t been able to plug a lot of real-world situations into their models to see how well those models hold up. Indeed, there are basically just two modern depressions: the Great Depression and the so-called “lost decade” in Japan during the 1990s.

So, no one holds the absolute truth in these matters.

Therefore this becomes a “hard problem” (a problem that has no clear solution. An “easy problem” is one where we know the solution no matter how difficult that may be.)

Since the answer is so unclear how else do I decide how to lean? Prejudice, I guess.

I feel like I’m a centrist liberal. I am fairly conservative in money… but there are some wrongs in the world that shouldn’t be allowed to continue… children with no health care, working families going bankrupt because of medical bills. I just don’t like to see people (Americans especially) suffer through little to no fault of their own. I also am pretty extreme when it comes to foreign oil and adhere pretty closely to the Pickens Plan. While I believe the environment is in trouble, it’s not as important an issue for me as the two mentioned.

I have been thrown into a bit of a tail spin since Greenspan said basically that his assumptions about how the world economy worked are pretty much all wrong.

Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model … that defines how the world works.”

I was heavily leaning towards a Greenspan Libertarianism until all of “this” happened.

Additionally, in that article he points out that he did not see this housing crisis to unfold as significantly as it did. I can’t tell you how many people I talk to today that say they saw the housing crisis (of it’s current proportions) was something they saw a mile away. Not only are these people world-class Monday morning quarterbacks, they have deceived themselves into believing they were extraordinary soothsayers.

So, I guess I just take all that information and, based on my preferences for social order, adhere to the strategy that seems to make sense from there.

Tax cuts don’t seem to help anyone, nor do they show any signs of working in the previous administration. But ultimately because nothing works in a vacuum, I can’t declare this with complete clarity and confidence.

And then there is the fact that I just gravitate so easily to the mind of Paul Krugman. He is the most recent Nobel Laureate for economics.

At this point I’m not convinced that anything will work as some sort of be all end all answer. The secret will be to turn America’s phsychological perspective. The mass pessimism is the destroyer here. The key will be to do something big that shocks all Americans out of this slump.

Shock and awe. That’s what I think is most important here.

Build a ton of bridges. Fix our roads. Get Amtrak a new corridor. Weaterize a bunch of houses. Just get us moving in a big way.

WASHINGTON  – U.S. President Barack Obama has announced that war against Winter has begun.

In his address at 0315 GMT Thursday, Obama said: