Sustainable Agriculture.

[Day Brown]

First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

We put traces of iodine in the salt and floride in the toothpaste for
well known physical health reasons. And we see where traces of lead and
mercury have devastating effects on childhood development. Recently,
they have realized that some of the 150 neurotransmitters interact with
traces of iron, copper, zinc, & manganese in the diet to promote healthy
mental development, most especially in the laying down of new neural
pathways in the brain during learning.

It didnt usta be a problem; analysis of living stone age people, bone
middens, and stomachs of bog bodies, reveal that hominids evovled with
over 100 different wild plants in the diet. Diamond worries, pointing
out that agribusiness devotes 80% of land to just 5 crops: cotton, rice,
soybeans, wheat, & corn. And when you look in the supermarket, rather
than finding the diversity hominids evolved to eat, 70% of what is there
is made of some combination of the last 4 crops.

Which, as noted above, dont even contain the nutrition our forefathers
enjoyed while growing up. The result is a dramatic increase in the risk
factors for Autism, ADD, ADHD, depression, and Ritalin dosing.

I was lucky, born on a Minnesota farm in 1939, I saw the transition from
draft animals to tractors. Its claimed that organic methods are not at
all feasible, but I beg to differ. I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown
with what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can
get 110 bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive*
dosing of the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields
every 3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots,
that plant brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for
subsequent crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness
dont let land like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces
declines over time.

The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits. The first Shogun, Tokugawa realized that
clearcutting the forests was making money for the loggers, but the
floods that resulted was bankrupting farmers. Since the loggers would
not stop, he had them butchered, and then told the farmers to go into
the forests to rake leaves to put on their land. This *compost* not only
dramatically restored the fertility of the land, it also made the crops
healthier and more resistant to pests, as well as adding the same trace
minerals referred to above that were brought to the surface by deep tree
roots. This also improved the mental capacity of the population which
resulted in a long period of peace and stability.

It seems to be a matter of national security, that even if grain
production is reduced with organic methods to 1/3, simply cutting back
on red meat consumption by 1/3 would more than make up for it, while at
the same time the reduction in obesity, cardiac, blood pressure, and
other health problems would dramatically reduce the cost of health care
and insurance.

Furthermore, the farmer receives such a small share of the cost of the
food on the shelves, that tripling it would have little effect on the
cost to the consumer. Which could be further reduced by cutting down on
the processing. Sure, giving kids real fruit juice is more expensive
than soda, and would cut into the profits of the transnatioal beverage
outfits. But that would dramatically cut the consumption of fructose at
the same time that it cuts down on the consumption of beverages. Since
the soda doesnt have any of the trace minerals or micronutrients
referred to above, it does not trigger the neurotransmitters in the
brain that nutritional needs are being met, with the result that the kid
wants to eat or drink more of it.

Which is good for profits, but bad for kids, as we see with obesity,
ADD, ADHD, allergies, and any number of other mental and phsyical
pathologies. Lest you doubt the connection, surf the results seen in
rural schools that have lots of kids raised on family farms. Whereas
other kids flop on the couch with a remote in hand, farm kids get the
exercise they need for proper mental development doing chores, while at
the same time they see with their own eyes the value of work. Teachers
accept much lower pay to teach kids who want to learn.

Look at the school test results. In my neck of Ozark woods, where all
the schools are small with lots of farm kids, the violence rate it *0%*,
with dropout rates in the single digits, graduation rates in near 90%,
and college remediation rates in the teens.

Yes, organic agriculture needs lots more people on the land; but is that
such a bad idea? *HALF* of the Green Berets grew up on family farms. No
agribusiness produces a healthy crop of kids every year; au contrare, it
destroys the health of millions of other kids in the suburbs. Look at
the class photos of the white affluent suburban kids, then look at the
photos of the classes from these small rural schools. The lack of
obesity is obvious.

When I was a kid on the farm, I didnt have 'self esteem' issues. I was
out in the fields helping with the harvest which made clear to me that I
was making a contribution. We never saw illegals; starting at 12, kids
were let out of school every summer to help harvest veggies in the
fields at the same time that we got the exercise we needed, made some
money, and learned the real value of the dollar. Is there a problem with
all this? Or is it part of a solution?

[JoeSP]

Post by Day Brown
First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing this,
all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has risen, the
net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in "Collapse"
notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had 22% protein;
now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

Exactly true.

Post by Day Brown
I was lucky, born on a Minnesota farm in 1939, I saw the transition from
draft animals to tractors. Its claimed that organic methods are not at all
feasible, but I beg to differ. I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown with
what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can get 110
bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive* dosing of
the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

Organic farming is feasible today, but only if a few are doing it to serve
the small portion of market willing to pay a premium for it. The other 90%
of the market demand the cheapest price possible. The only way to serve
such a market is to raise the food as cheaply as possible, with chemicals
and fertilizers used on large, highly mechanized farms.

If the rest of the 300 million people in North America were to suddenly want
to go organic, it would require nothing short of a massive revolution.
Existing farms have no feasible way to convert to organic farming quickly.
The vast grain growing areas of the plains are too far from sources of
natural fertilizer, and lack of chemical weed control would negate any sort
of realistic economic yield.

A hundred years ago, it was a lot easier to raise food organically, even
though it wasn't called that at the time. People paid a much higher
percentage of their incomes for food. There were many more farmers at that
time, numbering in the millions, not thousands. The land was more
productive, as it hadn't been mined for nutrients as much as today. Animal
fertilizers were generally more close at hand. Chemical herbicides were
generally unused, although the ones that existed at the time contained
mercury, arsenic and other heavy metals, something almost unthinkable today.

Post by Day Brown
Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields every
3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots, that plant
brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for subsequent
crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness dont let land
like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces declines over time.

Yes, it creates a massive surplus of food, which depresses the price to the
farmer, making it more neccessary to produce more and more, making the
problem worse and worse.

Post by Day Brown
Furthermore, the farmer receives such a small share of the cost of the
food on the shelves, that tripling it would have little effect on the cost
to the consumer. Which could be further reduced by cutting down on the
processing. Sure, giving kids real fruit juice is more expensive than
soda, and would cut into the profits of the transnatioal beverage outfits.
But that would dramatically cut the consumption of fructose at the same
time that it cuts down on the consumption of beverages. Since the soda
doesnt have any of the trace minerals or micronutrients referred to above,
it does not trigger the neurotransmitters in the brain that nutritional
needs are being met, with the result that the kid wants to eat or drink
more of it.

When the consumer buys a loaf of bread, the farmer gets about 8 cents of the
total. If the price of the bread were increased another 8 cents, and given
back to the farmer, his income would double. But the consumer demands that
8 cents, and will drive many extra miles to a large supermarket to get it.

Post by Day Brown
When I was a kid on the farm, I didnt have 'self esteem' issues. I was out
in the fields helping with the harvest which made clear to me that I was
making a contribution. We never saw illegals; starting at 12, kids were
let out of school every summer to help harvest veggies in the fields at
the same time that we got the exercise we needed, made some money, and
learned the real value of the dollar. Is there a problem with all this? Or
is it part of a solution?

I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

[zatoichi]

JoeSP wrote:

<snip>

TOTALLY agree with you Joe

Post by JoeSP
I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

What quality?Nobody cares for that.People are happy eating garbage.
They have forgotten the way the food should taste.
Every god damn ingredient,whether it comes from the ground or from
animals now days is w/o any favor and savor.
You name it,tomatoes,corn,paprika,spinach,lemons,oranges,cherries
,chicken,turkey,lamb.Painfully tasteless.I don't know why
but veal is not so bad,even when bought at local butchery.
I don't have the means to grow the food myself,but am lucky to have
cousins and friends who do.Yummy meal w/o friends (LOL and w/o desert)
doesn't taste quite so good as it should.
My best bet,by far,is fish,octopuses,squids,all kinds of seashells and
crabs...Anything that comes from sea.And by anything, I mean just
anything.Certain algae,urchins(mmm eggs),anemones,LOL you can even
cook a rock if you know how to find good one. I don't think
jelly fish is good though.
When the season is right we go out and gather snails,mushrooms,
asparaguses,fruits,and some wild plants that we know how to cook or
use otherwise(LOL nettle is universal herb).
I also use lot of garlic and olive oil :-)

Forget about any govt support for so called healthy or organic food.
Not gonna happened.Aside from some esoteric $$ products you may find
on shelves,expect bigger ratio of GM food on your table.Even EU has
loosen its grip on GM food producers,as of 2004 the EU has ended 6
years moratorium on approving new GM products. ATM EU regulations
require labeling and traceability of all (even animal) food containing
more than 0.5 percent GM ingredients.
Not so in U.S.

For example,British Food and Drink Federation claims that UK food
industry does not use GM ingredients for its products.
On the other hand the Grocery Manufacturers of America says that 70 to
75 percent of food sold in US may contain genetically engineered
ingredients.Apparently people in U.S. are not too much concerned with
this issue.

As of yet, there is no scientific proof that GM food is in any way
harmful to human consumption,but there is also no consensus that it isn't.

In the meanwhile I'll stick with the sea as much as I can (as God is
my witness that I don't know much about agriculture),and would suggest
you do the same if you have the opportunity.Take any chance you got to
go primal.Not *that* way,silly.You know what I mean.

[JoeSP]

Post by zatoichi
<snip>
My best bet,by far,is fish,octopuses,squids,all kinds of seashells and
crabs...Anything that comes from sea.And by anything, I mean just
anything.Certain algae,urchins(mmm eggs),anemones,LOL you can even cook a
rock if you know how to find good one. I don't think
jelly fish is good though.
When the season is right we go out and gather snails,mushrooms,
asparaguses,fruits,and some wild plants that we know how to cook or use
otherwise(LOL nettle is universal herb).
I also use lot of garlic and olive oil :-)

Nevertheless, I don't enjoy eating things that come from the final sewer,
the ocean, much less any creature you can catch from there. We wouldn't
want to eat just any living thing that crawls, flies or grows on land, so
why do we do that with the ocean?

[zatoichi]

Post by JoeSP

Post by zatoichi
<snip>
My best bet,by far,is fish,octopuses,squids,all kinds of seashells and
crabs...Anything that comes from sea.And by anything, I mean just
anything.Certain algae,urchins(mmm eggs),anemones,LOL you can even cook a
rock if you know how to find good one. I don't think
jelly fish is good though.
When the season is right we go out and gather snails,mushrooms,
asparaguses,fruits,and some wild plants that we know how to cook or use
otherwise(LOL nettle is universal herb).
I also use lot of garlic and olive oil :-)

Nevertheless, I don't enjoy eating things that come from the final sewer,
the ocean, much less any creature you can catch from there.

Ayay,then you don't know what you're missing.Now,call me weirdo or
,but I noticed that topics about food,recipes and such amass to 30% of
all the conversation between me and my best buddy.Women go and watch
Oprah or something,we sit on the sunny porch,drinking wine,commenting
food and simply enjoying the moment.I certainly don't think of
anything that comes from sea as a "creature".If I did I would have
problem killing it.When I think creature I think deer or wild boar or
bunny.
It seems that I forgot to mention that sea is 1st class (few spots
with 2nd,none 3rd class) in my part of neighborhood.I am passionate
scuba diver,hence my fascination with sea.Or is it another way round?
I'd wish if I was a better farmer,but sadly I am hopeless in that
area. :-(

Post by JoeSP
We wouldn't want to eat just any living thing that crawls, flies
or grows on land, so why do we do that with the ocean?

Sure,if it works for you.
Just one tiny-incy-bincy note:
Maybe,just maybe you'd like some of it if you try :-)

[Day Brown]

Post by JoeSP
I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe if we got
rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming. The problem is
that the power of the consumer is focused more on price rather than quality.
Until that happens, farms will continue to get bigger and bigger, and food
quality will continue to decline.

This shortsightedness will, agreed, continue. Greed being what it is.
This is one of the reasons I sub to misc.survivalism and
alt.energy.homepower, to pick up on clues to *local* solutions, there no
longer being any national ones with the electorate so irrational.

I have the data dish, and the TV dish, and watch the postings and
Bloomerg to see what Wall Street thinks. Even they dont do it very well,
and they are motivated by enormous amounts of money. I am relieved to
see the precious metals prices stabilized... they may yet get a handle
on it.

Part of my alarm came from PBS's 'FRONTLINE', the "Yaqui Valley study",
in which they show the dramatic rise in autism among the kids that live
in the valley that agribusines now uses to grow veggies for Safeway. An
oxymoron. The biochemistry is that plants exposed to agribusiness
petrochemicals dont just lie there and take it, but produce much more
phyto-estrogens in their tissues. The FDA was unconcerned, knowing that
it didnt cause cancer. Its what is in the birth control pill.

There are a lot of other plants that naturally have high levels of
phytoestrogen; its a defense mechanism against herbivores. It make
females infertile and/or causes abortions. Hence, there's a *REASON*
that "Bachelor Button" is so named, or why "Blessed Thistle" is blessed.
Witches in Europe have been using these herbs for millennia.

[FWIW: the abortion debate is over. Modern witches have rediscovered
this, and are back in the 'family planning' business for which the
Christian Bishops first started burning them.]

So now, what happens if little boys are exposed to phyto-estrogen? PBS
Frontline showed it resulted in autism, ADD, ADHD, etc. I noted in the
video that the valley boys were too disorganized to play a game of
soccer, which Latin American kids do all the time. I also noted, there
on the sidelines, which their narrator did not comment on, eight year
old girls with tits. What else would you expect but precocious puberty
in girls? How about a generation of faggots?

Posted recently is biochemical brain data showing the diff between
Lesbian and normal women. I expect we'll see the effect in lab results
for men shortly.

And this is just the tip of the ice burg. Besides the diganosed effects
mentioned above, are the declines in reasoning power which has a lot to
do with the declines in academic performance. Dr. Freud noted that
neurotics have an intolerance of ambiguity. Thus we see the dramatic
increase in religious fundamentalism with its binary good/evil view of
the world which is in reality too complex for them to cope with. We see
lots of posts by people who cant follow simple logic, who resort to ad
hominum when their rants are challenged.

So while society *would* benefit from more organic production, it wont
because of the insane and inept leadership. At best, all you can do is
get the fuck outta Dodge to some rural community which still raises
their kids on home gardens with little access to junkfood. There you
will see the school performance is well above average, and the drama
level among adults well below average.

Most of the small towns now have DSL, so lots of professionals are
moving in and telecommuting. This is driving up the local economy in
towns that still have low real estate prices. too far from any metro
area for traffic and commuters. With no contamination of the ground
water from mining. No lead, mercury, or industrial pollutants upwind.
No agribusiness spraying organophosphates in the air that drifts into
town. West of the Mississippi to avoid acid rain.

Lots of family farms in the area results in towns that have lots of
healthy vegetable stands rather than fast food outlets.

[i***@mindspring.com]

In alt.politics.economics,

Post by Day Brown

Post by JoeSP
I agree, our society would benefit in the many ways you describe
if we got rid of the superindustrialized aspects of modern farming.
The problem is that the power of the consumer is focused more
on price rather than quality. Until that happens, farms will continue
to get bigger and bigger, and food quality will continue to decline.

This shortsightedness will, agreed, continue. Greed being what it is.
This is one of the reasons I sub to misc.survivalism and
alt.energy.homepower, to pick up on clues to *local* solutions, there
no longer being any national ones with the electorate so irrational.
I have the data dish, and the TV dish, and watch the postings and
Bloomerg to see what Wall Street thinks. Even they dont do it very
well, and they are motivated by enormous amounts of money. I am
relieved to see the precious metals prices stabilized... they may
yet get a handle on it.
Part of my alarm came from PBS's 'FRONTLINE', the "Yaqui Valley
study", in which they show the dramatic rise in autism among the
kids that live in the valley that agribusiness now uses to grow
veggies for Safeway. An oxymoron. The biochemistry is that plants
exposed to agribusiness petrochemicals dont just lie there and take
it, but produce much more phyto-estrogens in their tissues. The
FDA was unconcerned, knowing that it didnt cause cancer.
Its what is in the birth control pill.
There are a lot of other plants that naturally have high levels of
phytoestrogen; its a defense mechanism against herbivores. It
makes females infertile and/or causes abortions. Hence, there's a
*REASON* that "Bachelor Button" is so named, or why "Blessed
Thistle" is blessed. Witches in Europe have been using these herbs
for millennia.
[FWIW: the abortion debate is over. Modern witches have re-
discovered this, and are back in the 'family planning' business for
which the Christian Bishops first started burning them.]
So now, what happens if little boys are exposed to phyto-estrogen?
PBS Frontline showed it resulted in autism, ADD, ADHD, etc.
I noted in the video that the valley boys were too disorganized to
play a game of soccer, which Latin American kids do all the time.
I also noted, there on the sidelines, which their narrator did not
comment on, eight year old girls with tits. What else would you
expect but precocious puberty in girls? How about a generation
of faggots?
Posted recently is biochemical brain data showing the diff between
Lesbian and normal women. I expect we'll see the effect in lab
results for men shortly.
And this is just the tip of the ice burg. Besides the diganosed
effects mentioned above, are the declines in reasoning power which
has a lot to do with the declines in academic performance. Dr.
Freud noted that neurotics have an intolerance of ambiguity. Thus
we see the dramatic increase in religious fundamentalism with its
binary good/evil view of the world which is in reality too complex for
them to cope with. We see lots of posts by people who cant follow
simple logic, who resort to ad hominum when their rants are
challenged.
So while society *would* benefit from more organic production, it
won't because of the insane and inept leadership. At best, all you
can do is get the fuck outta Dodge to some rural community which
still raises their kids on home gardens with little access to junkfood.
There you will see the school performance is well above average,
and the drama level among adults well below average.
Most of the small towns now have DSL, so lots of professionals are
moving in and telecommuting. This is driving up the local economy
in towns that still have low real estate prices. too far from any metro
area for traffic and commuters. With no contamination of the ground
water from mining. No lead, mercury, or industrial pollutants upwind.
No agribusiness spraying organophosphates in the air that drifts
into town. West of the Mississippi to avoid acid rain.
Lots of family farms in the area results in towns that have lots of
healthy vegetable stands rather than fast food outlets.

.
.
--

[zentara]

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown <***@wildblue.net>
wrote:

<2 cents>
Hi, I agree with what you say from a certain viewpoint, but on the other
hand, how would you implement it, without resorting to some solution
involving forced re-ruralization like Pol Pot tried in Cambodia?

I think horse and oxen powered farms are the way to sustainable
agriculture, and a peaceful stable society. Grow hay and oats to feed
the animals, rotate the fields with alfalfa and rye, and use the
composted manure for fertilizer. The "cities" which would form under
these systems, would be small and surrounded by the feeder farms.
They would act as trading centers.

But with today's population, this type of lifestyle is taxed out of
existence. How can you afford to pay taxes on 40 acres used solely
for growing animal feed? And how can you prevent developers from
giving that farmer a million for his land, and building a golf course?
You can't. The evil greed spawned by the many wars and the
military-industrial complex, has made the world a city-based economy.

Sure, you can say that we can switch to alcohol powered tractors, or
something similar, but that assumes that a big city-industrial base
exists to make the tractors...... and once that military-industrial
complex comes into existence......it puts the cities first, and the
farms second. So really you need a society without metals. Like I said,
Po Pot tried it, and look what happened.

The world's population is going to keep climbing till it hits the
breaking point. Huge cities full of ghettos are appearing, and the
best that can be done is to get the local people to grow gardens in the
cities. They are not going to be relocated to rural life, not because
they wouldn't want it, but because the current land owners don't
want to give up their vast tracks of land which they accumulated during
the previous industrial-capitalist period. There is some ruler in
Africa, who is forcing the rich white land holders to redistribute
the land to the people, but he is portrayed as a horrible butchering
despot in the Western media.

The problem is all being compounded now by the push for agri-fuels.
So now farms will grow soy and corn for bio-diesel and
ethanol--car-fuel, further raping the land. I can see basic food prices
going up because of this, and it may even reach the point where people
will be allowed to starve, in order to put bio-fuel in some rich man's
car.

Hydrogen?? Yeah, it's all being touted as the cure-all fuel. BUT there
are huge problems which are not being talked about. First, it will need
massive nuclearization to produce the electricity needed to make it.
Second, as with any widely dispersed technology, managed by dim-witted
people, there will be alot of hydrogen leakage. Back yard mechanics
dumping fuel to work on a system, accidents, and just the basic leakage
from the millions of high-pressure pipes needed. Well, hydrogen will
float upward, and f**k up the Ozone layer. This will further cause
deterioration in the planet's crops, as they are pounded by UV rays.

Will people give up cars, to ride bikes, walk, and build sustainable
villages? No! They will risk it all for easy personal mobility, which
by the way is one of the most unatural things about modern civilization.
It is not natural for people to be so mobile! It also burns off alot of
oxygen. A car uses ~25000 times the O2 as a bicyclist peddling.

The net result of all this, is a future where people are further removed
from a "natural life". Bottled air, bottled water, food concentrates
make in stainless steel tanks by genetically engineered bacteria, and
pressed into "protein bars". Everyone will be on some sort of pill for
various ailments. Lifespans for the rich will be increased by organ
transplants, various genetic breakthroughs, etc.

I'm waiting for the point where the ocean stops producing enough oxygen,
and the weather reports start tracking air masses with low O2 levels, as
a health hazard. They are already selling bottled oxygen at the corner
stores in the smog-choked cities in Japan. It is supposed to help you
think more clearly...............

