Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals
Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings for these products."
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity....These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."
I'm calling bullshit on Monsanto. There is no absolute proof that GMO is safe. The health effects of all the other foods we eat is known because we've been eating it for so long. Some people are even allergic to various food like peanuts. But GMO? It's not the same food as the original. Not even close. These plants produce their own insecticide!
Monsanto... Your gig is up. We the American people should have a nation wide class action lawsuit for the harm you've done to each of us through at least the GMO food stuff you say is safe. Denial only lasted so long for the Cigarette industry.
The Investor Revolution
I've been wondering recently why stock market investors don't have much power over companies. This explains it very well.
From what i understand this bill allows investors to have some say in selecting board members. This is a FANTASTIC idea. This is how private corporations work. The owners have a say. Any venture capital firm will tell you that this is how they operate. Companies aren't just allowed to do what they want without the owners authorization. This bill essentially brings this mentality to publicly traded companies. How good is it? Well, it sounds awesome and is a great start toward restoring capitalism in the economy.
A few other ideas i had regarding investor ownership. Remove corporate personhood. This would make investors responsible for corporate actions... both good and bad. A rising stock price is worth being an active investor. Another idea i had was an investor union. This would allow investors to have one or a set of representatives within the company. I'm not sure exactly how it would work but maybe an investor tax on the company like a penny per outstanding share per year to pay for this union. Shrug. just an idea. Maybe have a Chief Investor Outreach Officer. Anyway. Please register and comment on other methods of controlling corporations.
I'm also fond of making all health insurance companies into non-profit entities. This would remove the profit motive and allow them to focus on the health motive.
The most interesting thing to ponder is what would happen if investors really had a say in public companies.
- Green investors would love to buy big oil and convert them, for their own good, into future energy providers of solar, wind, and ocean. (I'd even buy some shares in Exxon-Mobil to help this happen!!). Yeah, it may be expensive but it's better than not being forward thinking, letting the companies fail, or worse, bailing them out.
- Investors could demand that companies split up to create more jobs if deemed too big to fail
Basically, investors have their lives to draw upon in making decisions, not just their pocket books. This could inject a longer term view into corporate culture.
There could be harm done, but investors would have to keep each other in check just as they need to keep the board and management in check.
Government was designed around three branches for checks and balances. Companies should be designed around this same model of checks and balances. Management (like the White House), Board of Directors (like the Court system), and Investors (like Congress). There are similarities but there are also differences. Regardless, three is better than two for checks and balances.
For example, just look at our two party political system and how corrupted by money and influence it has become. A third party candidate could provide a much need breath of fresh air, but also the balance to keep the Republicrats focused on the benefit of the people. This is why I believe we should institute all elections as instant run off voting. People wouldn't be afraid to vote their real values instead of the lesser of two evils.
Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change skeptic, gave a presentation at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN. In this 4 minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning to all Americans regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty, scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.
Apple Resigns From U.S. Chamber of Commerce Over Climate Change Stance
Apple Resigns From U.S. Chamber of Commerce Over Climate Change Stance
Apple is committeed to protecting the environment and the communities in which we operate around the world. We strongly object to the Chamber's recent comments opposing the EPA's effort to limit greenhouse gases.
Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort. We would prefer that the Chamber take a more progressive stance on this critical issue and play a construtive role in addressing the climate crisis. However, because the Chamber's position differs so sharply with Apple's, we have decided to resign our membership effective immediately.
Even big companies are telling our leaders that they NEED to do something. Yet they don't listen.
Are you convinced yet that this is corporate fascism? Oil. Why did we put a failed oil man in office?
Military action in the US?
If this revolt becomes superchanged (and i suspect it is that explosive) will the government put into action the military in the USA to control and subdue us? That is illegal. The military is BANNED from conducting military operations on it's own citizens. That's because if the people don't like the system and the system has been hijacked by bankers, corporations, and money, we can exercise our right to change the system. If changes to the system aren't made at the federal level, it will be made at our level... civil disobedience. Like, maybe, we should all stop paying our mortgages and credit cards starting Jan 1st 2010 in singular protest against the banks to force the government to make real changes. We don't need to stand in the street with signs. Use the internet, use your check book (or in this case don't use it), and talk about it with friends. Can this make the situation worse? Yes. A part of this revolution is about telling our leaders we are in control, and we may even have to take our own economy hostage to get the right changes in place... Changes that make our country democratic again.
This is about as troubling to me as the unknown run away Carbon dioxide feedback loops that climate researchers always talk about. If there is a silent distributed riot of protest and civil disobedience i only hope we will be demanding the right things. My outline of "the right things" are these:
- End Corporate Personhood via US Constitutional Amendment. This would stop corporate influence in the government.
- Audit and End the Federal Reserve
- Back Dollars by something, anything, valuable like gold, silver, or infrastructure
- Start addressing oil and energy dependency on carbon emitting technologies including "clean coal". And do it because it's our fucking national security at stake. $300 billion for clean technology development instead of the Iraq war would be a much better investment into national security. God, i can't believe how stupid George W. Bush is.
- Take the threat of environmental catastrophe seriously. Stop debating if, when, and why, and do something. A nuke would be tame compared to what mother nature can dish out. If you get on mother natures bad side after she woke up on the wrong side of the bed, wow. I don't want to be in that room with her! Not even the same house or block. Man, I think it would be safer on Mars and watch her wrath from a distance.
- Implement Instant Run-off Voting so every vote truly does count
Politicians, you need to start listening to the people that elected you. You need to make radical changes to the system to benefit us, the people. Indeed, we will be a different country after changes are made and it may even take a while to sort out the new rules of the game.
We could remake America in the same way our country was founded. At the time we were under the tyranny of the British. We actually fought, with violence and death, for our freedom from their control. To ensure the right of the people, the revolutionaries, our founding fathers, created the US Constitution to endow the people of this country with inalienable rights.
For a very, very long time we have not been following the Constitution to the letter. "Oh, those silly articles! We don't need them. This is the 21st century!" Technology may seem like it supersedes some things. Not sticking to that document has led us astray.
The most blatant contortion of the original intent of the Constitution is that corporations have nearly the same rights as people. Corporations don't have morals, people do, that is the difference. Immorality is corruption. This immoral injustice is encoded by law, by meme, by learn helplessness, by default, by institutions, by debt (aka, money). It's learned to protect itself. Memes can be very, very powerful. You must question them even if it means change.
Here is the kicker. If the change we need to make is hard or painful, the risk of inaction will be much, much worse and even catastrophic.
We can’t wait any longer
Cassandras of Climate from New York Times
Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.
This is the truth, yo. Change does not mean total destruction. It means unrest. The companies need the unrest. It is survival of the fittest, no? That's what capitalism is! Capitalism is darwinian theory in ideas and products. We can apply our own "darwinian force" on companies. If we change the priorities of companies, they will follow. I don't advocate excessive regulation... only for the externalities... that is to say, what business does not naturally account for, like the environment, health, democracy, or national security. (BTW, we already classify mathematical formula for encryption as munitions thus rendering their export illegal, aka. math and ideas are a national security concern).
Al Gore’s new thinking on the climate crisis
Yeah, yeah, this is a few years old but it has only become more relevant.
Government and Climate Crisis
This is how we can make a decision on what to do about climate change.