Some planet-wide catastrophe may occur, and send us all back to
the stone-age, otherwise we are heading for a very un-natural future.
</2 ccents>

[Day Brown]

Post by zentara
<2 cents>
Hi, I agree with what you say from a certain viewpoint, but on the other
hand, how would you implement it, without resorting to some solution
involving forced re-ruralization like Pol Pot tried in Cambodia?
I think horse and oxen powered farms are the way to sustainable
agriculture, and a peaceful stable society. Grow hay and oats to feed
the animals, rotate the fields with alfalfa and rye, and use the
composted manure for fertilizer. The "cities" which would form under
these systems, would be small and surrounded by the feeder farms.
They would act as trading centers.
But with today's population, this type of lifestyle is taxed out of
existence. How can you afford to pay taxes on 40 acres used solely
for growing animal feed? And how can you prevent developers from
giving that farmer a million for his land, and building a golf course?
You can't. The evil greed spawned by the many wars and the
military-industrial complex, has made the world a city-based economy.
Sure, you can say that we can switch to alcohol powered tractors, or
something similar, but that assumes that a big city-industrial base
exists to make the tractors...... and once that military-industrial
complex comes into existence......it puts the cities first, and the
farms second. So really you need a society without metals. Like I said,
Po Pot tried it, and look what happened.
The world's population is going to keep climbing till it hits the
breaking point. Huge cities full of ghettos are appearing, and the
best that can be done is to get the local people to grow gardens in the
cities. They are not going to be relocated to rural life, not because
they wouldn't want it, but because the current land owners don't
want to give up their vast tracks of land which they accumulated during
the previous industrial-capitalist period. There is some ruler in
Africa, who is forcing the rich white land holders to redistribute
the land to the people, but he is portrayed as a horrible butchering
despot in the Western media.
The problem is all being compounded now by the push for agri-fuels.
So now farms will grow soy and corn for bio-diesel and
ethanol--car-fuel, further raping the land. I can see basic food prices
going up because of this, and it may even reach the point where people
will be allowed to starve, in order to put bio-fuel in some rich man's
car.
Hydrogen?? Yeah, it's all being touted as the cure-all fuel. BUT there
are huge problems which are not being talked about. First, it will need
massive nuclearization to produce the electricity needed to make it.
Second, as with any widely dispersed technology, managed by dim-witted
people, there will be alot of hydrogen leakage. Back yard mechanics
dumping fuel to work on a system, accidents, and just the basic leakage
from the millions of high-pressure pipes needed. Well, hydrogen will
float upward, and f**k up the Ozone layer. This will further cause
deterioration in the planet's crops, as they are pounded by UV rays.
Will people give up cars, to ride bikes, walk, and build sustainable
villages? No! They will risk it all for easy personal mobility, which
by the way is one of the most unatural things about modern civilization.
It is not natural for people to be so mobile! It also burns off alot of
oxygen. A car uses ~25000 times the O2 as a bicyclist peddling.
The net result of all this, is a future where people are further removed
from a "natural life". Bottled air, bottled water, food concentrates
make in stainless steel tanks by genetically engineered bacteria, and
pressed into "protein bars". Everyone will be on some sort of pill for
various ailments. Lifespans for the rich will be increased by organ
transplants, various genetic breakthroughs, etc.
I'm waiting for the point where the ocean stops producing enough oxygen,
and the weather reports start tracking air masses with low O2 levels, as
a health hazard. They are already selling bottled oxygen at the corner
stores in the smog-choked cities in Japan. It is supposed to help you
think more clearly...............
Some planet-wide catastrophe may occur, and send us all back to
the stone-age, otherwise we are heading for a very un-natural future.
</2 ccents>

Well, I havta get back out to the garden, but- I was born on a farm in
1939, and saw the transition from draft animals to tractors. A mix of
the two is very profitable from a long term sustainable standpoint. You
can grow sorghum, switchgrass, Jerusalem artichoke, or other grasses
that are not as highly hybridized as corn and do well without chemical
fertilizer as well as being more resistant to drought.

You can cut, crush the stalks, ferment the juice, and distill alcohol;
100-150 gallons/acre. It only takes 6 gallons/acre to plow. You can feed
livestock on the mash and produce beef that you *know* dont have mad cow
disease cause you know every molecule that went into it. Your profits go
up cause you aint buying feed from Tindle, Cargill, or feed mills which
sell stuff that is not well documented.

I've done hay the old fashioned way with horses, and with balers. Horses
are quiet; you can mow all day without rattling your brains. After it is
cut, you dont havta bale it. You can use dump or other rake to put it in
rows, and then rather than picking it up, use horses to drag a conveyor
belt up each row, which dumps the loose hay on a hay rick... that has
ropes laid across the floor. When you get to the barn, you hook up the
ropes to a trolley crane that runs just under the ridge, the horses pull
on the ropes, and the whole wagon load is dumped in the barn.

The horses are the only ones that are sweaty. You need a bigger barn
this way cause loose hay down pack down that much. But kids love to play
on it. However, once you build the barn, you dont need to be buying the
tractor fuel every year to bale the hay.

I'm lucky; my neck of Ozark woods is too steep for agribusiness, so it
is all family farms separated by woods in the hollows. My taxes on 20
acres is 72$/year. There's enough family farmer voters to keep it that
way. The big shift really is to cut back beef consumption by 1/3, which
makes 5 times as much land available to raise human food. Its doable.

[i***@mindspring.com]

Post by zentara
Hi, I agree with what you say from a certain viewpoint, but on the other
hand, how would you implement it, without resorting to some solution
involving forced re-ruralization like Pol Pot tried in Cambodia?

Lowering fuel consumption is vital to making the economy
sustainable. A good way to use less fuel would be to have
suburbanites move back in to the cities, so they wouldn't
have to drive so much.
The inner city poor would have to be relocated to make room.
First, we would have to legalize drugs to take away the black
market jobs. Then, we would need to offer them jobs and
housing on farms and factories outside the cities. That way,
more food and goods could be produced locally, for additional
fuel savings.
But if the population keeps increasing, all bets are off. No,
we have to freeze, and eventually decrease the population, too.
A good starting point would be to stop suppressing influenza.
To those who would object, I point out that we're living much
better today than even royalty did centuries ago. There should
be no complaints about having limits to longevity. There are
other creatures and future generations to think about here too.
Sustainability is all about justice, not "just us."
.
.
--

[Day Brown]

Post by i***@mindspring.com

Post by zentara
Hi, I agree with what you say from a certain viewpoint, but on the other
hand, how would you implement it, without resorting to some solution
involving forced re-ruralization like Pol Pot tried in Cambodia?

Lowering fuel consumption is vital to making the economy
sustainable. A good way to use less fuel would be to have
suburbanites move back in to the cities, so they wouldn't
have to drive so much.
The inner city poor would have to be relocated to make room.
First, we would have to legalize drugs to take away the black
market jobs. Then, we would need to offer them jobs and
housing on farms and factories outside the cities. That way,
more food and goods could be produced locally, for additional
fuel savings.
But if the population keeps increasing, all bets are off. No,
we have to freeze, and eventually decrease the population, too.
A good starting point would be to stop suppressing influenza.
To those who would object, I point out that we're living much
better today than even royalty did centuries ago. There should
be no complaints about having limits to longevity. There are
other creatures and future generations to think about here too.
Sustainability is all about justice, not "just us."

Good points, but I dont see the democratic process implementing.
I see another option in my neck of Ozark woods, similar to what Jared
Dimond noted in his Bitterroot Valley of Montana. That is the rich are
moving in and putting up starter castles. As Diamond noted, this is
bringing in lots more money into the local economy than the traditional
cattle business ever did.

We may not like the rich, but *they* dont like their trout streams
damaged with agribusiness pollution or clearcuts. Their taxes support
better schools. Their investments may pollute and exploit other places,
but I cant stop that, only benefit from the trickle down as they hire
constuction workers, have the roads improved, and support healthier food
sources like gourmet cafes and organic produce and food stores. Leslie
AR, for instance, dont have any fast food outlets, but it *does* have an
organic brick oven bakery. The Hoi Poloi antique stores and whatnot dont
pollute, but do create jobs and offer entrepreneurial opportunity.

The worse the cities get, the more the rich move out here. The pastures
they create so they can play cowboy with real horses- can be quickly
converted to grow crops on land that hasnt been heavily dosed with
petrochemicals. The rich created income opportunities for the rest of us
now, and if the proverbial schitt hits the fan, provide the rich targets
that will keep the thugs busy while the rest of us work out a mutual
defense militia to deal with it after the gangs get done looting.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.

(nonsense, snipped)

Post by Day Brown
Its claimed that organic methods are not at
all feasible, but I beg to differ.

I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer. It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.
And what's worse, there is a waiting period between
beginning organic farming and being able to legally claim I
have organic products for sale, during which I could be
wiped out, without any compensating higher prices to justify
the risks.

Post by Day Brown
I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown
with what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can
get 110 bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive*
dosing of the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

True, but the bottom line is that modern methods are more
profitable. Last year my cotton had all kinds of problems
due to the unusual growing season. I had more weeds, more
bugs, and more irrigation costs than ever before. I gritted
my teeth and put out the money and work necessary to handle
the problems. The result? Very good yields which, combined
with the high prices available last year, resulted in the
best financial results I have had since about 1975. If I
had been using "organic" methods, or if I had stuck to a
pre-set budget for crop inputs, as some of my neighbors did,
I would have had disastrous yields, as some of them had, and
would now probably be looking for other work.

Post by Day Brown
Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields
every 3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots,
that plant brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for
subsequent crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness
dont let land like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces
declines over time.
The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits.

My bankers and accountants decide. Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre. And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.

(rest of eco-propaganda, snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[zatoichi]

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.
(nonsense, snipped)

Post by Day Brown
Its claimed that organic methods are not at
all feasible, but I beg to differ.

I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer. It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.
And what's worse, there is a waiting period between
beginning organic farming and being able to legally claim I
have organic products for sale, during which I could be
wiped out, without any compensating higher prices to justify
the risks.

Post by Day Brown
I saw 48 bushels of corn/acre grown
with what is now called 'organic' methods. Granted that today they can
get 110 bushels per acre, but that is with the increasingly *expensive*
dosing of the land with petrochemicals distributed by deisel engines.

True, but the bottom line is that modern methods are more
profitable. Last year my cotton had all kinds of problems
due to the unusual growing season. I had more weeds, more
bugs, and more irrigation costs than ever before. I gritted
my teeth and put out the money and work necessary to handle
the problems. The result? Very good yields which, combined
with the high prices available last year, resulted in the
best financial results I have had since about 1975. If I
had been using "organic" methods, or if I had stuck to a
pre-set budget for crop inputs, as some of my neighbors did,
I would have had disastrous yields, as some of them had, and
would now probably be looking for other work.

Post by Day Brown
Furthermore, we usta rotate the crops, growing alfalfa on the fields
every 3rd or 4th year. And now we see that because of the deep roots,
that plant brings micro-nutrients and trace minerals to the surface for
subsequent crops and better nutrition on down the line. Agribusiness
dont let land like 'fallow', so the net *value* of what it produces
declines over time.
The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits.

My bankers and accountants decide. Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre. And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.
(rest of eco-propaganda, snipped)

You are one angry farmer,ain't you Robert?

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:09:50 +0200, zatoichi
<***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

(snips)

Post by zatoichi

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits.

My bankers and accountants decide. Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre. And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.
(rest of eco-propaganda, snipped)

You are one angry farmer,ain't you Robert?

Only about the grade A, 100% organic bullshit I see posted
on usenet. Otherwise, I'm quite happy and contented.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[zatoichi]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 18 May 2006 21:09:50 +0200, zatoichi
(snips)

Post by zatoichi

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
The essence of this debate is who gets to judge what is profitable, and
who it is that profits.

My bankers and accountants decide. Try as I might, I can't
get them to agree that making $40 per acre is better than
making $400 per acre. And, so far as I can tell, NOBODY is
willing to give me a 90% discount on what I buy if I embrace
"sustainable" agriculture and therefore have no money.
(rest of eco-propaganda, snipped)

You are one angry farmer,ain't you Robert?

Only about the grade A, 100% organic bullshit I see posted
on usenet. Otherwise, I'm quite happy and contented.

I was thinking to that when I said "angry farmer"
We wouldn't want it any other way. :-)

[JoeSP]

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.
(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago. The alternative is to keep using supplements, which few of us
know how to do properly, nor often enough. The other disadvantage is that
it costs far more to supplement our food with minerals and vitamins than to
have them naturally occurring. Besides that, the food tastes better when
they're naturally occurring..

I had a chat earlier this year with Dr. Ross Welch from Cornell University,
who pioneered the research that showed that serious nutrient deficiencies
are common in our population due to improper nutrition. It's nothing short
of a national crisis, if his research is to be believed.

Other countries, such as Finland have instituted higher standards for food
nutrition years ago, mandating things like minimum levels of selenium in
wheat, and the decline of some diseases like cancer since that time has been
nothing less then startling.

[Robert Sturgeon]

Post by JoeSP

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.
(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago.

I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

Post by JoeSP
The alternative is to keep using supplements, which few of us
know how to do properly, nor often enough. The other disadvantage is that
it costs far more to supplement our food with minerals and vitamins than to
have them naturally occurring.

Even if "organic" food had more vitamins and minerals than
conventionally grown food, which it doesn't, it would be far
cheaper to take a One-A-Day than to pay 3 or 4 times as much
for "organic" food.

Post by JoeSP
Besides that, the food tastes better when
they're naturally occurring..

No, FRESH food tastes better. It doesn't make the slightest
difference whether it's "organic" or not.

Post by JoeSP
I had a chat earlier this year with Dr. Ross Welch from Cornell University,
who pioneered the research that showed that serious nutrient deficiencies
are common in our population due to improper nutrition. It's nothing short
of a national crisis, if his research is to be believed.

There may very well be a nutritional lack, due to poor
eating habits. I doubt that he, or any reputable scientist,
would claim it's because of conventionally grown food
instead of "organic" food.

Post by JoeSP
Other countries, such as Finland have instituted higher standards for food
nutrition years ago, mandating things like minimum levels of selenium in
wheat, and the decline of some diseases like cancer since that time has been
nothing less then startling.

"Organic" food isn't going to have any more selenium in it
than conventionally grown food, unless selenium is added to
soil which is deficient in selenium, which is hardly an
"organic" process. Adding selenium to soil, in order to get
it into the food supply, is a lot more expensive than just
taking a typical vitamin/mineral supplement.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[JoeSP]

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by JoeSP

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown
(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and
occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago.

I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch%202002%20human%20nutr.pdf

[Day Brown]

Post by JoeSP

Post by Robert Sturgeon
I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch%202002%20human%20nutr.pdf

Kharma being what it is, Robert prolly wont see this. But thanx anyway.
Altho, I hate .pdf; an html link would be gonzo easier to deal with.

The other thing to consider is that while I am not a gourmet, I know
those who are, who tell me that they *can* taste the diff in organic
produce. But even so, I know from personal experience, that my own straw
berries taste gonzo better than what's for sale at Safeway. Granted that
they are smaller, but a quart is still a quart.

Then too, there are changes in the palette. 40 years ago, I had a friend
who was a biochemist for Pillsbury. She would *not* eat what came in a
Pillsbury box. I myself used to work summers in the canning factories in
the Valley of the Jolly Green Giant, and you do *not* want to know what
gets into a can of corn. My family grew a lot of their corn, but nobody
eats it. I also quit buying Wonder bread, aware that it wasnt at all
like what I ate down home on the farm.

Corporations were setup to avoid the moral reponsiblity for what gets
done by the people doing it. The family farmer is different; if his kids
eat it, I know my kids can. I'm not some kind of enviro idealist; some
hog waste or chicken litter on a field, mixed in with crop residue and
other onsite farm sources is going to biodegrade to safe levels the next
year for a healthy crop. All I do is look at the dirt; if there's earth
worms in it, I dont worry about the plants that grow in it.

100% organic may not be economically feasible, but we can do better by
people and their kids in an economically sustainable way.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:52:05 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by JoeSP

Post by Robert Sturgeon
I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch%202002%20human%20nutr.pdf

Kharma being what it is, Robert prolly wont see this. But thanx anyway.
Altho, I hate .pdf; an html link would be gonzo easier to deal with.

Of course I saw it, and read it. It does NOT say anything
remotely like "organic farm products have more nutrition in
them than conventionally grown farm products." Better luck
next time.

Post by Day Brown
The other thing to consider is that while I am not a gourmet, I know
those who are, who tell me that they *can* taste the diff in organic
produce. But even so, I know from personal experience, that my own straw
berries taste gonzo better than what's for sale at Safeway. Granted that
they are smaller, but a quart is still a quart.

Your strawberries taste better because they are fresher.
"Organic" produce bought at the grocery store often tastes
better -- because it is grown locally and allowed to ripen
before picking. That better taste is NOT because it's
"organic," but because it is fresher and vine-ripened. You
can test this yourself by growing some garden produce
"organically" and some using synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides (always follow the label), and letting someone
else pick some of each and feed it to you without telling
you which is which. You will NOT be able to tell the
difference. OK, maybe you will be able to tell the
difference, because your "organic" produce will probably be
smaller and have more pest damage. Better make that a TRUE
"blind" taste test. :-)

Post by Day Brown
Then too, there are changes in the palette. 40 years ago, I had a friend
who was a biochemist for Pillsbury. She would *not* eat what came in a
Pillsbury box. I myself used to work summers in the canning factories in
the Valley of the Jolly Green Giant, and you do *not* want to know what
gets into a can of corn. My family grew a lot of their corn, but nobody
eats it. I also quit buying Wonder bread, aware that it wasnt at all
like what I ate down home on the farm.
Corporations were setup to avoid the moral reponsiblity for what gets
done by the people doing it. The family farmer is different; if his kids
eat it, I know my kids can. I'm not some kind of enviro idealist; some
hog waste or chicken litter on a field, mixed in with crop residue and
other onsite farm sources is going to biodegrade to safe levels the next
year for a healthy crop. All I do is look at the dirt; if there's earth
worms in it, I dont worry about the plants that grow in it.
100% organic may not be economically feasible, but we can do better by
people and their kids in an economically sustainable way.

Yes, by doing an even better job of farming using modern
methods. "Organic" is a fraud, a cultish bunch of nonsense
that cons people into paying more for inferior products.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Derek Broughton]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:52:05 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
100% organic may not be economically feasible, but we can do better by
people and their kids in an economically sustainable way.

Yes, by doing an even better job of farming using modern
methods. "Organic" is a fraud, a cultish bunch of nonsense
that cons people into paying more for inferior products.

Ah. You had me right up to that point. I agree with everything you
_argued_, then you throw that silliness into it. Though you can make food
with the same nutritional value either way; much of what is not allowed
in "organic" farming is indistinguishable from that used in "inorganic"
farming; and, some "organic" practices are as hazardous as "inorganic"
practices (specifically, I'm thinking of the use of untreated human
waste) - that still doesn't mean that "organic" as a whole is a fraud.
People have valid concerns about pesticide residues, for instance.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 12:06:05 -0300, Derek Broughton

Post by Derek Broughton

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:52:05 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
100% organic may not be economically feasible, but we can do better by
people and their kids in an economically sustainable way.

Yes, by doing an even better job of farming using modern
methods. "Organic" is a fraud, a cultish bunch of nonsense
that cons people into paying more for inferior products.

Ah. You had me right up to that point. I agree with everything you
_argued_, then you throw that silliness into it. Though you can make food
with the same nutritional value either way; much of what is not allowed
in "organic" farming is indistinguishable from that used in "inorganic"
farming; and, some "organic" practices are as hazardous as "inorganic"
practices (specifically, I'm thinking of the use of untreated human
waste) - that still doesn't mean that "organic" as a whole is a fraud.
People have valid concerns about pesticide residues, for instance.

Sure they have concerns, but they aren't "valid." The
pesticides we use are extensively tested and pose no
significant hazard to the public. A good example of these
"valid" concerns was the phony ginned-up Alar scare, pushed
by celebrities who had no understanding of the issues
involved. Alar is a very safe pesticide. An expert in the
field, Dr. Bruce Ames (and you really should read up on the
career of Dr. Ames) started out his research convinced him
that pesticides are a thoroughly Bad Idea. But the more he
studied their use and properties, as well as the properties
of food in general, the more convinced he became that they
were a Good Idea. His reasoning was that they allow a much
more abundant and inexpensive supply of fruits and
vegetables to the market. And fruits and vegetables are
extremely valuable for their nutritional and health
enhancing properties, so the minor pesticide residues are
more than offset by the increased intake of fruits and
vegetables allowed by pesticides. About Alar, he said he
preferred HIS apples to come WITH Alar, because Alar retards
the growth of mold on apples, and that mold is much more
dangerous than the Alar which retards the mold growth. The
total "load" of carcinogens existing on Alar-treated apples
is less than the load of carcinogens on untreated apples.
ALL food is, to some extent, carcinogenic. Plants produce
their own pesticides, which are more toxic than the
pesticides people put on them. Cooked meat also is
carcinogenic, but not as dangerous overall to people as
uncooked meat, because of the pathogens cooking kills.

Things really aren't as simple as "pesticides bad, untreated
produce good." Lots of inexpensive produce, with slight
traces of highly tested and regulated pesticide, are better
for the public than a little "organic" produce, at much
higher prices, would be. Of course, if you grow your own,
and don't mind a lower yield and poorer quality in exchange
for having absolutely no man-made pesticides, that's a
different matter. But if you think pesticides negatively
affect the general public, you are mistaken. They are a
positive factor in the general public's overall health.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[sonny Power]

Years ago, I had an agreement with the local health food store to sell my
"farm fresh" chicken eggs. I did not market them as organic, but rather
"range fed". One day the anti-Christ devil worshiping Health Department
Inspecter went into the health food store and ask the owner if the eggs were
in fact the same brand as indicated on the carton, which they were not as I
re-used cartons. The government guy told the health food store owner that
it was illegal to sell good quality eggs without the government getting a
piece of the action, and said he would have to come out here and check my
chickens pussies. I told them both to f off and die.
As for store bought food, I worked in a Del Monte plant when I was younger
and I was the only one outside of management that spoke English. I was in a
2-story barrel that received chopped cabbage from above. My job was to
spread the cabbage around and stomp on it till the barrel was full and then
they cover it and let it ferment. After a couple hours I had to go to the
bathroom so I climbed out on the ladder and walked about 350 feet to the
closest restroom. I wonder if the other people walked that far to relieve
themselves or if that is "natural flavoring" to sour krout?
I say Close the borders and shoot to kill all aliens crossing. Bullets are
only 25 cents each and that is the end of it. Let the buzzards eat the
corpse and there is no deportation or incarceration cost.

Floyd
http://witchwellweb.com

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Thu, 18 May 2006 22:52:05 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by JoeSP

Post by Robert Sturgeon
I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch%202002%20human%20nutr.pdf

Kharma being what it is, Robert prolly wont see this. But thanx anyway.
Altho, I hate .pdf; an html link would be gonzo easier to deal with.

Of course I saw it, and read it. It does NOT say anything
remotely like "organic farm products have more nutrition in
them than conventionally grown farm products." Better luck
next time.

Post by Day Brown
The other thing to consider is that while I am not a gourmet, I know
those who are, who tell me that they *can* taste the diff in organic
produce. But even so, I know from personal experience, that my own straw
berries taste gonzo better than what's for sale at Safeway. Granted that
they are smaller, but a quart is still a quart.

Your strawberries taste better because they are fresher.
"Organic" produce bought at the grocery store often tastes
better -- because it is grown locally and allowed to ripen
before picking. That better taste is NOT because it's
"organic," but because it is fresher and vine-ripened. You
can test this yourself by growing some garden produce
"organically" and some using synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides (always follow the label), and letting someone
else pick some of each and feed it to you without telling
you which is which. You will NOT be able to tell the
difference. OK, maybe you will be able to tell the
difference, because your "organic" produce will probably be
smaller and have more pest damage. Better make that a TRUE
"blind" taste test. :-)

Post by Day Brown
Then too, there are changes in the palette. 40 years ago, I had a friend
who was a biochemist for Pillsbury. She would *not* eat what came in a
Pillsbury box. I myself used to work summers in the canning factories in
the Valley of the Jolly Green Giant, and you do *not* want to know what
gets into a can of corn. My family grew a lot of their corn, but nobody
eats it. I also quit buying Wonder bread, aware that it wasnt at all
like what I ate down home on the farm.
Corporations were setup to avoid the moral reponsiblity for what gets
done by the people doing it. The family farmer is different; if his kids
eat it, I know my kids can. I'm not some kind of enviro idealist; some
hog waste or chicken litter on a field, mixed in with crop residue and
other onsite farm sources is going to biodegrade to safe levels the next
year for a healthy crop. All I do is look at the dirt; if there's earth
worms in it, I dont worry about the plants that grow in it.
100% organic may not be economically feasible, but we can do better by
people and their kids in an economically sustainable way.

Yes, by doing an even better job of farming using modern
methods. "Organic" is a fraud, a cultish bunch of nonsense
that cons people into paying more for inferior products.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[zatoichi]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
Your strawberries taste better because they are fresher.
"Organic" produce bought at the grocery store often tastes
better -- because it is grown locally and allowed to ripen
before picking. That better taste is NOT because it's
"organic," but because it is fresher and vine-ripened.

I can't believe what you just said.Has someone cut your tongue and
ears and picked your eyes and forgot to tell you about it?
No? Then WTF? You really believe yourself when you say that
synthetic genetically mutated pesticide screwed jelly excuse for
strawberries has something in common with the with strawberries you
have had when you were kid?Hell then my forest strawberries would
probably make you loose consciousness.You people have been eating that
same tasteless food for so long,that now it doesn't even taste so bad.
I am sorry if I am being rude,but after hearing this nonsense I am so
pissed of right now
Can't believe that you are being duped so successfully that you forgot
how the food used to taste.Ooh,how can this be?

Sometimes I don't even bother with say that fucked up scam for salad
you call tomatoes.They just screw up entire meal.I don't care what yo
gonna do with these tomatoes.You can cook them,you can broil them,you
can grill them,Jamie fucking Oliver can sprinkle them for you with
Acceto balsamico di fucking Modena,*and* they still gonna taste like
some no good jelly shit.OTOH when I manage to get some of that real
farm tomatoes shit,I don't even bother with rest of the meal.A little
bit of feta cheese,olive oil,few capers and there you go man,enjoy.Or
you just eat it like you eat an apple.What ever you do with them,you
can't really go wrong.

Post by Robert Sturgeon
You
can test this yourself by growing some garden produce
"organically" and some using synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides (always follow the label), and letting someone
else pick some of each and feed it to you without telling
you which is which.

No you can't.You really expect that from fucked up soil,from fucked up
GM seeds,grown on the fucked up air,with fucked up GM and fertilizer
procedures,you gonna pick the same tomato like your or my granddad did?
Now I *don't* know what or when went wrong.I am just seeing net effect
of it..Besides,being a farmer you can hardly be neutral in this whole
matter.I am not saying that you should as this touches life of you and
your family very directly.Just don't tell me this "you won't know
which is which" shit.

[Day Brown]

Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference. Be that as
it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can, and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their own
kids.

But when push comes to shove, it'll be the communities that have the
healthiest and smartest next generation that will be able to compete in
the global market, and those that have too many on the dole cause their
brains dont work right that will be fucked.

And the question is, what is that economic opportunity, to increase the
number of creative innovative young workers going to be worth, and what
will the community pay the people who grow their own food to increase
the odds of their children's success?

Maybe Robert dont have kids, and it aint his problem. That is, it wont
be, until he wants to retire and sell out at a good price. Which there
wont be if there is a shortage of competent people to run the operation.
Which, to hear the personnel managers talk about it, there already is.

I grant that there are a lotta links out there that say that there is no
nutritional diff with organic food. But more recently, there have been
studies of the interactions between micro-nutrients (which were unknown,
or ignored when the organic studies debunking studies were done), and
some of the 150+ neuro-transmitters so far identified. Only a few years
ago, when the debunking studies were done, there were only 7 identified
neurotransmitters, a standard that had been in place so long people thot
it was gospel. I just read of 350 DNA markers that have been identified
so far which were all unknown factors when the organic debunking was
done, but now dieticians and health professionals realize there are risk
factors related to agribusiness and other chemicals that in turn relate
to the rise of autism, ADD, ADHD, and Ritalin prescriptions.

To say that do gooders have stepped in and put names on behavior kids
have always had, giving them an excuse to be non-functional misses the
point that we will *need* them in the workforce, and need to try every
rememdy we can think of, including organic diets. One of the reasons the
Founding Fathers wanted the states so that different things could be
tried. So- all right. Look at California and New York which formerly had
the best schools in the nation, and track the agribusiness petrochemical
consumption and the displacement of family farms, and then compare that
with the schools in places like West Virgina and Arkansas hill country
that still has lots of family farmers and no agibusiness to pollute the
area with crop dusters or whatever.

These family farms didnt set out to be organic; they were just too poor
to be taken advantage of by banks, petrochemical suppliers, equipment
dealers, hybrid or GM seed outfits. I dont recall hillbillies as ever
being regarded as all that smart, but they score better now than the
kids in the suburban schools. The hillbilly kids never had the money, so
they never put the junkfood/sodapop vending machines in the schools. the
folks at home still have gardens, so the kids eat more turnip greens
than ice cream.

Then too, you can look at the scores where there are mine tailings in
the water or crop dusters in the air... and compare that with the AR
Ozarks which have neither. The epidemiological *data* is compelling.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:25:13 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference.

Taste the difference between "organic" and conventionally
grown produce? No, I can't -- and neither can you.

Post by Day Brown
Be that as
it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can,

They pay more for "organic" produce, and imagine there's a
taste difference, to help justify their increased costs. Of
course, if they go by the taste difference between
vine-ripened produce and green-picked produce, they
certainly will notice a difference. It has nothing to do
with "organic" farming practices.

Post by Day Brown
and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their own
kids.
But when push comes to shove, it'll be the communities that have the
healthiest and smartest next generation that will be able to compete in
the global market, and those that have too many on the dole cause their
brains dont work right that will be fucked.

That's true. The societies which have more fruits and
vegetables available to them will do better than societies
with less fruits and vegetables available to them. By
pushing this "organic" nonsense, you are endangering your
society.

Post by Day Brown
And the question is, what is that economic opportunity, to increase the
number of creative innovative young workers going to be worth, and what
will the community pay the people who grow their own food to increase
the odds of their children's success?

Will society pay you to grow your own food in your own
garden? Oh sure, and maybe it'll pay you to wash your own
car and vacuum your own carpets, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert dont have kids, and it aint his problem.

I have two healthy adult daughters who grew up in the very
midst of all those evil farm chemicals. They are both
extremely healthy.

Post by Day Brown
That is, it wont
be, until he wants to retire and sell out at a good price. Which there
wont be if there is a shortage of competent people to run the operation.
Which, to hear the personnel managers talk about it, there already is.
I grant that there are a lotta links out there that say that there is no
nutritional diff with organic food.

And they're right -- there is no difference.

(rest of incoherent, irrelevant rambling, snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Day Brown]

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
I grant that there are a lotta links out there that say that there is no
nutritional diff with organic food.

And they're right -- there is no difference.
(rest of incoherent, irrelevant rambling, snipped)

Be that as it may, there are enough links from enough professionals in
the health field that people will *believe* there is a diff, and those
farmers who can figure out how to meet that demand will get to laff all
the way to bank.

Moreover, it will increase food production on a more local level, just
to minimize fuel transporation costs if nothing else. and while you see
the physical labor involved as tedium, others see it as *exercise*. And
they get to see the food that they plan to feed their kids up close, and
will pay handsomely for the peace of mind that comes of it.

Large operations carried on without awareness of these political
ramifications will find far fewer buyers. Land that has been treated in
a way that is politically correct will go for a *premium*. And sure, the
agribusiness petrochemical way may produce 3 times the crop, but so
what? the cost of operations has trebled as well, and the only people
who are consistently *profiting* are the bankers, fuel suppliers,
Equipment dealers, GM seed companies, commodity bropkers, etc.

So while the organic farmer only gets 1/3 the crop, he gets 3 times as
much money for it. He dont need nearly as much land, and his payments to
service the debt on it are much less.

you mite be right in your analysis, but farmers are only *1%* of the
population, and agricultural policy is made by rich lawyers. There is a
growing ecological awareness in general which will result in the GOP
loosing control of the house and maybe the senate this fall. Which is
also likely to result in Democratic demagogoues cutting the support to
large agribusness operations whether this is good for the stable supply
of food or not. Yet another possible cause for TSHTF.

And if that happens, the support system agribusiness needs will be gone.
*ONLY* organic farmers, able to produce on local resources will stay in
business.

[mike wilcox]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:25:13 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference.

Taste the difference between "organic" and conventionally
grown produce? No, I can't -- and neither can you.

Post by Day Brown
Be that as
it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can,

They pay more for "organic" produce, and imagine there's a
taste difference, to help justify their increased costs. Of
course, if they go by the taste difference between
vine-ripened produce and green-picked produce, they
certainly will notice a difference. It has nothing to do
with "organic" farming practices.

Post by Day Brown
and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their own
kids.
But when push comes to shove, it'll be the communities that have the
healthiest and smartest next generation that will be able to compete in
the global market, and those that have too many on the dole cause their
brains dont work right that will be fucked.

That's true. The societies which have more fruits and
vegetables available to them will do better than societies
with less fruits and vegetables available to them. By
pushing this "organic" nonsense, you are endangering your
society.

Post by Day Brown
And the question is, what is that economic opportunity, to increase the
number of creative innovative young workers going to be worth, and what
will the community pay the people who grow their own food to increase
the odds of their children's success?

Will society pay you to grow your own food in your own
garden? Oh sure, and maybe it'll pay you to wash your own
car and vacuum your own carpets, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert dont have kids, and it aint his problem.

I have two healthy adult daughters who grew up in the very
midst of all those evil farm chemicals. They are both
extremely healthy.

Post by Day Brown
That is, it wont
be, until he wants to retire and sell out at a good price. Which there
wont be if there is a shortage of competent people to run the operation.
Which, to hear the personnel managers talk about it, there already is.
I grant that there are a lotta links out there that say that there is no
nutritional diff with organic food.

And they're right -- there is no difference.
(rest of incoherent, irrelevant rambling, snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

I for one don't agree, hell have you ever had a fresh egg from a free
range hen? If you can't tell the difference there is something wrong
with your taste buds.

Studies have been completed, one UK study published in the British Food
Journal,1997, compared the mineral content of fruit and vegetables
between 1930s-1980s. They found that there was a big reduction in
calcium, magnesium, iron and copper. The calcium content of vegetables
fell 80%, magnesium fell 65% and copper fell 20% from their original
1930s levels.

All you have to do is drive by a corn field before it comes up in the
spring, the soil is a dead pale biege color, devoid of any live activity
at all, there been so much herbicide on it the not even weeds can grow a
year later.

[Gunner]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:55:33 -0400, mike wilcox

Post by mike wilcox

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:25:13 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference.

Taste the difference between "organic" and conventionally
grown produce? No, I can't -- and neither can you.

Post by Day Brown
Be that as
it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can,

They pay more for "organic" produce, and imagine there's a
taste difference, to help justify their increased costs. Of
course, if they go by the taste difference between
vine-ripened produce and green-picked produce, they
certainly will notice a difference. It has nothing to do
with "organic" farming practices.

Post by Day Brown
and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their own
kids.
But when push comes to shove, it'll be the communities that have the
healthiest and smartest next generation that will be able to compete in
the global market, and those that have too many on the dole cause their
brains dont work right that will be fucked.

That's true. The societies which have more fruits and
vegetables available to them will do better than societies
with less fruits and vegetables available to them. By
pushing this "organic" nonsense, you are endangering your
society.

Post by Day Brown
And the question is, what is that economic opportunity, to increase the
number of creative innovative young workers going to be worth, and what
will the community pay the people who grow their own food to increase
the odds of their children's success?

Will society pay you to grow your own food in your own
garden? Oh sure, and maybe it'll pay you to wash your own
car and vacuum your own carpets, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert dont have kids, and it aint his problem.

I have two healthy adult daughters who grew up in the very
midst of all those evil farm chemicals. They are both
extremely healthy.

Post by Day Brown
That is, it wont
be, until he wants to retire and sell out at a good price. Which there
wont be if there is a shortage of competent people to run the operation.
Which, to hear the personnel managers talk about it, there already is.
I grant that there are a lotta links out there that say that there is no
nutritional diff with organic food.

And they're right -- there is no difference.
(rest of incoherent, irrelevant rambling, snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

I for one don't agree, hell have you ever had a fresh egg from a free
range hen? If you can't tell the difference there is something wrong
with your taste buds.
Studies have been completed, one UK study published in the British Food
Journal,1997, compared the mineral content of fruit and vegetables
between 1930s-1980s. They found that there was a big reduction in
calcium, magnesium, iron and copper. The calcium content of vegetables
fell 80%, magnesium fell 65% and copper fell 20% from their original
1930s levels.
All you have to do is drive by a corn field before it comes up in the
spring, the soil is a dead pale biege color, devoid of any live activity
at all, there been so much herbicide on it the not even weeds can grow a
year later.

Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?

Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.

Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[Day Brown]

Post by Gunner
Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Petrochemicals are syptomatic of the system, but not the direct cause.

Continued cropping of the kind of shallow rooted plants that produce the
highest profit strips the trace minerals from the top soil over time. As
I have already said, agribusiness adds Nitrogen, Phoshorus, & Potash so
as to maintain the higest tonnage/acre without regard to the nutritional
value of the crop, which they dont get paid for.

I was born on a farm in 1939, and remember how we usta grow alfalfa
every 3rd or 4th year, partly as fodder, but also because farmers knew
how it improved the condition of the top soil. Since then studies have
shown that crops like alfalfa, which are not immediately profitable, do
however had deep roots that draw up micro-nutrients and trace minerals
from deep in the subsoil.

But whatever you may think, health professionals have realized that some
trace minerals like zinc, copper, and iron are essential for proper
mental development, and *they* will pay much more for food which is
grown in soil that has them. Thus the sales of greensand and other such
sources of trace minerals to organic farmers.

It is not a specific crop, altho some like corn are 'heavy feeders', but
the *continuous* harvest year after year from such crops that maximize
the profits near term, but ignore the long term effects like this. We
have an example of the long term results of doing it right.

When Tokugawa took over in 1603, he observed that clearcutting caused
flooding of the lowlands and erosion was ruining the topsoil. He had the
loggers butchered since they were not interested in other people's
problems. Then, he told the farmers to go into the forest and rake
leaves to enrich the topsoil. Which we now know have trace minerals
brought up by the deep roots of trees. He established a policy of
*importing* timber, which still goes on, but which has resulted in a
much larger forest system than you'd expect for such a small country.

And we now know the beneficial mental developmental effects of these
trace minerals, and everyone can see the intellectual flowering and the
richness of the arts which Japan produced as a result. Which still goes
on, with their kids getting academic test scores that are way beyond
anything teachers in the USA expect.

In as much as your retirement depends on the next generation being able
to compete with those poeple, you'd think... well maybe you dont think.

[Solar Flare]

Good post...with deep roots.

Post by Day Brown

Post by Gunner
Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Petrochemicals are syptomatic of the system, but not the direct cause.
Continued cropping of the kind of shallow rooted plants that produce
the highest profit strips the trace minerals from the top soil over
time. As I have already said, agribusiness adds Nitrogen, Phoshorus,
& Potash so as to maintain the higest tonnage/acre without regard to
the nutritional value of the crop, which they dont get paid for.
I was born on a farm in 1939, and remember how we usta grow alfalfa
every 3rd or 4th year, partly as fodder, but also because farmers
knew how it improved the condition of the top soil. Since then
studies have shown that crops like alfalfa, which are not
immediately profitable, do however had deep roots that draw up
micro-nutrients and trace minerals from deep in the subsoil.
But whatever you may think, health professionals have realized that
some trace minerals like zinc, copper, and iron are essential for
proper mental development, and *they* will pay much more for food
which is grown in soil that has them. Thus the sales of greensand
and other such sources of trace minerals to organic farmers.
It is not a specific crop, altho some like corn are 'heavy feeders',
but the *continuous* harvest year after year from such crops that
maximize the profits near term, but ignore the long term effects
like this. We have an example of the long term results of doing it
right.
When Tokugawa took over in 1603, he observed that clearcutting
caused flooding of the lowlands and erosion was ruining the topsoil.
He had the loggers butchered since they were not interested in other
people's problems. Then, he told the farmers to go into the forest
and rake leaves to enrich the topsoil. Which we now know have trace
minerals brought up by the deep roots of trees. He established a
policy of *importing* timber, which still goes on, but which has
resulted in a much larger forest system than you'd expect for such a
small country.
And we now know the beneficial mental developmental effects of these
trace minerals, and everyone can see the intellectual flowering and
the richness of the arts which Japan produced as a result. Which
still goes on, with their kids getting academic test scores that are
way beyond anything teachers in the USA expect.
In as much as your retirement depends on the next generation being
able to compete with those poeple, you'd think... well maybe you
dont think.

[Day Brown]

Post by Solar Flare
Good post...with deep roots.

Well thanx. Its nice to know that there are still some readers who can
think instead of just think up quick comebacks, ad hominum, and sarcasm.

It is distressing however, to realize how few such readers and posters
are. If the current ineptitude and corruption of the leadership results
in economic crisis, it will be they who are able to think outside of the
dogmatism of agribusiness and eco-puritanism who will remain in the gene
pool, so we may do each other some good.

[Gunner]

Post by Day Brown

Post by Solar Flare
Good post...with deep roots.

Well thanx. Its nice to know that there are still some readers who can
think instead of just think up quick comebacks, ad hominum, and sarcasm.
It is distressing however, to realize how few such readers and posters
are. If the current ineptitude and corruption of the leadership results
in economic crisis, it will be they who are able to think outside of the
dogmatism of agribusiness and eco-puritanism who will remain in the gene
pool, so we may do each other some good.

So yall are admitting that the 'cides are not removing the trace
minerals and heavy metals from the soil as was claimed?

Thanks for the confirmation.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[Solar Flare]

No. I just liked his font style.

Don't bottom post. It disassociates text with the header identifying
the poster.

Post by Gunner
So yall are admitting that the 'cides are not removing the trace
minerals and heavy metals from the soil as was claimed?
Thanks for the confirmation.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 20:18:56 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by Gunner
Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Petrochemicals are syptomatic of the system, but not the direct cause.
Continued cropping of the kind of shallow rooted plants that produce the
highest profit strips the trace minerals from the top soil over time.

Are you suggesting that a more modern variety of a given
crop has a shallower root system than a less modern variety
of the same crop?

Post by Day Brown
As
I have already said, agribusiness adds Nitrogen, Phoshorus, & Potash so
as to maintain the higest tonnage/acre without regard to the nutritional
value of the crop, which they dont get paid for.

I'd still like to see that unbiased research showing that
"organic" produce has more nutritional value than
conventionally grown produce.

Post by Day Brown
I was born on a farm in 1939, and remember how we usta grow alfalfa
every 3rd or 4th year, partly as fodder, but also because farmers knew
how it improved the condition of the top soil. Since then studies have
shown that crops like alfalfa, which are not immediately profitable,

Alfalfa is quite profitable. Where did you get the idea
that it isn't?

Post by Day Brown
do
however had deep roots that draw up micro-nutrients and trace minerals
from deep in the subsoil.
But whatever you may think, health professionals have realized that some
trace minerals like zinc, copper, and iron are essential for proper
mental development, and *they* will pay much more for food which is
grown in soil that has them. Thus the sales of greensand and other such
sources of trace minerals to organic farmers.

If they really believed that, and were rational, they'd take
a One-A-Day for a few cents instead of paying extra for
"organic" produce -- which doesn't have any more nutritional
value anyway.

Post by Day Brown
It is not a specific crop, altho some like corn are 'heavy feeders', but
the *continuous* harvest year after year from such crops that maximize
the profits near term, but ignore the long term effects like this. We
have an example of the long term results of doing it right.

No, we have no such results.

(rest of non-sequitors, nonsense, and unsupported claims,
snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Day Brown]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sat, 20 May 2006 20:18:56 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by Gunner
Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Petrochemicals are syptomatic of the system, but not the direct cause.
Continued cropping of the kind of shallow rooted plants that produce the
highest profit strips the trace minerals from the top soil over time.

Are you suggesting that a more modern variety of a given
crop has a shallower root system than a less modern variety
of the same crop?

No; I said that the plants grown on *fallow* land were the ones which
had the roots deep enough. Tree leaves, if raked up and put on the land
would also be a good source- altho I'd worry about the effects of air
pollution in some areas. The deep rooted crops, like alfalfa are not
profitable enough near term, so agribusiness dont grow them.

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
As
I have already said, agribusiness adds Nitrogen, Phoshorus, & Potash so
as to maintain the higest tonnage/acre without regard to the nutritional
value of the crop, which they dont get paid for.

I'd still like to see that unbiased research showing that
"organic" produce has more nutritional value than
conventionally grown produce.

And you are the only person who gets to decide what "unbiased" is? In
like manner, I know health professionals who have looked into this, and
they have been alarmed at the data from epidemilogical studies. Areas
that have high rates of agribusiness production, crop dusters, etc, have
much *lower* school academic performance. Health professionals
understand the similar molecular structure of organophosphate and
critical nutrients, and are aware of the catylitic effect of even
homeopathic levels of contamination.

Of course, if you have some kids to donate for scientific long term
double blind studies of the effects of agribusiness chemicals, I'm sure
the FDA would be interested; They could never find the subjects for the
kind of study we would like to see.

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
I was born on a farm in 1939, and remember how we usta grow alfalfa
every 3rd or 4th year, partly as fodder, but also because farmers knew
how it improved the condition of the top soil. Since then studies have
shown that crops like alfalfa, which are not immediately profitable,

Alfalfa is quite profitable. Where did you get the idea
that it isn't?

Depends on where you are. Some areas cant grow it well, and make much
more money off other crops. Lespedeza is favored in my neck of Ozark
woods; more heat tolerant. But now that the price of fuel has risen so
sharply, nobody will be trucking in alfalfa, and horses have become
somewhat of a glut on the market because of all the hobby farmers.

Post by Robert Sturgeon
If they really believed that, and were rational, they'd take
a One-A-Day for a few cents instead of paying extra for
"organic" produce -- which doesn't have any more nutritional
value anyway.

Many do take supplements; you see them for sale in all the health food
stores. And there is growing debate on whether it is overkill; however,
the rapid increase in the number of neurotransmitters that have been
identified (it usta be 'settled science' that there were only 7) leads
them to think that no bottle of pills will have all those needed, and
that *evolution* adapted the hominids to a wider diet of *organic* food
that we would do well to return to.

European bone middens of obscure rural villages reveals over 100 wild
plants were in the diet my ancestors ate for 10,000 years. This provided
a much wider variety of micronutrients and trace minerals than is found
in what agribusiness sells to the feed mills.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:18:05 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Sat, 20 May 2006 20:18:56 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by Gunner
Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.

Petrochemicals are syptomatic of the system, but not the direct cause.
Continued cropping of the kind of shallow rooted plants that produce the
highest profit strips the trace minerals from the top soil over time.

Are you suggesting that a more modern variety of a given
crop has a shallower root system than a less modern variety
of the same crop?

No; I said that the plants grown on *fallow* land were the ones which
had the roots deep enough.

You keep coming up with these bizarre claims. There is
nothing about fallow ground which would cause a plant to
have deeper roots.

Post by Day Brown
Tree leaves, if raked up and put on the land
would also be a good source- altho I'd worry about the effects of air
pollution in some areas. The deep rooted crops, like alfalfa are not
profitable enough near term, so agribusiness dont grow them.

What crazy nonsense. California is both heavily into
agribusiness AND alfalfa. Alfalfa is a profitable crop,
which is why it's so commonly grown here. Farm corporations
(the only difference between most farm corporations and
other forms of farm operation ownership is that -- the form
of ownership -- some large operations are not run by
corporations, and some quite small ones, like mine, are)
grow a lot of alfalfa. It is the main feed for dairies
here, and it both brings good prices and is beneficial to
the soil. As for deep-rooted crops, just how deep do you
think an almond tree's roots go? There are a LOT of almond
trees nowadays in California -- not because they have deep
roots, but because they are profitable.

Post by Day Brown

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
As
I have already said, agribusiness adds Nitrogen, Phoshorus, & Potash so
as to maintain the higest tonnage/acre without regard to the nutritional
value of the crop, which they dont get paid for.

I'd still like to see that unbiased research showing that
"organic" produce has more nutritional value than
conventionally grown produce.

And you are the only person who gets to decide what "unbiased" is?

I'll take the word of the major research universities, the
USDA, any source with some credibility -- not some "health
food" activist.

Post by Day Brown
In
like manner, I know health professionals who have looked into this, and
they have been alarmed at the data from epidemilogical studies. Areas
that have high rates of agribusiness production, crop dusters, etc, have
much *lower* school academic performance. Health professionals
understand the similar molecular structure of organophosphate and
critical nutrients, and are aware of the catylitic effect of even
homeopathic levels of contamination.

Homeopathic? Do you know what that means? From
wikipedia.org:

"Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from
the Greek words hómoios (similar) and páthos (suffering), is
a system of alternative medicine that treats "like with
like", using remedies that it is claimed would, in healthy
individuals, produce similar symptoms to those it would
treat in an ill patient. Practitioners believe that the
potency of a remedy can be increased by systematically
diluting the dosage, along with succussion or shaking, to a
point where the original ingredient is not present."

I guess I'm not too surprised that you would give any
credibility to such a theory of medicine.

Post by Day Brown
Of course, if you have some kids to donate for scientific long term
double blind studies of the effects of agribusiness chemicals, I'm sure
the FDA would be interested; They could never find the subjects for the
kind of study we would like to see.

You don't think the FDA studies this stuff???

Post by Day Brown

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by Day Brown
I was born on a farm in 1939, and remember how we usta grow alfalfa
every 3rd or 4th year, partly as fodder, but also because farmers knew
how it improved the condition of the top soil. Since then studies have
shown that crops like alfalfa, which are not immediately profitable,

Alfalfa is quite profitable. Where did you get the idea
that it isn't?

Depends on where you are. Some areas cant grow it well, and make much
more money off other crops.

But you expect them to grow alfalfa anyway, and take a loss?

Post by Day Brown
Lespedeza is favored in my neck of Ozark
woods; more heat tolerant. But now that the price of fuel has risen so
sharply, nobody will be trucking in alfalfa, and horses have become
somewhat of a glut on the market because of all the hobby farmers.

Post by Robert Sturgeon
If they really believed that, and were rational, they'd take
a One-A-Day for a few cents instead of paying extra for
"organic" produce -- which doesn't have any more nutritional
value anyway.

Many do take supplements; you see them for sale in all the health food
stores. And there is growing debate on whether it is overkill; however,
the rapid increase in the number of neurotransmitters that have been
identified (it usta be 'settled science' that there were only 7) leads
them to think that no bottle of pills will have all those needed, and
that *evolution* adapted the hominids to a wider diet of *organic* food
that we would do well to return to.
European bone middens of obscure rural villages reveals over 100 wild
plants were in the diet my ancestors ate for 10,000 years. This provided
a much wider variety of micronutrients and trace minerals than is found
in what agribusiness sells to the feed mills.

You are wandering all around on this thread. You say we're
suffering from a lack of micro nutrients in our food. And
you say using "sustainable" agriculture, or "organic"
agriculture, would put more micro nutrients back into our
food. How? By putting manure on the ground? Where do you
suppose that manure would come from? It would come from
animals fed crops grown on the same hopelessly depleted
soils you're worried about. So where would the micro
nutrients come from? Magic? No, if there really is a lack
of micro nutrients in the food, and we need to add more
trace minerals to the soil, that will certainly not come
from "sustainable" or "organic" farming methods, since
neither of them call for any such soil additives. Back to
nature, and all that, you know...

If there develops a market for produce with more micro
nutrients, and farmers get paid more for such produce,
they'll be happy to make those soil amendments. There is no
market for that now -- probably because there really is no
such lack, and maybe because people understand that a
One-A-Day will take care of any such problem if it does
exist, at a far lower cost and with much more certainty than
they'd get from seeking out produce that's been tested for
levels of micro nutrients -- which in itself would add to
the cost of produce.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Day Brown]

I dont have time to clear it all up for you Robert; I use the term
'homeopathic' in an allegorical fashion, and you take it literally,
ignoring my reference to how few molecules of organo-phosphates it takes
to screw up development.

Be that as it may, let this be an example of the kind of opportunity
which awaits young people who are more plugged into the zeitgeist than
you are to profit by being more adaptable and innovative in land use.

To you, plowing is *work*; you always did more than you wanted to. But
consider 'Life in a Midieval Village', taken from the 13th century court
records of an obscure out of the way hamlet... whose court records only
survived because all the armies passing in all the wars and revolutions
happened to miss them.

Anyway; just like a town owns a snowplow, so this place owned a team of
oxen and plowed the commons with it every year. But- rather than have
just one dude spend all his time bored out of his skull doing it, they
let all the dudes in the village have a crack at it, and it becomes a
game and an excuse for a festival. So what if you can plow 10 acres an
hour- they plow 10 acres and it is *fun*.

I bet, were we to ask on this thread, if there were guys who live in
cities now, if they'd like to come out on a weekend for the plowing,
there'd be plenty of dudes who'd jump at the chance. Not even Mexicans
can work for *nothing*. Will illegals wait for a share of the harvest?
So- which system here, agribusiness or organic [as those involved choose
to define it, not as extreme as you define it] has the lower cost of
operations? You havta sell to the mill, ADM, the barge/rail shippers,
etc, they spend a day in the country, and rather than dead heading, go
back to town with a car full of agricultural output.

Ultimately, it dont matter what you think or I think; the Almighty
Dollar will go with the system that delivers what people want at the
lowest cost and highest personal rewards. The time urbanites now spend
on the treadmill in the gym could be spent in the fields doing something
useful, and while they have to pay for the former exercise, they get
paid, albeit without much cash, but in self satisfaction gratifying a
lot of instincts people have for the land and the agrarian system we
have evolved from over the last 10,000 years.

I'm sure some agribusiness will go on as it has for years yet. but the
big money in it has already been made, and consumers have looked at the
same data you refer to, as well as some you'd rather not see, and chosen
in ever greater numbers to buy what they regard as organic. It may be
that they are all wrong, and it is all bullschitt like you say. But so
what? that's where the money has always been.

[mike wilcox]

Post by Gunner
On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:55:33 -0400, mike wilcox

Post by mike wilcox

Post by Robert Sturgeon
On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:25:13 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference.

Taste the difference between "organic" and conventionally
grown produce? No, I can't -- and neither can you.

Post by Day Brown
Be that as
it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can,

They pay more for "organic" produce, and imagine there's a
taste difference, to help justify their increased costs. Of
course, if they go by the taste difference between
vine-ripened produce and green-picked produce, they
certainly will notice a difference. It has nothing to do
with "organic" farming practices.

Post by Day Brown
and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their own
kids.
But when push comes to shove, it'll be the communities that have the
healthiest and smartest next generation that will be able to compete in
the global market, and those that have too many on the dole cause their
brains dont work right that will be fucked.

That's true. The societies which have more fruits and
vegetables available to them will do better than societies
with less fruits and vegetables available to them. By
pushing this "organic" nonsense, you are endangering your
society.

Post by Day Brown
And the question is, what is that economic opportunity, to increase the
number of creative innovative young workers going to be worth, and what
will the community pay the people who grow their own food to increase
the odds of their children's success?

Will society pay you to grow your own food in your own
garden? Oh sure, and maybe it'll pay you to wash your own
car and vacuum your own carpets, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert dont have kids, and it aint his problem.

I have two healthy adult daughters who grew up in the very
midst of all those evil farm chemicals. They are both
extremely healthy.

Post by Day Brown
That is, it wont
be, until he wants to retire and sell out at a good price. Which there
wont be if there is a shortage of competent people to run the operation.
Which, to hear the personnel managers talk about it, there already is.
I grant that there are a lotta links out there that say that there is no
nutritional diff with organic food.

And they're right -- there is no difference.
(rest of incoherent, irrelevant rambling, snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

I for one don't agree, hell have you ever had a fresh egg from a free
range hen? If you can't tell the difference there is something wrong
with your taste buds.
Studies have been completed, one UK study published in the British Food
Journal,1997, compared the mineral content of fruit and vegetables
between 1930s-1980s. They found that there was a big reduction in
calcium, magnesium, iron and copper. The calcium content of vegetables
fell 80%, magnesium fell 65% and copper fell 20% from their original
1930s levels.
All you have to do is drive by a corn field before it comes up in the
spring, the soil is a dead pale biege color, devoid of any live activity
at all, there been so much herbicide on it the not even weeds can grow a
year later.

Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I believe you have answered your own question with:

"Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak".

1. The soil is depleted because it is not allowed to go fallow long
enough to recover.

2. Organisims that are responsible for the regeneration of the soil
cannot live in soils full of pesticides and herbicides.

3. Ferilizers are used to fill this gap, it's like claiming you can eat
french fries with cheeseburgers everyday because you can just pop
handfuls of vitimin pills to make up the difference.

Better yet use some common sense, does it seem safe to you eating food
from a field that can't even grow weeds? We have fields here that were
last farmed for corn three years ago, the farms sold to developers,
After all this time they only have spotty regrow of any plant material,
they look like those nuclear test zones where nothing grows.

[Gunner]

On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:21:23 -0400, mike wilcox

Post by mike wilcox

Post by Gunner

Post by mike wilcox
All you have to do is drive by a corn field before it comes up in the
spring, the soil is a dead pale biege color, devoid of any live activity
at all, there been so much herbicide on it the not even weeds can grow a
year later.

Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak".
1. The soil is depleted because it is not allowed to go fallow long
enough to recover.
2. Organisims that are responsible for the regeneration of the soil
cannot live in soils full of pesticides and herbicides.
3. Ferilizers are used to fill this gap, it's like claiming you can eat
french fries with cheeseburgers everyday because you can just pop
handfuls of vitimin pills to make up the difference.
Better yet use some common sense, does it seem safe to you eating food
from a field that can't even grow weeds? We have fields here that were
last farmed for corn three years ago, the farms sold to developers,
After all this time they only have spotty regrow of any plant material,
they look like those nuclear test zones where nothing grows.

Oddly enough..I note a goal post change on your part. Wasnt it you
that spewed that the herbacides were removing all the trace elements?

Now you blather on about over planting and so forth like you think you
know something on the subject. Which btw..you dont.

I live in one of the heaviest farmed areas in the world. Californias
Central Valley. I see herbacides being applied with great regularity,
as well as crop rotation being employed. No shortage of food being
grown here, as well as other cash crops such as cotton, which Mr.
Sturgeon grows in some quantity.

Come back after you have either gotten a degree in farming, or have
spent a few days with your local USDA guy.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[mike wilcox]

Post by Gunner
On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:21:23 -0400, mike wilcox

Post by mike wilcox

Post by Gunner

Post by mike wilcox
All you have to do is drive by a corn field before it comes up in the
spring, the soil is a dead pale biege color, devoid of any live activity
at all, there been so much herbicide on it the not even weeds can grow a
year later.

Which chemical reaction of herbicides removes calcium, magnesium, iron
and copper from the soil?
Please present your work. Use as much whitespace as necessary.
Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

"Then Ill ask you if over planting a specific crop may have caused the
crops to absorb all the trace elements of which you speak".
1. The soil is depleted because it is not allowed to go fallow long
enough to recover.
2. Organisims that are responsible for the regeneration of the soil
cannot live in soils full of pesticides and herbicides.
3. Ferilizers are used to fill this gap, it's like claiming you can eat
french fries with cheeseburgers everyday because you can just pop
handfuls of vitimin pills to make up the difference.
Better yet use some common sense, does it seem safe to you eating food
from a field that can't even grow weeds? We have fields here that were
last farmed for corn three years ago, the farms sold to developers,
After all this time they only have spotty regrow of any plant material,
they look like those nuclear test zones where nothing grows.

Oddly enough..I note a goal post change on your part. Wasnt it you
that spewed that the herbacides were removing all the trace elements?

No, you claimed I said that.

Post by Gunner
Now you blather on about over planting and so forth like you think you
know something on the subject. Which btw..you dont.

I've been growing my own vegetables for over 30 years, but even a fool
whose never turned a spade knows you cannot grow the same crop on the
same patch for years on end without depleting the soil.

Post by Gunner
I live in one of the heaviest farmed areas in the world. Californias
Central Valley. I see herbacides being applied with great regularity,
as well as crop rotation being employed. No shortage of food being
grown here, as well as other cash crops such as cotton, which Mr.
Sturgeon grows in some quantity.

I agree with crop rotation, I don't agree with eating poison. You can
think what you like.

Post by Gunner
Come back after you have either gotten a degree in farming, or have
spent a few days with your local USDA guy.

The same people who have filled our water with agricultural waste?
The same people who never wondered why farmers have one of the highest
rates of immunosuppressant related cancers?

Post by Gunner
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[zatoichi]

Post by mike wilcox
I for one don't agree, hell have you ever had a fresh egg from a free
range hen? If you can't tell the difference there is something wrong
with your taste buds.

*Exactly*.
But even then,you'd have to be color blind too,not to see the
difference.Plus they have tougher eggshell.

Post by mike wilcox
Studies have been completed, one UK study published in the British Food
Journal,1997, compared the mineral content of fruit and vegetables
between 1930s-1980s. They found that there was a big reduction in
calcium, magnesium, iron and copper. The calcium content of vegetables
fell 80%, magnesium fell 65% and copper fell 20% from their original
1930s levels.
All you have to do is drive by a corn field before it comes up in the
spring, the soil is a dead pale biege color, devoid of any live activity
at all, there been so much herbicide on it the not even weeds can grow a
year later.

[zatoichi]

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference. Be that as
it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can, and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their own
kids.

Although I don't mind being called gourmand,I can not say for certain
that I have above average sense of taste.I think food is in so many
ways much more than just a source of energy.It can be a happening,
excuse for gathering those you are fond of,a ritual,something you can
look forward(tomorrow we are having stuffed squids on grill) etc.Can
you imagine holidays and family get-togethers without a delicious
meal?Good meal can turn a bad day into livable one.Whenever I am out
of home and depend on someone else to prepare me the food
(camps,hotels,ships,Army),the very first thing I do is try to make an
acquaintance with a cook.It can be a real blessing plus I get one more
person to talk with. :-)

All this ramblings above sums to two things:
I *am* keen on good food.
I *don't* have uber sense of taste.

And you don't have to have some uber sense of taste to be able to tell
the difference between food grown "the old way" and this new
"synthetic shit"

What do I mean by "the old way"? I didn't use the term "organic" on
purpose,because quality and tastefulness of that organic stuff can vary.

As far as possible from any civilization.
Using farming procedures as primitive as possible.
Using "old" kinds of seeds.
If you can max these conditions,believe me you will have your fruits
and veggies so succulent and rich in flavor,that you will have a hard
time eating those from your market.
If you can't max these conditions,then difference slowly drops
down,and as you "modernize" your set-up,it becomes smaller and smaller
till you can't tell the difference.

I haven't the faintest,what are the causes for the difference in taste
between "old" and "new" food.Of course fresh is better,of course vine
ripped is better,but nothing to do with that."Old" food simply *tastes
better*.And it's not only the green stuff,it's the same thing with meat.

Someone ought to investigate these things one of these days,and find
some kind of balance between "old" and "new",'cos every day we are
eating shittier and shittier food.

Post by Day Brown
These family farms didnt set out to be organic; they were just too poor
to be taken advantage of by banks, petrochemical suppliers, equipment
dealers, hybrid or GM seed outfits. I dont recall hillbillies as ever
being regarded as all that smart, but they score better now than the
kids in the suburban schools. The hillbilly kids never had the money, so
they never put the junkfood/sodapop vending machines in the schools. the
folks at home still have gardens, so the kids eat more turnip greens
than ice cream.
Then too, you can look at the scores where there are mine tailings in
the water or crop dusters in the air... and compare that with the AR
Ozarks which have neither. The epidemiological *data* is compelling.

What are the things that determines you or me as a human being,an
individual?
1)Genetic input from your parents.
2)Social environment(sure lots of stuff goes here)
3)Physical interaction between you and the rest of Cosmos =
*FOOD* and water,air that you breath,muscle activity
___________________________________________________________________
Some say that there is also an active component involved that does not
derive from those mentioned.That isn't certain and is not obvious.
Things above are.
___________________________________________________________________

Of course, final product (or current one) - human being - is complex
interweaving of all these factors,not just simple sum.But even more
so,the reason why you *shouldn't* hold food as something that just
needs to be thrown into your mouth.It's the stuff,among those
above,that has made you to be a man,that you are today.

Don't you want to have have kids who are not physically weak and prone
to all kinds of allergies? Don't you want to have kids w/o that ADD
and dyslexia shit?
But you're still gonna let them eat that synthetic GM animal feed that
is advertised on TV 24h?
You might be lucky and have the healthiest and smartest kids in the
world.Just imagine what kind of ubermenchs would you have had if they
have eaten properly. ;-)

[Day Brown]

Post by zatoichi
Don't you want to have have kids who are not physically weak and prone
to all kinds of allergies? Don't you want to have kids w/o that ADD and
dyslexia shit?
But you're still gonna let them eat that synthetic GM animal feed that
is advertised on TV 24h?
You might be lucky and have the healthiest and smartest kids in the
world.Just imagine what kind of ubermenchs would you have had if they
have eaten properly. ;-)

Unfortunately, parents dont want to think of the crap their parents fed
them in order to save a little money and convenience. Much less consider
what they are doing to their own kids. So- its the young who have not
yet had kids to damage with chemical exposure who are most open to what
the *data* actually implies.

[Jim Baber]

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference. Be that
as it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can, and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their
own kids.

Although I don't mind being called gourmand, I can not say for certain
that I have above average sense of taste.

I really think I would object to be called a gourmond, gourmet would be
OK. The word gourmand is derived from the french `gourmand`, greedy.
Typical accepted usage is:
A gourmet is one who has discriminating taste in food and wine.
A glutton signifies one who simply eats to excess, without care to
the quality of the food eaten.
A gourmand is one who enjoys good food, in great quantities. Sort of
like a greedy gluttonous gourmet.

I think food is in so many ways much more than just a source of
energy.It can be a happening, excuse for gathering those you are fond
of,a ritual,something you can look forward(tomorrow we are having
stuffed squids on grill) etc.Can you imagine holidays and family
get-togethers without a delicious meal?Good meal can turn a bad day
into livable one.Whenever I am out of home and depend on someone else
to prepare me the food (camps,hotels,ships,Army),the very first thing
I do is try to make an acquaintance with a cook.It can be a real
blessing plus I get one more person to talk with. :-)
I *am* keen on good food.
I *don't* have uber sense of taste.

snipped

[zatoichi]

Post by Jim Baber

Post by Day Brown
Maybe Robert is not a gourmet, and cant taste the difference. Be that
as it may, the world is full of gourmets who think they can, and
increasingly full of people who are concerned about the chemicals in
their food, having read what some exploited, non-caring workers have
done while processing food they know they wont eat nor feed to their
own kids.

Although I don't mind being called gourmand, I can not say for certain
that I have above average sense of taste.

I really think I would object to be called a gourmond, gourmet would be
OK. The word gourmand is derived from the french `gourmand`, greedy.
A gourmet is one who has discriminating taste in food and wine. A
glutton signifies one who simply eats to excess, without care to the
quality of the food eaten.
A gourmand is one who enjoys good food, in great quantities. Sort of
like a greedy gluttonous gourmet.

Thanks for the info Jim.

Little more info:
-----------------------------
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=gourmand

gourmand

1. A lover of good food.
2. A gluttonous eater.

------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gourmand

A gourmand is a gourmet, or namely an individual who has a discerning
palate, and is a connoisseur of good food.

An older usage of the word is to describe a person given to excess in
the consumption of food and drink, synonymous with "glutton".

In this latter usage, there is a parallel concern among the French
that their word for the appreciation of gourmet cuisine (gourmandise)
is historically included in the French Catholic list of the Seven
Deadly Sins. With the evolution in the meaning of gourmand (and
gourmandise) away from gluttony, towards the appreciation of good
food, French culinary proponents are advocating that the Catholic
Church update the infamous list to refer to "gloutonnerie" rather than
"gourmandis
-----------------------------

Therefore I think I'm more fond of "gourmand".
And it's closer to the truth.
Besides, "gourmand" sounds to me like it was taken from perhaps the
best,and most certainly the richest cuisine in the world.
You guess which one is that :-)

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:17:44 +0200, zatoichi

Post by zatoichi

Post by Robert Sturgeon
Your strawberries taste better because they are fresher.
"Organic" produce bought at the grocery store often tastes
better -- because it is grown locally and allowed to ripen
before picking. That better taste is NOT because it's
"organic," but because it is fresher and vine-ripened.

I can't believe what you just said.

Why? It's true.

Post by zatoichi
Has someone cut your tongue and
ears and picked your eyes and forgot to tell you about it?
No? Then WTF? You really believe yourself when you say that
synthetic genetically mutated pesticide screwed jelly excuse for
strawberries has something in common with the with strawberries you
have had when you were kid?

Yup - same species.

Post by zatoichi
Hell then my forest strawberries would
probably make you loose consciousness.You people have been eating that
same tasteless food for so long,that now it doesn't even taste so bad.
I am sorry if I am being rude,but after hearing this nonsense I am so
pissed of right now

Being extremely upset can affect your powers of reasoning.

Post by zatoichi
Can't believe that you are being duped so successfully that you forgot
how the food used to taste.Ooh,how can this be?

Living as I do in Central California, I have plenty of
opportunities to buy fresh, locally-grown strawberries. If
they are "organically" grown, they certainly aren't
advertised as such. They are delicious!

Post by zatoichi
Sometimes I don't even bother with say that fucked up scam for salad
you call tomatoes.They just screw up entire meal.I don't care what yo
gonna do with these tomatoes.You can cook them,you can broil them,you
can grill them,Jamie fucking Oliver can sprinkle them for you with
Acceto balsamico di fucking Modena,*and* they still gonna taste like
some no good jelly shit.OTOH when I manage to get some of that real
farm tomatoes shit,I don't even bother with rest of the meal.A little
bit of feta cheese,olive oil,few capers and there you go man,enjoy.Or
you just eat it like you eat an apple.What ever you do with them,you
can't really go wrong.

Fresh, vine-ripened tomatoes are MUCH better than tomatoes
picked green for the market. That has nothing to do with
them being "organic."

Post by zatoichi

Post by Robert Sturgeon
You
can test this yourself by growing some garden produce
"organically" and some using synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides (always follow the label), and letting someone
else pick some of each and feed it to you without telling
you which is which.

No you can't.You really expect that from fucked up soil,from fucked up
GM seeds,grown on the fucked up air,with fucked up GM and fertilizer
procedures,you gonna pick the same tomato like your or my granddad did?
Now I *don't* know what or when went wrong.I am just seeing net effect
of it..Besides,being a farmer you can hardly be neutral in this whole
matter.I am not saying that you should as this touches life of you and
your family very directly.Just don't tell me this "you won't know
which is which" shit.

Well, if it's now impossible to grow truly "organic"
tomatoes, why do people do it, and adverise the fact? If
they can do it, you can do it. And then you can run that
taste test and see if you can tell the difference. But it
has to be a true "blind" test, because if you know which is
which, you'll be biased and your test will be compromised.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Robert Sturgeon]

Post by JoeSP

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by JoeSP

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown
(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago.

I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch%202002%20human%20nutr.pdf

Did you READ that? Nowhere in it does it state that
"organic" farming produces crops with more nutrition. In
fact, it calls for MORE modern farming practices, not less,
including using highly sophisticated fertility additives.
It does mention that using manure as a fertilizer can
improve soil structure and uptake of micronutrients. BFD.
We already know that. (It's one of the reasons many of us
use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer.) Nowhere does it
suggest, even remotely, that we would get better food by
abandoning modern farming practices. Instead, it calls for
even MORE of a modern approach to farming -- not a return to
"nature."

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[JoeSP]

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by JoeSP

Post by Robert Sturgeon

Post by JoeSP

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown
(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and plants
need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride, but we
need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy. Farmers
generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and occasionally
a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes with yield.
Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been mined out of the
soil long ago.

I'd like to see you post information from any reliable
source (i.e., a non-biased, believable source like a major
university or the USDA) showing that "organic" farm products
have more nutritional value than conventionally grown farm
products. The overwhelming "conventional" wisdom is that
there is no difference.

http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB425/Lit_files/extra_reading/Welch%202002%20human%20nutr.pdf

Did you READ that? Nowhere in it does it state that
"organic" farming produces crops with more nutrition. In
fact, it calls for MORE modern farming practices, not less,
including using highly sophisticated fertility additives.
It does mention that using manure as a fertilizer can
improve soil structure and uptake of micronutrients. BFD.
We already know that. (It's one of the reasons many of us
use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer.) Nowhere does it
suggest, even remotely, that we would get better food by
abandoning modern farming practices. Instead, it calls for
even MORE of a modern approach to farming -- not a return to
"nature."

Of course it doesn't mention organic farming, it merely shows that modern,
industrialized agriculture produces food containing far fewer trace minerals
than we had in the past, when we used to recycle the nutrients back to the
land with human and animal wastes. But it goes without saying that if food
were produced organically, the nutrients would have to come from animal and
human wastes in lieu of chemical fertilizer. Is any of this making sense to
you?

You asked for a citation, which you got. It doesn't mean it's not valid
because it doesn't fit your narrow definitions of organic farming.

[digitalmaster]

Post by JoeSP

Post by zentara
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:28:08 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
First, let's look at what is not sustainable. What agribusiness is doing
now is not farming, it is *mining* the soil. They only put Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potash back on the land, but after decades of doing
this, all the trace minerals are gone. So while the tonnage/acre has
risen, the net *nutrition* per acre has declined. As Jared Diamond in
"Collapse" notes, back when they first tested, hard red winter wheat had
22% protein; now its more like 14%. Never mind the loss of trace minerals.

This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient
BECAUSE we test for needed plant nutrients, including trace
minerals. 22% protein content in wheat? You could plant
wheat on land that has never been farmed, and you would not
get 22% protein wheat. I grow wheat. From the very first
time I grew any, over 20 years ago, until today, I have
never had less than 13% protein, and never more than 15.5%
protein. The millers LOVE my wheat and pay a premium for
it. My fields' productivity, product quality, and
"sustainability" have not decreased one bit in all that
time. I am NOT "mining" my fields. If anything, my fields
are in better shape now than ever.
(nonsense, snipped)

First of all, humans need at least 52 elements for our nutrition, and
plants need only 15 or 16. The other 37 elements are along for the ride,
but we need to get them all from our food if we are to remain healthy.
Farmers generally add only 3 or 4 nutrients to the soil each year, and
occasionally a few trace minerals, but generally only when it interferes
with yield. Many of those 52 critical elements that we need have been
mined out of the soil long ago. The alternative is to keep using
supplements, which few of us know how to do properly, nor often enough.
The other disadvantage is that it costs far more to supplement our food
with minerals and vitamins than to have them naturally occurring. Besides
that, the food tastes better when they're naturally occurring..
I had a chat earlier this year with Dr. Ross Welch from Cornell
University, who pioneered the research that showed that serious nutrient
deficiencies are common in our population due to improper nutrition. It's
nothing short of a national crisis, if his research is to be believed.
Other countries, such as Finland have instituted higher standards for food
nutrition years ago, mandating things like minimum levels of selenium in
wheat, and the decline of some diseases like cancer since that time has
been nothing less then startling.

perhaps we should all go back to nature.....we can survive hunting and
gathering the natural way ...and live to the ripe old age of 33 or 34 years
like cave men did.naturally

[Anthony Matonak]

digitalmaster wrote:
...

Post by digitalmaster
perhaps we should all go back to nature.....we can survive hunting and
gathering the natural way ...and live to the ripe old age of 33 or 34 years
like cave men did.naturally

People back then didn't die at 33 or 34, they generally lived as long
as anyone else through history. Their average lifespan may have been
in the mid 30's but that includes a lot of infant mortality and a lot
of old people.

Anthony

[Day Brown]

Post by Anthony Matonak

Post by digitalmaster
perhaps we should all go back to nature.....we can survive hunting and
gathering the natural way ...and live to the ripe old age of 33 or 34
years like cave men did.naturally

People back then didn't die at 33 or 34, they generally lived as long
as anyone else through history. Their average lifespan may have been
in the mid 30's but that includes a lot of infant mortality and a lot
of old people.

It mite be instructive to consider the lessons from the graveyard at
Varna Bulgaria, which dates from the mid 4th mil BCE. In stark contrast
to the rest of the world, the women there *averaged* in their early 40's
and the men in their late 30's. They didnt find any graves of children,
and the skeletons of the adults dont show signs of malnutrition while
growing up. Such longevity was not seen again until the end of the 19th
century.

Varna was at the tail end of a remarkable set of cultures which farmed
the riverine floodplains of Slavic Europe for 4000 years without ever
destroying the fertility of the land, clearcutting the forests, or
driving *any* species to extinction. It is the most sustainable
agriculture that has ever been found.

The whole show was run by witches. Part of the reason that the
Transylvanian mountains were so spooky, is that the witches were still
in power, and may be still back in the boonies for all I know.

[Day Brown]

There are people who are now following the Athenian model, invested in
farmland while living in the city, and taking trips out there to help
with the harvest or whatever, their presence assuring them that food is
grown in a way they think is good for their kids.

I dont see that the farmers doing this are any closer to bankruptcy; I
do see that the stock of the banks, the petrochemicals, the GM seed
producers, the fuel dealers, the grain mills, etc, is all up, while the
stock of their customers, the farmers, is all down. Why are farmers
listening to those people?

I grant you Robert, that there is a lot of "eco-propaganda" but they
aint the only ones producing propaganda. A lot of what is recommended
for 'organic farming' is bullschit, just as the 'agricultural policy'
set by a buncha lawyers in Washington is. Either way, the farmer will be
scrod. (pluperfect subjunctive)...

Nobody eats cotton, so I think 'organic cotton' is overdone. Some mite
sell in healthfood stores to people who are allergic to everthing.The
trace minerals agribusiness tests for relates to the tonnage of the
crop, not the nutrition of the product. YMMV; you havta start with a
soil test, not only of the surface, but with a post hole digger, down
below the hardpan to see if planting deep rooted crops like alfalfa will
pay off, or whether it'd be gonzo simpler to add greensand or some other
trace mineral mix.

And while you may regard it as eco-propaganda, I know nurses and health
professionals who have picked up on the epidemiological data from
regions that have various kinds of pollution, the rat studies on mental
development as a function of trace minerals, the effect of high fructose
corn syrup on the glycemic level of the blood, and the way that that
drives kids and their parents up the wall and reach for Ritalin. I wont
argue with you on whether these professionals are correct or not, but I
think it is clear to even you that their impact will create demand for
'organic' food far in excess of the market seen so far.

The 22% protein for wheat was reported by Jared Diamond in "Collapse" as
coming from lab work done 50 years ago. He too argues that nutritional
deficits have led to societal collapse. Repeatedly we see where farmers
went for the fast buck and reduced the variety of what they grew. This
is most obvious with the shift to corn; Diamond notes that agribusiness
globally today uses 80% of the land to grow just 5 crops. Cotton, rice,
wheat, soybeans, & corn. I spoze you are aware of the danger of disease
that comes from this kind of lack of diversity. too many eggs in too few
baskets, with the result that you havta shell out ever more to chemical
producers to cope with it. You got a good price in cotton cause others
werent able to afford the remedies you used, and they didnt have any of
the heritage varieties to see if they had resistance.

But back to wheat; I was born on a farm in Minnesota, and as a kid I
often wondered what it was that convinced people to live in such a gawd
awful cold place. Then in High school I saw the 19th century reports to
farmers out east and in Europe that convinced them to come. I dunno what
it is like now with global warming. But in the old days, I saw it get
down to 45deg F below zero and stay there a week, dropping down to 61
below one morning. The result is that the ground froze 5 ft deep.

Not many bugs can handle it. Moreover, all bacterial activity stops, and
even when it starts up in summer, the ground temp was only 36deg F. Your
dirt is so warm that biological activity goes on all year round, turning
the humus into soluble compounds that wash out of the soil. So- you've a
hard time maintaining the fertility. I remember digging the outhouse,
down 3 foot or more thru the blackest richest dirt you ever saw. humus
and dead roots linger in that soil for decades, storing moisture to take
a crop thru a dry spell.

Then too, there is the solar cycle; We usta plant corn May 10; the sun
wasnt as high as down south, but it was in the sky for 14 hours already.
And up for 16 hours in June on into July. Schitt grows really fast with
that much sunlight, and wheat just loved the fuck out of it. And of
course, with the world's best wheat, you'd expect entrepreneurs to be
there to take advantage of it. Thus: Pillsbury, General Mills, and Gold
Medal flour, among others were all founded in Minneapolis. Barley kinda
likes it too, which is why the beer is made there and Milwalkee.

Something you mite wanna look into, is that farmers are trucking their
tractors and equipment up to the Yukon. The melted permafrost is about
as "organic" as soil ever gets. So- rather than letting equipment sit
idle in the south between planting and harvest, take it up there, and in
60-75 days have a harvest that results from even longer daylength.

Post by Robert Sturgeon
I use "organic" methods when they are appropriate. For
example, I use a LOT of chicken manure as fertilizer. It
has a better mix of nutrients for the money it costs than
synthetic fertilizer. But sometimes synthetic fertilizers
make more sense, and I use them. But totally "organic"
methods would be disastrous. Bugs, weeds, and various other
problems would make reliable yields a pipedream. I'd have
to get 2 or 3 times the price to justify the added risks.

Well, yes, but you *would* get 2-3 times the price. Talk to Ozark Whole
Food Coop in Fayetteville AR. They send trucks around to all the health
food stores in AR, MO, OK, NB, LA every week; if you have something they
are interested in, they'd be happy not to deadhead the truck back to the
warehouse. And yes, I've used chicken litter, and even a little trip 19
or 10-20-10. But I dont put so much on the land that the microbial life
and earthworms in it cant handle it.

Regarding weeds; have you looked into switchgrass? I expect seed in my
mailbox any day, but surfing suggests you could tool up for a small
amount of money and make a *killing*. I was disappointed looking at

Post by Robert Sturgeon
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:hvE3wGeFRF8J:www.eesi.org/publications/Newsletters/ECO/bco%252028/pimentel_patzek.pdf+switchgrass+%22alcohol+production%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Sorry about the long link, another clue to a givernment idiot. His
numbers are all metric, but what it boils down to is 800 gallons of
ethanol/acre of switchgrass... the way they know how to extract it.
Totally ignoring the value of the remaining mash as stock feed. And
unaware of new processes and microbes that would raise it to 1200+
gallons/acre. Or http://www.butanol.com which is a process to splice two
molecules of ethanol into a fuel that has the same energy as gasoline,
runs on egzactly the same engines... only cleaner.

Essi seems to think you are growing wheat. But switchgrass is a native
American tall grass prairy perennial, and you dont need herbicides cause
it crowds out and shades everything else, getting 6ft+ tall. In fact,
your problem is going to be getting rid of it a few years down the line
when you want to rotate crops. Mow it for hay, and disc it during a dry
spell seems reasonable.

There's just no know how in what they know. Alcohol boils at 171F. You
dont need to cook it with gas, you can make a *solar* still. And if you
ferment the mash, it'll keep just like silage, letting you boil it off
in your furnace heating the house next winter. These ag experts are all
slaves of the transnationals and just cant figure out how to do anything
with paying and paying... the people who fund their studies. At the time
this study was made, you lost money making alcohol; but that was before
the price of gas went thru the roof.

And- converting a motor to run on alcohol is not rocket science; bore
out the carb ports on a mopar 318 from .030 to .062 or even .090 if you
want max power. Just crank out the main jet on a Briggs a turn or 2.

I'm sure there is a rational middle ground- between the eco nuts and the
slaves to the transnationals- that would pay farmers much better and at
the same time deliver food that is much healthier. MOREOVER: if inept
mismanagement, corruption, and greed ruin the economy, we- and farmers-
will all be dependent on *local* resources, which will, of necessity, be
mostly 'organic'. I daresay, that if we cut back 1/3 of beef consumption
and used that land to grow ethanol & butanol, we'd have the fuel we need
to kiss the jackasses in OPEC good bye.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Thu, 18 May 2006 19:09:02 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
There are people who are now following the Athenian model, invested in
farmland while living in the city, and taking trips out there to help
with the harvest or whatever, their presence assuring them that food is
grown in a way they think is good for their kids.

And this is a societal trend? I doubt that.

Post by Day Brown
I dont see that the farmers doing this are any closer to bankruptcy; I
do see that the stock of the banks, the petrochemicals, the GM seed
producers, the fuel dealers, the grain mills, etc, is all up, while the
stock of their customers, the farmers, is all down. Why are farmers
listening to those people?

Farmers aren't as stupid as you seem to think. They are in
business. Why do they get crop loans? To get the money to
improve their operations. Why do they use farm chemicals?
To make more money than they otherwise could. Why do they
use the best seeds, especially GM seeds? To make more money
than they otherwise could. Why do they use diesel and
gasoline, instead of oats and hay, as fuel for their farm
machinery? Because they aren't a bunch of atavistic fools.
Why do they sell their grain to mills? Who the goofy heck
else is going to buy it???

Post by Day Brown
I grant you Robert, that there is a lot of "eco-propaganda" but they
aint the only ones producing propaganda. A lot of what is recommended
for 'organic farming' is bullschit, just as the 'agricultural policy'
set by a buncha lawyers in Washington is. Either way, the farmer will be
scrod. (pluperfect subjunctive)...

In that case I guess I won't worry about it...

Post by Day Brown
Nobody eats cotton,

Really? No, no one eats cotton fibers. But people
certainly eat cotton oil, and cotton seed is fed into the
food chain when it's fed to livestock.

Post by Day Brown
so I think 'organic cotton' is overdone.

It's even more pointless than all the rest of the "organic"
bullshit.

Post by Day Brown
Some mite
sell in healthfood stores to people who are allergic to everthing.

If they really think they're getting an allergic reaction to
conventially-grown cotton fibers as compared to
"organically" grown cotton fibers, they're sadly mistaken.
A fool and his money, and all that...

Post by Day Brown
The
trace minerals agribusiness tests for relates to the tonnage of the
crop, not the nutrition of the product. YMMV; you havta start with a
soil test, not only of the surface, but with a post hole digger, down
below the hardpan to see if planting deep rooted crops like alfalfa will
pay off, or whether it'd be gonzo simpler to add greensand or some other
trace mineral mix.

Wow, why didn't we farmers think of this radical new idea --
soil tests -- before???

After you get done telling professional farmers how to farm,
I guess you could go tell Beretta how to make shotguns.

(rest snipped)

We in the United States have the cheapest, safest, most
nutritious, and most secure food supply in the entire
history of the world, and some people want to fix that
problem.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Day Brown]

I dont characterize the arguments of others. I post the facts as I know
them, and am perfectly willing to be advised of more facts that relate
to the issue at hand.

I note that those who dont have any more facts resort to ad hominum and
sarcasm. But I am not here to match wits and repartee; when I limit my
comments to the facts and the logical deductions from them, I more often
see others present other facts for my consideration, for which I am
grateful.

Agriculture, like all other fields, constantly adjusts to new factors
and new opportunities. There are many who have done things the same way
for decades and provide challenges to new ideas. For which I am
grateful. But when I see the sarcasm, I dont see challenges. Those who
resort to unwarranted dismissiveness will provide less competition as
the changes in agriculture or other fields emerge- either slowly as the
price of petrochemicals rise or rapidly as the whole economy tanks from
the ineptitude and corruption we all know is going on.

By 'sustainable', I had in mind an agricultural model that would work
either way- be less reliant on the increasingly costly petrochemicals,
and if TSHTF, still be productive on local resources to be sold into the
local market. We wont be shipping grain to the Mid East for oil.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Sat, 20 May 2006 20:44:26 -0500, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown
I dont characterize the arguments of others. I post the facts as I know
them, and am perfectly willing to be advised of more facts that relate
to the issue at hand.

In this thread you have posted a bunch of pure bullshit.
Your "facts" aren't facts -- they're baseless assertions
made by people with a political motivation to attack modern
agriculture. When unbiased researchers study those
assertions, they consistently debunk them. "Organic"
produce has no more nutritional value than conventionally
grown produce. Conventionally grown produce is not unsafe.
Conventional agriculture does not deplete the soil at any
faster rate than "organic" agriculture. When scientists
without any political axe to grind study these matters,
those are the conclusions they always reach. You have been
conned, taken in, fooled by a socio-political movement.

I grow cotton. I occasionally get flyers from something
called "The Sustainable Cotton Project," or some such thing.
I read the first one and immediately realized what it was,
and that it had nothing whatsoever useful to offer me. Now
I toss them without any consideration whatsoever.

Post by Day Brown
I note that those who dont have any more facts resort to ad hominum and
sarcasm. But I am not here to match wits and repartee; when I limit my
comments to the facts and the logical deductions from them, I more often
see others present other facts for my consideration, for which I am
grateful.
Agriculture, like all other fields, constantly adjusts to new factors
and new opportunities. There are many who have done things the same way
for decades and provide challenges to new ideas. For which I am
grateful. But when I see the sarcasm, I dont see challenges. Those who
resort to unwarranted dismissiveness will provide less competition as
the changes in agriculture or other fields emerge- either slowly as the
price of petrochemicals rise or rapidly as the whole economy tanks from
the ineptitude and corruption we all know is going on.
By 'sustainable', I had in mind an agricultural model that would work
either way- be less reliant on the increasingly costly petrochemicals,
and if TSHTF, still be productive on local resources to be sold into the
local market. We wont be shipping grain to the Mid East for oil.

As anyone who knows anything about modern agriculture can
tell you, if TSHTF and we don't have enough inputs of fuel,
fertilizer, pesticides, modern seeds, etc., agricultural
production will suffer a catastrophic collapse and the
cheap, safe, nutritional, and secure food supply that we
take for granted will disappear. In such an event, the most
important thing we can do, and what we WILL do, is to
recreate as closely as possible the modern farming system,
even if we have less fuel and less other modern inputs than
we have now. For example, if we have a problem getting
diesel fuel, we are NOT going to start using mules for
power. We are going to get the refineries running again.
To think otherwise is to engage in pointless, foolish
atavism. You may do that if it suits you, but I refuse.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Day Brown]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
As anyone who knows anything about modern agriculture can
tell you, if TSHTF and we don't have enough inputs of fuel,
fertilizer, pesticides, modern seeds, etc., agricultural
production will suffer a catastrophic collapse and the
cheap, safe, nutritional, and secure food supply that we
take for granted will disappear. In such an event, the most
important thing we can do, and what we WILL do, is to
recreate as closely as possible the modern farming system,
even if we have less fuel and less other modern inputs than
we have now. For example, if we have a problem getting
diesel fuel, we are NOT going to start using mules for
power. We are going to get the refineries running again.
To think otherwise is to engage in pointless, foolish
atavism. You may do that if it suits you, but I refuse.

Do what you like; our dialogue is for the benefit of others. Seems
reasonable, that if you start *now* to reduce the consumption of
petrochemicals, then you'd be in a much better position to maintain
production if TSHTF. If you dont, you could starve before you get it
figured out.

Nor, have I suggested that we go back to draft animals; altho there are
certain instances where that would definately pay. I expect to have
switchgrass seed in my monday mail; I'm not going to grow that much, but
I am going to get acquainted with it so that if I want to ramp up
production next year, I'll have a fucking clue as to what I'm in for.

This fall, I'll harvest it, crush the stems, and ferment the juice; I
expect it'll be a lot like sorghum beer that I've made. I already have a
still that I use to make herbal tinctures, and I'll be able to make
alcohol fuel with it if need be.

You envision a recovery after collapse that I dont expect. After Rome
fell, peasants started using the marble of the aquiducts to build barns
with; they'll cut up the refineries for scrap in the same way. There
wont be anyone around who knows how to run them.

IF TSHTF, the most likely outcome will be a return to independent city
states, each basically dependent on local resources. Lots of areas will
be total chaos and anarchy with genocidal, and then clan, warfare going
on all the time. Those jackasses will be back in the stone age.
Afghanistan is a pretty good example. There wont be any DEA; drugs and
rum will be traded further than anything else. I expect to make rum &
herbal extracts to replace pharmaceuticals.

You do business any way you damn well please. But most farmers now are
in their sixties, and the young men just cant afford to service the debt
to buy you or any other agribusiness outfit out when you want to retire.
Which is why so many old farts are still farming; no buyers except real
estate developers. But organic farming is a way for a young man to break
into the business; he dont need nearly as much land or equipment. And if
the interest rates go up as we all expect, they wont have any other
option; there's not enough profits to pay the mortgage needed to buy out
agribusiness with tractors that cost 100K.

[Robert Sturgeon]

On Sun, 21 May 2006 13:15:02 -0500, Day Brown
<***@wildblue.net> wrote:
(snips)

Seems reasonable, that if you start *now* to reduce the consumption of
petrochemicals, then you'd be in a much better position to maintain
production if TSHTF. If you dont, you could starve before you get it
figured out.

No, if we reduce inputs now, we will have a reduction in
farm production now. I know some people who reduced their
inputs. They all have found work elsewhere.

Nor, have I suggested that we go back to draft animals; altho there are
certain instances where that would definately pay.

Oh, brother...

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

[Day Brown]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
No, if we reduce inputs now, we will have a reduction in
farm production now. I know some people who reduced their
inputs. They all have found work elsewhere.

There are reports online of farmers using satellite video to identify
areas of stress, and *REDUCE* their inputs to just that part. As the
price of petrochemicals rise, people will look for more ways to reduce
consumption, and more willing to ignore some damage since the cost of
the treatment is now more than the profit from using it.

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Day Brown
There's just no know how in what they know.

It's all so easy, isn't it?

Post by Day Brown
Alcohol boils at 171F. You
dont need to cook it with gas, you can make a *solar* still. And if you
ferment the mash, it'll keep just like silage, letting you boil it off
in your furnace heating the house next winter.

Let me call my furnace man and my insurance agent and see what they
say. By the way, is alcohol flamable?

Post by Day Brown
These ag experts are all
slaves of the transnationals and just cant figure out how to do anything
with paying and paying... the people who fund their studies. At the time
this study was made, you lost money making alcohol; but that was before
the price of gas went thru the roof.

Everyone making fule on their home furnace? Hi!

I'm reminded of China trying to get their iron production up. Turned
everyone into backyard iron workers, which precipitated mass
starvation.

Yeh, it's not rocket science.

[Day Brown]

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Day Brown
There's just no know how in what they know.

It's all so easy, isn't it?

There's lotsa money being made by the petroleum industry paying media to
convince farmers they cant do it. The givernment would also have a
helluva time controlling ethanol so it dont get used as booze. They want
the taxes, and dont care what you havta pay for gasoline.

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Day Brown
Alcohol boils at 171F. You
dont need to cook it with gas, you can make a *solar* still. And if you
ferment the mash, it'll keep just like silage, letting you boil it off
in your furnace heating the house next winter.

Let me call my furnace man and my insurance agent and see what they
say. By the way, is alcohol flamable?

yes; and so is the gas that feeds the furnace; that's why they feed it
in a steel pipe. You dont havta condense it in the house; and you are
right, it is flammable. Engines run real well on it.

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Day Brown
These ag experts are all
slaves of the transnationals and just cant figure out how to do anything
with paying and paying... the people who fund their studies. At the time
this study was made, you lost money making alcohol; but that was before
the price of gas went thru the roof.

Everyone making fule on their home furnace? Hi!

Does everyone have the land to grow the crops to ferment for alcohol?

Post by h***@hotmail.com
I'm reminded of China trying to get their iron production up. Turned
everyone into backyard iron workers, which precipitated mass
starvation.
Yeh, it's not rocket science.

China's problem was driven from the *top down*. Farm alcohol production
is competition to the top down petroleum industry from the bottom up. If
a farmer is organized enough to select the right crop for his land and
ecosystem, and can figure out how to setup the fermentation tanks, he's
smart enough to setup a still to produce alcohol production that runs
100 gallons/acre or more.

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Day Brown
There's just no know how in what they know.

It's all so easy, isn't it?

There's lotsa money being made by the petroleum industry paying media to
convince farmers they cant do it.

Well, the pellet stove was originally the corn stove. Farm-Aid, Willie
Nelson, and all that.

Post by Day Brown
The givernment would also have a
helluva time controlling ethanol so it dont get used as booze. They want
the taxes, and dont care what you havta pay for gasoline.

Whiskey Rebellion II?

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Day Brown
Alcohol boils at 171F. You
dont need to cook it with gas, you can make a *solar* still. And if you
ferment the mash, it'll keep just like silage, letting you boil it off
in your furnace heating the house next winter.

Let me call my furnace man and my insurance agent and see what they
say. By the way, is alcohol flamable?

yes; and so is the gas that feeds the furnace; that's why they feed it
in a steel pipe. You dont havta condense it in the house; and you are
right, it is flammable. Engines run real well on it.

You're suggesting that everyone make their own fuel on their home
furnace.

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com

Post by Day Brown
These ag experts are all
slaves of the transnationals and just cant figure out how to do anything
with paying and paying... the people who fund their studies. At the time
this study was made, you lost money making alcohol; but that was before
the price of gas went thru the roof.

Everyone making fuel on their home furnace? Hi!

Does everyone have the land to grow the crops to ferment for alcohol?

What's the diff between switchgrass and tall fescue or kentucky
bluegrass?

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com
I'm reminded of China trying to get their iron production up. Turned
everyone into backyard iron workers, which precipitated mass
starvation.
Yeh, it's not rocket science.

China's problem was driven from the *top down*. Farm alcohol production
is competition to the top down petroleum industry from the bottom up. If
a farmer is organized enough to select the right crop for his land and
ecosystem, and can figure out how to setup the fermentation tanks, he's
smart enough to setup a still to produce alcohol production that runs
100 gallons/acre or more.

Welp, every time I make a 5 gallon batch of beer on the kitchen stove
it causes all sorts of grief in the family. Finally got a sawed off
keg, a turkey fryer, and moved it all outside.

[Day Brown]

I'm not familiar with Fescue of bluegrass. Neither do well in my neck of
Ozark woods; the ridgetops and bottoms are often cleared for pasture,
but the bedrock is shale that dont neutralize acid like limestone does.

I planted some switchgrass today, so we'll see. I read that the stems
are pencil thick, and I spoze that like any grass, cut at the right time
will have a sweet pith that can be crushed the same as sugar cane or
sorghum [which I've also grown. There's photos of the stuff 2 meters
tall. Since it is native American tall grass prairy, I expect it'll do
better if we have summer drought.

And like you imply, since this is a warm weather activity, there's no
reason not to setup the fermentation tanks and still outside. And while
I could use firewood to boil it, seems reasonable just to pipe the
liquid to the heater in the house and have it condense outside again as
the heating season comes on. Like beer, once the mash is fermented,
it'll keep all winter, and as the alcohol is removed, feed it to stock.

The calculations for alcohol production always include the cost of fuel
needed to distill it. If that cost is diddly, and it would be, then the
alcohol fuel is much more profitable.

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Day Brown
I'm not familiar with Fescue of bluegrass. Neither do well in my neck of
Ozark woods; the ridgetops and bottoms are often cleared for pasture,
but the bedrock is shale that dont neutralize acid like limestone does.
I planted some switchgrass today, so we'll see. I read that the stems
are pencil thick, and I spoze that like any grass, cut at the right time
will have a sweet pith that can be crushed the same as sugar cane or
sorghum [which I've also grown. There's photos of the stuff 2 meters
tall. Since it is native American tall grass prairy, I expect it'll do
better if we have summer drought.
And like you imply, since this is a warm weather activity, there's no
reason not to setup the fermentation tanks and still outside. And while
I could use firewood to boil it, seems reasonable just to pipe the
liquid to the heater in the house and have it condense outside again as
the heating season comes on. Like beer, once the mash is fermented,
it'll keep all winter, and as the alcohol is removed, feed it to stock.
The calculations for alcohol production always include the cost of fuel
needed to distill it. If that cost is diddly, and it would be, then the
alcohol fuel is much more profitable.

Fair enough, but the industry can't send the mash home with it's
employees to distill in their spare time with spare heat.

[Day Brown]

Post by h***@hotmail.com
Fair enough, but the industry can't send the mash home with it's
employees to distill in their spare time with spare heat.

I aint talking about industry, but family farms, or better yet,
*community* farms like the Athenians had. the neighborhoods owned tracts
of rural land that urbanites would go out to from time to time; like to
be on hand when lotsa help is needed for harvest.

Neighborhoods could do vertical integration just like transnats; have a
bus and a truck to go out to the farm. So- instead of urbanites getting
the exercise they need uselessly in gyms, get it productively by cutting
the firewood needed to *DRAMATICALLY* reduce their heating bills.

They can grow their own veggies as organically as they want- prepared to
suffer the losses from weeds and bugs. But also more careful, such as to
remove all the ripe veggies from a field before spraying it for the next
harvest. Would agribusiness do that?

SO- they get alcohol to run their cars on, and meat from raising the
livestock on the mash (absolutely *certain* there's no mad cow problem).

As middle class incomes get hammered by outsourcing or whatever, there
will be more folks who figure this out, and work deals with farmers like
I see already to produce organic veggies, eggs, milk, etc. And by being
personally involved in this way, and not having to pay for long distance
shipping from Mexico or wherever, this healthy locally grown food is
*cheaper* than what's in the supermarkets.

Libertarians would like it because it completely bypasses regulations;
they cant tell you that you must pasturize and homogenize milk from cows
that *you* partly own. You dont need to pay an FDA meat inspector for
this livestock either. Greens would like it cause they would be better
able to make sure no dangerous chemicals would be in their food.

Small business would like it cause their customers would be spending far
less at Wall Mart and have more money to spend locally. They would also
see more job applicants more able to get by on lower incomes. But big
business, big government, major parties, and big media would hate it
because their collusion would have so little impact on such people.

[Tim May]

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com
Fair enough, but the industry can't send the mash home with it's
employees to distill in their spare time with spare heat.

I aint talking about industry, but family farms, or better yet,
*community* farms like the Athenians had. the neighborhoods owned tracts
of rural land that urbanites would go out to from time to time; like to
be on hand when lotsa help is needed for harvest.

"Communes" are for communists.

With equipment and a market system, extra labor at harvest time can be
_hired_. Having the "community" communally own farms is a losing idea.

The layabouts in Jamestown, who preferred to lounge under a tree while
the suckers broke their backs in the hot Virginia sun, were just one of
many such examples of why communal labor almost always fails.

(And, yes, I got suckered into agreeing to some labor for friends.
Usually a few of us were carrying most of the rocks (for a new
retaining wall drainage system), several people were mostly standing
around, the chicks were gabbing, and a couple of people appointed
themselves as supervisors. And, it turned out, the labor was mainly
helping the acquaintance get his place ready to sell, which he did. I
never ask for such free help at my place, and I have now sworn off all
such "communal" efforts. It's what money is for.)

And as for harvesting by hand, this is a token, feelgood effort. Even
the farmers of a century ago were using mechanical equipment. Even the
peasants in the Turd World buy equipment, when they can afford to.

Running a farm with Neolithic methods is silly.



--Tim May

[Day Brown]

Post by Tim May

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com
Fair enough, but the industry can't send the mash home with it's
employees to distill in their spare time with spare heat.

I aint talking about industry, but family farms, or better yet,
*community* farms like the Athenians had. the neighborhoods owned tracts
of rural land that urbanites would go out to from time to time; like to
be on hand when lotsa help is needed for harvest.

"Communes" are for communists.
With equipment and a market system, extra labor at harvest time can be
_hired_. Having the "community" communally own farms is a losing idea.
The layabouts in Jamestown, who preferred to lounge under a tree while
the suckers broke their backs in the hot Virginia sun, were just one of
many such examples of why communal labor almost always fails.
(And, yes, I got suckered into agreeing to some labor for friends.
Usually a few of us were carrying most of the rocks (for a new
retaining wall drainage system), several people were mostly standing
around, the chicks were gabbing, and a couple of people appointed
themselves as supervisors. And, it turned out, the labor was mainly
helping the acquaintance get his place ready to sell, which he did. I
never ask for such free help at my place, and I have now sworn off all
such "communal" efforts. It's what money is for.)
And as for harvesting by hand, this is a token, feelgood effort. Even
the farmers of a century ago were using mechanical equipment. Even the
peasants in the Turd World buy equipment, when they can afford to.
Running a farm with Neolithic methods is silly.

Use whatever methods you and your friends like. Mine are mostly health
professionals with lots of data to support their concern about the
effect of agribusiness chemicals on the food used to raise their kids.

And yes- some are in the kitchen now, talking as they have for hours.
but corporate meetings to establish a new business are like that. Just
because it is a limited partnership dont make it a communistic commune.
And yes, there's some concern over laziness, just as there is in the way
the givernment and transnationals operate. There are lazy, corrupt, and
ineffective people everywhere.

The Athenians had the same problem; I dont blame Xanthippus for bitching
about Socrates always being on the square bullschitting rather than
going out to the farm to get something useful done. But she only did
that because she felt, as a member of the coop, that she had an
*investment* to protect.

Maybe you missed it, others seem to have as well; I guess it is too far
out of the box. But harvesting blueberries here is the *only* way to do
it. But we also have a sawmill, and chainsaws; in either case, the work
which would quickly grow to be drudgery, is *FUN* for folks who only
have to do it on an occassional weekend. And sure, there are many who
can only get things done with money. But there are others with more
social skills and who appreciate the comeradery of joint effort, who
find cooperation an effective way to reduce the cost of living. Since
they cant raise their incomes in the face of global competition, what
else can they do?

[h***@hotmail.com]

Post by Day Brown

Post by h***@hotmail.com
Fair enough, but the industry can't send the mash home with it's
employees to distill in their spare time with spare heat.

I aint talking about industry,

Then don't complain about what industry says is feasible or not, unless
you're a stockholder. You are operating under two different paradigms.

Post by Day Brown
but family farms, or better yet,
*community* farms like the Athenians had. the neighborhoods owned tracts
of rural land that urbanites would go out to from time to time; like to
be on hand when lotsa help is needed for harvest.

Collective farms.

Post by Day Brown
Neighborhoods could do vertical integration just like transnats; have a
bus and a truck to go out to the farm. So- instead of urbanites getting
the exercise they need uselessly in gyms, get it productively by cutting
the firewood needed to *DRAMATICALLY* reduce their heating bills.
They can grow their own veggies as organically as they want- prepared to
suffer the losses from weeds and bugs. But also more careful, such as to
remove all the ripe veggies from a field before spraying it for the next
harvest. Would agribusiness do that?

They have to follow the label and reentry intervals.

Post by Day Brown
SO- they get alcohol to run their cars on, and meat from raising the
livestock on the mash (absolutely *certain* there's no mad cow problem).

Could be a host of other problems, though.

Post by Day Brown
As middle class incomes get hammered by outsourcing or whatever, there
will be more folks who figure this out, and work deals with farmers like
I see already to produce organic veggies, eggs, milk, etc. And by being
personally involved in this way, and not having to pay for long distance
shipping from Mexico or wherever, this healthy locally grown food is
*cheaper* than what's in the supermarkets.

I disagree. Local farm markets are very expensive.

Post by Day Brown
Libertarians would like it because it completely bypasses regulations;

Libertarians want no regulations. Each individual would have to test
their chicken for salmonella.

Post by Day Brown
they cant tell you that you must pasturize and homogenize milk from cows
that *you* partly own.

And more health risks from unpasteurized milk.

Post by Day Brown
You dont need to pay an FDA meat inspector for
this livestock either.

Why not just ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

Post by Day Brown
Greens would like it cause they would be better
able to make sure no dangerous chemicals would be in their food.

Maybe just dangerous bacteria and molds.

Post by Day Brown
Small business would like it cause their customers would be spending far
less at Wall Mart and have more money to spend locally. They would also
see more job applicants more able to get by on lower incomes. But big
business, big government, major parties, and big media would hate it
because their collusion would have so little impact on such people.

I remember cheap and reliable phone service from Ma Bell. That was a
long time ago.

Maybe "big" somethings aren't so bad.

[Day Brown]

Lets start with this; you call it communism; but they operated as a sub
chapter S corporation. There was nobody forcing anyone to become a
member such as existed in the socialist nations. People were a part of
the operation becaus they thot it was in their own self interest. You
dont wanna? I dont have a problem with that.

Those who want more control over the chemicals that will used on the
food they feed their children are not looking for the lowest short term
price, but the best long term results in terms of the physical and
mental development of their kids.

You dont care? dont get involved, but dont try to tell others what they
should do. Rely on government regulations regarding the food you have.
They find the regulations are out of date, inefficient, and subject to
corruption from a number of sources.

By passing regulations lowers their costs at the same time it allows
them to increase what they perceive to be the value. You may think it is
all bullschit, but dont argue with me, argue with them, and study up on
chemistry before you do. Most of them I know are health professionals
who have studied both Gray's Anatomy and organic chemistry.

[zentara]

Post by Day Brown
Lets start with this; you call it communism; but they operated as a sub
chapter S corporation.

Yeah, there is an old saying..... "You become your enemy".

What is the difference between Stalinist Russia, and corporate
run America, where 1 of every 100 people are in prison, all
communications are monitored, half the houses are bugged,
rigged elections with no external monitoring allowed, and your
job can be eliminated if you speak out against the rulers?

Capitalist tyrants will economically murder you, where Stalinist
tyrants just shot you. I wonder which is more humane?

[Gunner]

Post by zentara

Post by Day Brown
Lets start with this; you call it communism; but they operated as a sub
chapter S corporation.

Yeah, there is an old saying..... "You become your enemy".
What is the difference between Stalinist Russia, and corporate
run America, where 1 of every 100 people are in prison, all
communications are monitored, half the houses are bugged,
rigged elections with no external monitoring allowed, and your
job can be eliminated if you speak out against the rulers?
Capitalist tyrants will economically murder you, where Stalinist
tyrants just shot you. I wonder which is more humane?

All communications monitored?
Half the houses are bugged?
Rigged elections?
job eliminated?

Blink blink..you really are starkers.

Ok..Ill play..provide cites to back up your claim or be shown to be a
buffoon.

Ill be waiting.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[Day Brown]

Well in this case, in contrast to both Communism and Transnationals, the
solution is from the bottom up. None of the great power centers really
want people organizing at the grass roots and using the grass stems to
make alcohol fuel.

But they have shown us diversification, so we should grow several crops
at several locations. And they've shown us vertical integration, so we
should use the organization to grow as much of what we consume from
within the corporation. And- they've shown us how corporations avoid
taxes by re-investing profits. They've also shown how corporations can
get deals from local governments on infrastructure support at the same
time sticking other tax payers with the bill for doing it.

And if the profits are enough, rather than paying taxes on them, we
could call a board meeting in the Bahamas next winter, and charter a jet
to carry us down there, all written off on the taxes. Course, a charter
is just going to have our own personnel on it, so it wont have anyone on
board with bronchitus, TB, or like that trip to London, ebola. None of
our people will pick up a bird flu from flying.

[zentara]

Post by Gunner
All communications monitored?

You don't read the news or watch TV? Have of all media has been
talking about the NSA monitoring of all US citizen's phone calls,
emails, usenet posts, web site visits, etc. People are screaming, and
the government claims it is needed to get those pesky terrorists.
But in the meantime, they are collecting info on your love life, drug
habits, sexual preferences, stock trades, etc, etc. Of course, Mr. Bush
says the famous words which always preceeds the stab in the back......
"trust us, we are the government" . ha ha

Maybe you just gloss over those stories, because you don't want
to believe it is really happening?

Post by Gunner
Half the houses are bugged?

Well as always, what the government says it does legally, and what
it does in reality are 2 different things. The NSA phone surveillance is
just the "tip of the iceberg", and only was made public because of some
leaks( surrounding Qwest's refusal to comply).
The key difference is the legality of the bugging. Up until now, the
government was bugging the phones without search warrants, but it
could not be used as evidence in court. It was a super-secret governemnt
program. Now that it is known, and declared "legal" by the Bush regime,
they can routinely use those calls gathered in a "fishing expedition"
legally in court against you. Previously, there was always the
"anonymous sources" mentioned as a rational to investigate you.

You can be assured that if you are in any public building, you are
either on video tape, or audio tape. 60 Minutes has done a few
exposes on the prevalence of audio bugging, and video is catching up
fast.

It does not take a genius to realize that they are doing the same thing
to private residences without warrants. Sure, they cannot use it (or
admit to it in court), once again it is "anonymous tips" to the police.
With modern technology, they don't even need to actually place
a bug in your premises, and this further muddies the legal waters.
Imagine this, an advanced high tech black blimp, which floats above
a town at about 10000 feet. It can watch all car movements, watch
people with infrared, and bounce lasers off of your roofs and windows,
which act like big resonators sending all sounds in the premises back
up to the computer link. Video images can sometimes be taken this way
too. Did you know that with the right equipment, you can record clear
video through glass-block windows?
Or how about just a super-sensitive sensor, just buried in the ground,
which picks up audio? Those exist.

If you want to be a "babe in the woods" and believe that your
conversations are not being heard, that's fine..... but don't say you
have not been warned. Just google for the size of the US Spy industry
and the size of the secret budget used for spying. That's alot of money.

Post by Gunner
Rigged elections?

Google for "Diebold". The CEO of Diebold was relieved of command after
he publically proclaimed that he would do everything in his power to
elect G. W. Bush. Then google for all the states who are banning
Diebold's machines?

But that is not the main way they commit voter fraud. What they do in
general, is put 100's of brand new high quality voting machines in
districts where rich republican supporters are, so that they never
have to wait more than 10 minutes in line. Then in poorer democratic
districts, they have only a few working machines, with hour long waiting
lines, and thousands in line, who are turned away because the polls
close. When you add all these lost votes up, they would swing elections.

The biggest sore on their system, is that the US will not allow
international voting-fairness inspectors in to inspect elections. We
demand it in other countries, but we won't allow it here. And you can
guess why, can't you?

Post by Gunner
job eliminated?

Where have you been? Unions have been systematically destroyed.
Jobs are being outsourced. Google for "whistleblowers" and see that
their lives usually get destroyed for exposing corporate toxic dumps,
etc. Sure corporate profits go up....but the little guy gets the shaft,
and now the numbers of shafted little guys is growing, and becoming a
threat to the corporate power structure. So you call the little shafted
guys terrorists, and bug the hell out of them.

Post by Gunner
Blink blink..you really are starkers.

Well, I would say that you just don't want to admit to what is happening
all around you. That is just where they want you. Just keep watching Fox
news, and believe it is all being done for Jesus.

Post by Gunner
Ok..Ill play..provide cites to back up your claim or be shown to be a
buffoon.
Ill be waiting.
Gunner

Eh, well you can think what you want. You can call me a buffoon or
bonkers if you want, but this stuff is happening. One day you will wake
up and wonder how did they take all your privacy away?

[Gunner]

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
All communications monitored?

You don't read the news or watch TV? Have of all media has been
talking about the NSA monitoring of all US citizen's phone calls,
emails, usenet posts, web site visits, etc. People are screaming, and
the government claims it is needed to get those pesky terrorists.
But in the meantime, they are collecting info on your love life, drug
habits, sexual preferences, stock trades, etc, etc. Of course, Mr. Bush
says the famous words which always preceeds the stab in the back......
"trust us, we are the government" . ha ha

Which planet is that you live on? On Earth..Sol 3, Terra..the
government has been using computers to look for certain phone number
being called, and using computers to listen to phone calls that go out
of the us to certain unfriendly countries..to some of those same phone
numbers.

Post by zentara
Maybe you just gloss over those stories, because you don't want
to believe it is really happening?

I also read/heard in the media that Elvis is still alive, that
Jennifer Aniston had the Devils child and a fellow drove across the
US on a tablespoon of tap water. This makes it true. Correct?

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Half the houses are bugged?

Well as always, what the government says it does legally, and what
it does in reality are 2 different things. The NSA phone surveillance is
just the "tip of the iceberg", and only was made public because of some
leaks( surrounding Qwest's refusal to comply).
The key difference is the legality of the bugging. Up until now, the
government was bugging the phones without search warrants, but it
could not be used as evidence in court. It was a super-secret governemnt
program. Now that it is known, and declared "legal" by the Bush regime,
they can routinely use those calls gathered in a "fishing expedition"
legally in court against you. Previously, there was always the
"anonymous sources" mentioned as a rational to investigate you.

Are you refering to Clintons Carnivor and Echelon programs of phone
call searches by computers of certain keywords? Now this has what do
to with bugging houses?

Post by zentara
You can be assured that if you are in any public building, you are
either on video tape, or audio tape. 60 Minutes has done a few
exposes on the prevalence of audio bugging, and video is catching up
fast.

My house is not a public building. Yours is, I take it? Or did I just
catch you lying?

Post by zentara
It does not take a genius to realize that they are doing the same thing
to private residences without warrants. Sure, they cannot use it (or
admit to it in court), once again it is "anonymous tips" to the police.
With modern technology, they don't even need to actually place
a bug in your premises, and this further muddies the legal waters.
Imagine this, an advanced high tech black blimp, which floats above
a town at about 10000 feet. It can watch all car movements, watch
people with infrared, and bounce lasers off of your roofs and windows,
which act like big resonators sending all sounds in the premises back
up to the computer link. Video images can sometimes be taken this way
too. Did you know that with the right equipment, you can record clear
video through glass-block windows?
Or how about just a super-sensitive sensor, just buried in the ground,
which picks up audio? Those exist.

So..supposition and the ability to do something means that they ARE
doing it. Interesting. Got any hot tips on who kidnapped the Lindberg
Baby or where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?

Post by zentara
If you want to be a "babe in the woods" and believe that your
conversations are not being heard, that's fine..... but don't say you
have not been warned. Just google for the size of the US Spy industry
and the size of the secret budget used for spying. That's alot of money.

Wow!! Indeed! Almost as much as the ad money for Superbowl Sunday!

Im truly impressed!!

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Rigged elections?

Google for "Diebold". The CEO of Diebold was relieved of command after
he publically proclaimed that he would do everything in his power to
elect G. W. Bush. Then google for all the states who are banning
Diebold's machines?

Yes and? Where is the rigged elections part? Now about those pesky
hanging chads again...and Democrats too stupid to vote for the write
person...and 14 court challenges....?

Post by zentara
But that is not the main way they commit voter fraud. What they do in
general, is put 100's of brand new high quality voting machines in
districts where rich republican supporters are, so that they never
have to wait more than 10 minutes in line. Then in poorer democratic
districts, they have only a few working machines, with hour long waiting
lines, and thousands in line, who are turned away because the polls
close. When you add all these lost votes up, they would swing elections.

?they? is that the Infamous "they" that everybody talks about? Give
me some examples of "they" so Ill know what to lookout for.

Post by zentara
The biggest sore on their system, is that the US will not allow
international voting-fairness inspectors in to inspect elections. We
demand it in other countries, but we won't allow it here. And you can
guess why, can't you?

No. Please tell us. And give my regards to the Daleys as well.

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
job eliminated?

Where have you been? Unions have been systematically destroyed.
Jobs are being outsourced. Google for "whistleblowers" and see that
their lives usually get destroyed for exposing corporate toxic dumps,
etc. Sure corporate profits go up....but the little guy gets the shaft,
and now the numbers of shafted little guys is growing, and becoming a
threat to the corporate power structure. So you call the little shafted
guys terrorists, and bug the hell out of them.

Lives destroyed? You mean they lose their jobs? Awsome dude! As for
the Unions...well..you can thank the fat rat bastards at the top of
each union for destroying their own unions. Hows Jimmy Hoffa doing
these days?

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Blink blink..you really are starkers.

Well, I would say that you just don't want to admit to what is happening
all around you. That is just where they want you. Just keep watching Fox
news, and believe it is all being done for Jesus.

Ill tell Elvis you said Hi! as we read the Rather Memos before we go
out to look at all the exploding gas tanks.

Perhaps this may help you.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


Gunner

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Ok..Ill play..provide cites to back up your claim or be shown to be a
buffoon.
Ill be waiting.
Gunner

Eh, well you can think what you want. You can call me a buffoon or
bonkers if you want, but this stuff is happening. One day you will wake
up and wonder how did they take all your privacy away?

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[Day Brown]

Hey guys, we have no fucking idea what the givernment is doing, and only
a fool would believe what he is told about it.

However, I got a comp sci minor in 1971, and have been in the field ever
since, and I dont see how the givernment would have the personnel and
computer equipment to monitor millions of couch potatoes. What make you
think they giva fuck what you think? That's what Fox news is for.

As a measure of their incompetence, the first time they searched my
house, in 1968, when the search warrent arrived [I let them get started
searching to get it over with], it had the wrong name and the wrong
address. And in 1998, I guess my name was still in the data base cause
they searched my property again. Coming up empty handed.

One time, they busted into a halloween party, and arrested me for the
drugs guests dropped on the floor when the cops arrived. The judge threw
that case out of court; the *OTHER SIX TIMES*, they found nothing. nada.

No wonder they cant win the war on drugs; they dont want to win it, they
want to MILK it. And they wanna milk the war on Terror the same way; not
that there are not terrorists, but there are far more effective ways of
dealing with them that you dont want to hear about.

[zentara]

Post by Day Brown
No wonder they cant win the war on drugs; they dont want to win it, they
want to MILK it. And they wanna milk the war on Terror the same way; not
that there are not terrorists, but there are far more effective ways of
dealing with them that you dont want to hear about.

Right on. The drug war all about making money for lawyers, courts, and
the mob. There are more drugs available now, than before the drug war
started. The DEA is just an enforcement arm of the mob, who don't
like it when Mexicans try to move in on territory controlled by
Canadians, and vice versa. And they bust the young upstarts who
don't make the right political payoffs. (You gotta donate to the
Policeman's Benevolent Society... :-) )

They are using the "boogie man" of terrorism, to establish Big Brother.
Just like the 911 Commission hearings suggest...... the higher-ups at
the FBI told agents to leave the perps alone.... because they wanted
an incident that would allow them to start the Afgan war, the Iraqi war,
and begin the Big Brother surveillance and control over domestic
citizens. It's just like the Haymarket Square massacre, whereing FBI
agents blew up some people, blamed the unionists and anarchists,
then put them all in prison, before they threatened the political
bosses.

Hey the price was cheap... just blow up a few skyscrapers in NY.

[Day Brown]

Post by zentara
They are using the "boogie man" of terrorism, to establish Big Brother.
Just like the 911 Commission hearings suggest...... the higher-ups at
the FBI told agents to leave the perps alone.... because they wanted
an incident that would allow them to start the Afgan war, the Iraqi war,
and begin the Big Brother surveillance and control over domestic
citizens. It's just like the Haymarket Square massacre, whereing FBI
agents blew up some people, blamed the unionists and anarchists,
then put them all in prison, before they threatened the political
bosses.

I dont think of Big Brother so much as Ma Bell. I understand the
tyrannic instincts of the alpha males like Bush who think they are in
charge, and charge us enormous sums for their management. But one way or
the other, that trip, the rule by the warrior class, which began in the
bronze age, is at the end of it's 5000 year run. The strong right arm,
sword in hand, just dont cut it any more.

Ma Bell is more intuitive, thinks more about what sheeple want, and is
using media to manipulate what they want. Giving Bush enough rope has
shown everyone now how the military industrial complex and the oxmoronic
'intelligence community' dont get it, never did, never will. Draconian
control of free speech and the press dont work any more, so it'll be the
more subtle forms of Ma Bell, with bread & circuses to keep the spuds on
the couch while the women taking over the reins of power consider what
to do about the mess they have to clean up.

Most of the case managers have kept up on the human genome, the
bio-chemistry of the mind, and the interactions between these and junk
food, soda, and environmental contamination which has badly damaged the
rationality of the electorate. Which is how Bush got in office in the
first place. The majority of voters in this nation are fucking nuts.

So- there is *no* truely democratic solution. Its not a case of trying
to 'educate' the voters. They all live in the Untied States of Denial,
and wont hear of anything openly challenging their myths. On NPR this
morning, I heard them speak of the psychological stress of the war in
Iraq as causing the rampage of marines murdering civilians. Well, ok.
Now how about the psychological stress of growing up in a mysogenistic
Arab culture that follows a prophet with a 9 year old wife. How nuts do
you have to be to do that? And dont we have here, not a contest between
good and evil in the standard warrior tradition, but a question of much
better case management for all these jackasses running around with guns
and explosives?

[zentara]

Post by Day Brown

Post by zentara
They are using the "boogie man" of terrorism, to establish Big Brother.
Just like the 911 Commission hearings suggest...... the higher-ups at
the FBI told agents to leave the perps alone.... because they wanted
an incident that would allow them to start the Afgan war, the Iraqi war,
and begin the Big Brother surveillance and control over domestic
citizens. It's just like the Haymarket Square massacre, whereing FBI
agents blew up some people, blamed the unionists and anarchists,
then put them all in prison, before they threatened the political
bosses.

I dont think of Big Brother so much as Ma Bell. I understand the

Well I know you are old enough to remember the Vietnam War. Remember
when the CEO of MaBell was arrested and convicted of doing massive
illegal wiretaps on anti-war subversives? I do.

The eavesdropping has been going on all along. The difference this time,
is that the Bush regime, using the mantra of the terrorist boogieman,
has declared it legal, and has the "corporate bought and paid for
Congress" just laying down and rolling over.

If Watergate happened today, there wouldn't be any prosecution. The
administration would claim that there was secret evidence, which is top
secret, and the media wouldn't run the true story, because the corporate
network owners would threaten to fire the news executive that allowed
the reporters to work on the story, because they would be revealing
national security secrets.

Post by Day Brown
tyrannic instincts of the alpha males like Bush who think they are in
charge, and charge us enormous sums for their management. But one way or
the other, that trip, the rule by the warrior class, which began in the
bronze age, is at the end of it's 5000 year run. The strong right arm,
sword in hand, just dont cut it any more.

I see it as class-warfare masquerading as national security. There is a
1% who owns and controls 99% of the US. These people don't want to
risk their personal peace and happiness to maintain their rule. So they
delve into the lower classes and get some people thay can brainwash and
make into upper-middle-class dogs who will surpress the rest of the
proletariat. These have become a class of overlord slave drivers, who
believe that they are better than the poor, and go around demanding
more-work-for-less-pay, evicting people from housing for being poor,
controlling the lucrative drug black market, and becoming killers for
the miltary.

The 1% is very afraid of the Revolution which is spreading amoung the
poor of the world, and threatening their control. From the Islamic
Revolution, to the people-power revolutions going on in S. America.
They want to prevent it from happening here, and if there were fair
elections, it probably would.

Post by Day Brown
control of free speech and the press dont work any more, so it'll be the
more subtle forms of Ma Bell, with bread & circuses to keep the spuds on
the couch while the women taking over the reins of power consider what
to do about the mess they have to clean up.

Yeah, their number 1 goal is to keep the "rat-race" going. It's like a
merry-go-round, as long as its running, the riders are mesmerized into
a docile state. I can only imagine the revolt that would occur in this
country if the cars stopped rolling.

Post by Day Brown
So- there is *no* truely democratic solution. Its not a case of trying
to 'educate' the voters. They all live in the Untied States of Denial,

Yep, I agree with you there. Declare Martial law and limit people to
10 gallons per month fuel, that ought to do it. :-)

[mike wilcox]

Post by zentara

Post by Day Brown

Post by zentara
They are using the "boogie man" of terrorism, to establish Big Brother.
Just like the 911 Commission hearings suggest...... the higher-ups at
the FBI told agents to leave the perps alone.... because they wanted
an incident that would allow them to start the Afgan war, the Iraqi war,
and begin the Big Brother surveillance and control over domestic
citizens. It's just like the Haymarket Square massacre, whereing FBI
agents blew up some people, blamed the unionists and anarchists,
then put them all in prison, before they threatened the political
bosses.

I dont think of Big Brother so much as Ma Bell. I understand the

Well I know you are old enough to remember the Vietnam War. Remember
when the CEO of MaBell was arrested and convicted of doing massive
illegal wiretaps on anti-war subversives? I do.
The eavesdropping has been going on all along. The difference this time,
is that the Bush regime, using the mantra of the terrorist boogieman,
has declared it legal, and has the "corporate bought and paid for
Congress" just laying down and rolling over.
If Watergate happened today, there wouldn't be any prosecution. The
administration would claim that there was secret evidence, which is top
secret, and the media wouldn't run the true story, because the corporate
network owners would threaten to fire the news executive that allowed
the reporters to work on the story, because they would be revealing
national security secrets.

Post by Day Brown
tyrannic instincts of the alpha males like Bush who think they are in
charge, and charge us enormous sums for their management. But one way or
the other, that trip, the rule by the warrior class, which began in the
bronze age, is at the end of it's 5000 year run. The strong right arm,
sword in hand, just dont cut it any more.

I see it as class-warfare masquerading as national security. There is a
1% who owns and controls 99% of the US. These people don't want to
risk their personal peace and happiness to maintain their rule. So they
delve into the lower classes and get some people thay can brainwash and
make into upper-middle-class dogs who will surpress the rest of the
proletariat. These have become a class of overlord slave drivers, who
believe that they are better than the poor, and go around demanding
more-work-for-less-pay, evicting people from housing for being poor,
controlling the lucrative drug black market, and becoming killers for
the miltary.
The 1% is very afraid of the Revolution which is spreading amoung the
poor of the world, and threatening their control. From the Islamic
Revolution, to the people-power revolutions going on in S. America.
They want to prevent it from happening here, and if there were fair
elections, it probably would.

Post by Day Brown
control of free speech and the press dont work any more, so it'll be the
more subtle forms of Ma Bell, with bread & circuses to keep the spuds on
the couch while the women taking over the reins of power consider what
to do about the mess they have to clean up.

Yeah, their number 1 goal is to keep the "rat-race" going. It's like a
merry-go-round, as long as its running, the riders are mesmerized into
a docile state. I can only imagine the revolt that would occur in this
country if the cars stopped rolling.

Post by Day Brown
So- there is *no* truely democratic solution. Its not a case of trying
to 'educate' the voters. They all live in the Untied States of Denial,

Yep, I agree with you there. Declare Martial law and limit people to
10 gallons per month fuel, that ought to do it. :-)

Bingo! Now I know there are at least two of us ;~) I figured this same
line of reasoning out when I got my first job. I think a lot of people
realize all this, but bury it deep and live in denial.

[Day Brown]

Post by zentara

Post by Day Brown
So- there is *no* truely democratic solution. Its not a case of trying
to 'educate' the voters. They all live in the Untied States of Denial,

Yep, I agree with you there. Declare Martial law and limit people to
10 gallons per month fuel, that ought to do it. :-)

Well for sure, its not upta us. the number of rational voters is but a
small portion of the vote. Nevertheless, I see some hopeful signs, like
a report on TV of what looks like a defacto gated community for addicted
parents and their kids... rather than sending the kids into foster care.

It looks like Neotribalism; the therapists and case workers are like the
witches and shamen, managing the meds [herbs] of the community, with
lots of tribal eyeballs around to watch the interactions, and interfere
when things look abusive.

But I dont think Martial law is gonna work any more. They simply have
tried to do it on the cheap, and just like Iraq, dont have *nearly* enuf
personnel in uniform to handle a national crisis. They couldnt even
handle a regional thing like Katrina.

The rich dont pay their taxes, but they do *lend* the givernment the
money to do what they want done. But that has not resulted in real
silver in the danari paid to the legions. When the empire began, the
danari was a nickle sized hunk of real silver; as it declined, lead was
added, and at the end, it was only 5%. That gets you 5% of the loyalty
of the military; the other 95% may see that their guns will permit them
to go into business for themselves, taking by force from the villas of
the rich the silver their forefathers got paid in.

Machiavelli and Gibbon talk about all this, but the rich dont read
history now either. My Ozark hillbilly friends tell me we are at that
awkward time when it is too late for them to fix things, but still too
early to drag the bastards out to be shot. The only debate is just how
early it is.

The only real solutions for we few who are still rational, is to get the
fuck out of the way before new and more powerful weapons get used, and
work on local solutions to help stabilize local law enforcement.

I grew sorghum last year, and am trying switchgrass this year... for
alcohol production, which is several times more efficient than trying to
use corn. From what the U of GA agronomy says, I can expect 100-150
gallons of alcohol/acre.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=10250 says that 20,000 acres
of switchgrass can produce 10 *million* gallons (after you convert the
metric numbers from hectares and liters) or nearly 500 gallons/acre. The
economics are already compelling, and this study ignores the use of the
left over mash as stock feed. Which would result in another 500 pounds
of meat/acre/year.

You only hear about corn cause that is the crop that the suppliers, like
ADM, Monsanto, Dow, Exxon, etc make money on selling fuel, pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizer, and hybrid or GM seed.

The average farm county is 25x25 miles. About 40,000 acres. Thus, just a
small portion of the average county could provide all the fuel it needs,
and the output from a few counties could provide all the alcohol fuel a
nearby metro area needs. I dont think the powers that now be want this
to take off because it would disperse so much power into the hands of
millions of small farmers who'd be selling alcohol fuel along with the
veggies at their produce stands. Collecting the taxes from this kind of
dispersed power distribution system would also be a nightmare.

Moreover, urbanites could use the 501-C3 community garden model to grow
their own fuel *TAX FREE* for their own consumption. An example of the
kind of vertical integration the transnationals have used for decades.

The American People would not only become energy independent, they'd
become largely independent of the *givernment* as well. Frightning.

[zentara]

Post by Gunner
Ill tell Elvis you said Hi! as we read the Rather Memos before we go
out to look at all the exploding gas tanks.
Perhaps this may help you.

No problem, you appear to be an apologist for the totalitarian takeover.
It's a good position to take, its safer.

[Gunner]

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Ill tell Elvis you said Hi! as we read the Rather Memos before we go
out to look at all the exploding gas tanks.
Perhaps this may help you.

No problem, you appear to be an apologist for the totalitarian takeover.
It's a good position to take, its safer.

You on the other hand appear to be an apologist for the nuts, flakes
and fruits.

Change your Nick to Kellog or Cereal.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[zentara]

Post by Gunner

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
All communications monitored?

You don't read the news or watch TV? Have of all media has been
talking about the NSA monitoring of all US citizen's phone calls,

Which planet is that you live on? On Earth..Sol 3, Terra..the
government has been using computers to look for certain phone number
being called, and using computers to listen to phone calls that go out
of the us to certain unfriendly countries..to some of those same phone
numbers.

I guess you don't read the news. All (read "ALL") calls are routed
through an NSA computer. The news broke because Qwest refused to
do it. Every cell phone call is in a database.

Post by Gunner
So..supposition and the ability to do something means that they ARE
doing it. Interesting. Got any hot tips on who kidnapped the Lindberg
Baby or where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?

Heh, you really are uninformed. They caught the Lindberg perp.
And to broaden youir horizons, Hoffa was killed by the power elite
for trying to form a National Workers Union. The mob hit thing
is all a smokescreen for guys like you.
It's a free country according to you, why don't you start to organize
a National Workers Union, so you can call nationwide strikes, and see
what happens to you?

I'm sorry I got you involved in this Gunner. As you rightly have pointed
out, I'm a whacko, and on the government watchlist. BUT..... since you
and I have been passing posts to one another, you are now a suspect.
The government was watching, and although we appear to be at odds
on the issues, they know that is may be a ploy to protect you. They
suspect that we are passing key-phrases buried in our posts, to decrypt
the binaries posted in alt.test, which contain our plans for the
takeover. Damn. Also watch who you telephone, because since you are
now on the watchlist as a "possible", everyone you telephone or
communicate with, for the next year, will have to be watched too.

Once again, sorry about this. But I do feel safer that they are now
watching you, and your cell. :-)

[Day Brown]

I sympathize, but as I infer in another post, you cant form a national
workers party because the workers brains did not develop properly being
raised on diets of junk & fast food and soda... aggrevated by exposure
to contaminated vaccines, water, food, and both indoor and outdoor air
pollution. Its why academic scores have fallen, for one.

So- you can talk to the workers, or post here, but they just dont get
it. Dr. Freud noted that neurotics have an intolerance of ambiguity. I
see therefore, that they choose dualistic cosmologies of good/evil,
blessed/damned, and dont try to figure out why things happen, satisfied
with saying that its just "god's will". They can only handle two
political parties. And each party has to define itself as holy and good
with the other as evil and damned.

Its time to think local; there still are some communities which have had
low levels of pollution- where the kids lived in small towns that lacked
fast food outlets, and where the schools still work and the population
is much more rational. Some transnationals have noticed, and are putting
in new facilities creating jobs that require more rational personnel. In
any case, if the ineptitude and corruption of the political system leads
to economic panic and anarchy, it'll be communities like this that will
be able to pull together and rapidly reorganize after the collapse of a
dysfunctional central government like the Baltic Nations did.

[Gunner]

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Which planet is that you live on? On Earth..Sol 3, Terra..the
government has been using computers to look for certain phone number
being called, and using computers to listen to phone calls that go out
of the us to certain unfriendly countries..to some of those same phone
numbers.

I guess you don't read the news. All (read "ALL") calls are routed
through an NSA computer. The news broke because Qwest refused to
do it. Every cell phone call is in a database.

Post by Gunner
So..supposition and the ability to do something means that they ARE
doing it. Interesting. Got any hot tips on who kidnapped the Lindberg
Baby or where Jimmy Hoffa is buried?

Heh, you really are uninformed. They caught the Lindberg perp.

Thats what they say. We know it was the Nazis who killed the kid. The
Space Nazis from Reich 3

Post by zentara
And to broaden youir horizons, Hoffa was killed by the power elite
for trying to form a National Workers Union. The mob hit thing
is all a smokescreen for guys like you.

I thought his handlers at 13 Dzeryinsky Square did it after they
caught him with his hand in the Party's cookie jar? I read it in the
Equirer..or was that on CBS?

Post by zentara
It's a free country according to you, why don't you start to organize
a National Workers Union, so you can call nationwide strikes, and see
what happens to you?

Because I detest unions? Thats a pretty good reason.

Post by zentara
I'm sorry I got you involved in this Gunner. As you rightly have pointed
out, I'm a whacko, and on the government watchlist. BUT..... since you
and I have been passing posts to one another, you are now a suspect.
The government was watching, and although we appear to be at odds
on the issues, they know that is may be a ploy to protect you. They
suspect that we are passing key-phrases buried in our posts, to decrypt
the binaries posted in alt.test, which contain our plans for the
takeover. Damn. Also watch who you telephone, because since you are
now on the watchlist as a "possible", everyone you telephone or
communicate with, for the next year, will have to be watched too.

Christ on a crutch boy..Ive been on Government watch lists far far
longer than you. Im a survivalist, know a number of militia people and
so forth. When a Dem is in power..Im a public enemy..when a Repub is
in power..Im just part of middle America/ Hell..during Vietnam..the
Feebs used tap my parents phone cause my cousin was a draft dodge.

Watch lists dont bother me in the slightest. Ive been around the block
a couple times..and if anyone is interested in my..they need only run
my nym though the computers..hell even do a extended Google for all
manner of stuff. And yet they havent broken down my front door, or did
a Clinton and sicced the IRS on me etc etc.

Im pretty much an open book..and .05 nanoseconds on a Cray is gonna
turn up shit in my posts, emails and so forth. Shrug...Ive nothing to
hide..from either a Democrat or a Republican administration.

Or the National Inquirer..which is far far worse.

Post by zentara
Once again, sorry about this. But I do feel safer that they are now
watching you, and your cell. :-)

Chuckle...why do I suddenly feel like a nice big yawn?

Mind control rays from Reich 3?


Laugh laugh laugh

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[zentara]

Post by Gunner
Chuckle...why do I suddenly feel like a nice big yawn?
Mind control rays from Reich 3?

Probably the ultrasonics, did you see
http://www.hightechharassment.com/

Remember, it's 1.4,2.6,3.5,4.1,5.5,6.1,7.4,invert,ascii-1,bit-flip

Post by Gunner
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner

[Gunner]

Post by zentara

Post by Gunner
Chuckle...why do I suddenly feel like a nice big yawn?
Mind control rays from Reich 3?

Probably the ultrasonics, did you see
http://www.hightechharassment.com/
Remember, it's 1.4,2.6,3.5,4.1,5.5,6.1,7.4,invert,ascii-1,bit-flip

Post by Gunner
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner

Johns mustache is green.
The palm tree fell on the road.
The snow fell in August.
endit

Hell..lets make it easy on them..

Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators,
initiators, main charge, nuclear charges, ambush, sniping, motorcade,
IRS, BATF, jtf-6, mjtf, hrt, srt, hostages, munitions, weapons, TNT,
rdx, amfo, hmtd, picric acid, silver nitrite, mercury fulminate,
presidential motorcade, salt peter, charcoal, sulfur, c4, composition
b, amatol, petn, lead azide, lead styphante, ddnp, tetryl,
nitrocellulose, nitrostarch, mines, grenades, rockets, fuses, delay
mechanism, mortars, rpg7, propellants, incendiaries, incendiary
device, thermite, security forces, intelligence, agencies, hrt,
resistance, psyops, infiltration, assault team, defensive elements,
evasion, detection, mission, communications, the football, platter
charge, shaped charges, m118, claymore, body armor, charges, shrapnel,
timers, timing devices, boobytraps, detcord, pmk 40, silencers, Uzi,
HK-MP5, AK-47, FAL, Jatti, Skorpion MP, teflon bullets, cordite,
napalm, law, Stingers, RPK, SOCIMI 821 SMG, STEN, BAR, MP40,
HK-G3,FN-MAG, RPD,PzB39, Air Force One, M60, RPK74, SG530, SG540,
Galil arm, Walther WA2000, HK33KE, Parker-Hale MOD. 82, AKR, Ingram
MAC10, M3, L34A1, Walther MPL, AKS-74, HK-GR6, subsonic rounds,
ballistic media, special forces, JFKSWC, SFOD-D, SRT, Rewson, SAFE,
Waihopai, INFOSEC, ASPIC, Information Security, SAI, Information
Warfare, IW, IS, Privacy, Information Terrorism, Kenya, Terrorism
Defensive Information, Defense Information Warfare, Offensive
Information, Offensive Information Warfare, NAIA, SAPM, ASU, ECHELON
ASTS, National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, SAO, Reno,
Compsec, JICS, Computer Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet
Connections, RSP, ISS, JDF, Passwords, NAAP, DefCon V, RSO, Hackers,
Encryption, ASWS, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secret
Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS,
Mayfly, PGP, SALDV, PEM, resta, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL
TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN, 3B2, BITNET, Tanzania, SAMU, COSMOS,
DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, ram, JICC, ReMOB,
LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, SADCC, NSLEP, SACLANTCEN, FALN, 877,
NAVELEXSYSSECENGCEN, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, rsta, Active X,
Compsec 97, RENS, LLC, DERA, JIC, rip, rb, Wu, RDI, Mavricks, BIOL,
Meta-hackers, ^?, SADT, Steve Case, Tools, RECCEX, Telex, OTAN,
monarchist, NMIC, NIOG, IDB, MID/KL, NADIS, NMI, SEIDM, BNC, CNCIS,
STEEPLEBUSH, RG, BSS, DDIS, mixmaster, BCCI, BRGE, SARL, Military
Intelligence, JICA, Scully, recondo, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh,
Archives, ISADC, CISSP, Sundevil, jack, Investigation, JOTS, ISACA,
NCSA, ASVC, spook words, RRF, 1071, Bugs Bunny, Verisign, Secure,
ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, JIC, bce,
Lacrosse, Flashbangs, HRT, IRA, EODG, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN,
FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, site, SASSTIXS, NAVWAN, NRL, RL,
NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, SARD, LABLINK, USACIL, SAPT,
USCG, NRC, ~, O, NSA/CSS, CDC, DOE, SAAM, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL,
USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, bemd, SGC, UNCPCJ, CFC, SABENA,
DREO, CDA, SADRS, DRA, SHAPE, bird dog, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO,
SC, TA SAS, Lander, GSM, T Branch, AST, SAMCOMM, HAHO, FKS, 868, GCHQ,
DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, benelux, SAS, SBS, SAW, UDT, EODC,
GOE, DOE, SAMF, GEO, JRB, 3P-HV, Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell,
radint, MB, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR, GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS,
EADA, SART, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA, diwn, 747,
ASIC, 777, RDI, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, EODN, SHS, ^X,
Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz, Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, NSS,
Duress, RAID, Uziel, wojo, Psyops, SASCOM, grom, NSIRL, D-11, SERT,
VIP, ARC, S.E.T. Team, NSWG, MP5k, SATKA, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM,
GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV, NACSI, MEU/SOC,PSAC, PTT, RFI, ZL31, SIGDASYS, TDM,
SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, fake, TEXTA, ELF, LF, MF, SIGS, VHF, Recon,
peapod, PA598D28, Spall, dort, 50MZ, 11Emc Choe, SATCOMA, UHF, SHF,
ASIO, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, 5ESS, smuggle, Z-200,
15kg, DUVDEVAN, RFX, nitrate, OIR, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley
Park, Clandestine, NSO, nkvd, argus, afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter
Terrorism Security, SARA, Rapid Reaction, JSOFC3IP, Corporate
Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting,
M-x spook, Z-150T, High Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic
Surveillance, MI-17, ISR, NSAS, Counterterrorism, real, spies, IWO,
eavesdropping, debugging, CCSS, interception, COCOT, NACSI, rhost,
rhosts, ASO, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, NAVCM, Gamma,
Gorizont, Guppy, NSS, rita, ISSO, submiss, ASDIC, .tc, 2EME REP, FID,
7NL SBS, tekka, captain, 226, .45, nonac, .li, Ionosphere, Mole,
Keyhole, NABS, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Emerson, Tzvrif, SDIS,
T2S2, STTC, DNR, NADDIS, NFLIS, CFD, quarter, Cornflower, Daisy,
Egret, Iris, JSOTF, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,
Sphinx, Stephanie, Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF,
POCSAG, rusers, Covert Video, Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope,
LASINT, csystems, .tm, passwd, 2600 Magazine, JUWTF, Competitor, EO,
Chan, Pathfinders, SEAL Team 3, JTF, Nash, ISSAA, B61-11, Alouette,
executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun, stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA,
EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE, Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT,
MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable & Wireless, CSE, SUW, J2,
Embassy, ETA, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise, Fernspah, MYK,
GAFE, forcast, import, rain, tiger, buzzer, N9, pink noise, CRA,
M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security, Macintosh
Internet Security, OC3, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP
Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, Z, sweeping, SURSAT, 5926,
TELINT, Audiotel, Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery,
force, NAIAG, Cypherpunks, NARF, 127, Coderpunks, TRW, remailers,
replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME, JTF-6, AVN, ISSSP, Anonymous,
W, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20, subversives, SLIP, toad, fish,
data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, SUBACS, the, Elvis, quiche, DES, 1*,
NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, UXO, (), OC-12, counterintelligence, Shaldag,
sport, NASA, TWA, DT, gtegsc, owhere, .ch, hope, emc, industrial
espionage, SUPIR, PI, TSCI, spookwords, industrial intelligence,
H.N.P., SUAEWICS, Juiliett Class Submarine, Locks, qrss, loch, 64
Vauxhall Cross, Ingram Mac-10, wwics, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX,
penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Siemens, RPC, Met, CIA-DST, INI, watchers,
keebler, contacts, Blowpipe, BTM, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib,
primacord, RSP, Z7, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, no|d, Comirex, GPMG,
Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS, SORO, M5, BROMURE, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS,
S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand Corporation, Starr, Wackenhutt,
EO, burhop, Wackendude, mol, Shelton, 2E781, F-22, 2010, JCET,
cocaine, Vale, IG, Kosovo, Dake, 36,800, Hillal, Pesec, Hindawi, GGL,
NAICC, CTU, botux, Virii, CCC, ISPE, CCSC, Scud, SecDef, Magdeyev,
VOA, Kosiura, Small Pox, Tajik, +=, Blacklisted 411, TRDL, Internet
Underground, BX, XS4ALL, wetsu, muezzin, Retinal Fetish, WIR, Fetish,
FCA, Yobie, forschung, emm, ANZUS, Reprieve, NZC-332, edition, cards,
mania, 701, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, NSDM, l0ck, spook,
keywords, QRR, PLA, TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World
Domination, Dead, GRU, M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock,
Ft. Meade, NSWT, press-release, WISDIM, burned, Indigo, wire transfer,
e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Enforcers, Digicash, zip, SWAT, Ortega,
PPP, NACSE, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, ISM, JCE,
Middleman, KLM, Blackbird, NSV, GQ360, X400, Texas, jihad, SDI,
BRIGAND, Uzi, Fort Meade, *&, gchq.gov.uk, supercomputer, bullion, 3,
NTTC, Blackmednet, :, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, IWIS,
Planet-1, ISTA, rs9512c, South Africa, Sergeyev, Montenegro, Toeffler,
Rebollo, sorot, cryptanalysis, nuclear, 52 52 N - 03 03 W, Morgan,
Canine, GEBA, INSCOM, MEMEX, Stanley, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears
Tower, NORAD, Delta Force, SEAL, virtual, WASS, WID, Dolch, secure
shell, screws, Black-Ops, O/S, Area51, SABC, basement, ISWG, $ @,
data-haven, NSDD, black-bag, rack, TEMPEST, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5,
IDEA, garbage, market, beef, Stego, ISAF, unclassified, Sayeret
Tzanhanim, PARASAR, Gripan, pirg, curly, Taiwan, guest, utopia, NSG,
orthodox, CCSQ, Alica, SHA, Global, gorilla, Bob, UNSCOM, Fukuyama,
Manfurov, Kvashnin, Marx, Abdurahmon, snullen, Pseudonyms, MITM, NARF,
Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim, Yakima, NSES, Sugar Grove, WAS,
Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton, UKUSA, veggie,
XM, Parvus, NAVSVS, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap,
Menwith, Mantis, DSD, BVD, 1984, blow out, BUDS, WQC, Flintlock, PABX,
Electron, Chicago Crust, e95, DDR&E, 3M, KEDO, iButton, R1, erco,
Toffler, FAS, RHL, K3, Visa/BCC, SNT, Ceridian, STE, condor,
CipherTAC-2000, Etacs, Shipiro, ssor, piz, fritz, KY, 32, Edens,
Kiwis, Kamumaruha, DODIG, Firefly, HRM, Albright, Bellcore, rail,
csim, NMS, 2c, FIPS140-1, CAVE, E-Bomb, CDMA, Fortezza, 355ml, ISSC,
cybercash, NAWAS, government, NSY, hate, speedbump, joe, illuminati,
BOSS, Kourou, Misawa, Morse, HF, P415, ladylove, filofax, Gulf, lamma,
Unit 5707, Sayeret Mat'Kal, Unit 669, Sayeret Golani, Lanceros,
Summercon, NSADS, president, ISFR, freedom, ISSO, walburn, Defcon VI,
DC6, Larson, P99, HERF pipe-bomb, 2.3 Oz., cocaine, $, impact,
Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit card, b9, fraud, ST1, assassinate,
virus, ISCS, ISPR, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea, 1997,
Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN,
Nike, WWSV, Atlas, IWWSVCS, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i,
PGP 5.1, siliconpimp, SASSTIXS, IWG, Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF,
NSRB, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton, Johohonbu, LUK,
Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, ISEP, ISEC, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine,
bank, EUB, USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, NSOF, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel,
package, ISI, INR, INS, IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani,
BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND, SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF,
advise, TUSA, LITE, PKK, HoHoCon, SISMI, ISG, FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP,
SSCI, NIMA, HAMASMOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, Monica, OAU, PFS,
Aladdin, AG, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, .375,
Peering, CSC, Tangimoana Beach, Commecen, Vanuatu, Kwajalein, LHI,
DRM, GSGI, DST, MITI, JERTO, SDF, Koancho, Blenheim, Rivera, Kyudanki,
varon, 310, 17, 312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, jaws, SGDN, ADIU,
DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut, SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, meta,
Faber, SFPD, EG&G, ISEP, blackjack, Fox, Aum, AIEWS, AMW, RHL,
Baranyi, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071, WINGS, cdi, VIA, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, WWSP,
WID, osco, Mary, honor, Templar, THAAD, package, CISD, ISG, BIOLWPN,
JRA, ISB, ISDS, chosen, LBSD, van, schloss, secops, DCSS, DPSD, LIF,
PRIME, SURVIAC, telex, SP4, Analyzer, embassy, Golf, B61-7, Maple,
Tokyo, ERR, SBU, Threat, JPL, Tess, SE, EPL, SPINTCOM, ISS-ADP, Merv,
Mexico, SUR, SO13, Rojdykarna, airframe, 510, EuroFed, Avi, shelter,
Crypto AG.


Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

[Terry Collins]

Post by Robert Sturgeon
This is not true. Modern agriculture is more efficient

Only because "modern agriculture" defines how efficeny is measured and
it is basically very narrow and short term.

Definitely not sustainable because it relies greatly on external inputs
that are heavily sussidised by the rest of society.