Sandra Finley

2013-09-30 I need your critical thoughts on this! (Census Lockheed Martin, trial, appeal to Supreme Court)

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Ladar Levison, Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys 8 Responses »

Sep 302013

(Background for newcomers, see: Lockheed Martin, . . . Census, Surveys, Charter Right to Privacy, On Trial

(SCC = Supreme Court of Canada)

NEED CRITICAL INPUT

Will some of you please read the Objective Summary (2 paragraphs) and provide your critical thoughts to me?

At this juncture,

a two-paragraph Summary of the issue in my trial has the potential to decide whether we have the Charter Right to Privacy of personal information, or not. (Never mind the question of whether we have Lockheed Martin involved!)

I am concerned that the Summary is not Objective. I am unwilling to run the risk that, in a very busy world, summaries may have undue influence.

The Objective Summary has been prepared by a lawyer who works for the Supreme Court.

It will be given to the Panel of 3 Justices to aid their decision whether leave-to-appeal in my case, R vs Finley, is granted.

The naming of the 3-Justice panel is at: SCC Referral to Panel

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is on the panel. I have respect for her, we’ve referred to her work in a number of postings.

But I also know the Justices receive hundreds of applications for leave-to-appeal. And they are human.

Knowledge of What’s at Stake? (below) drives me to ensure that the best possible be done. I know that “the best” comes from your ideas in combination with my own.

Today I sent an email outlining what I see as the basic problem: To lawyer re SCC Objective Summary.

Steve responded: The way I understand it, this is an ongoing process. I have contacted the SCC to see whether we can get the summary changed.

What are your thoughts about the Summary? Time is short. I want to forward your input to Lawyer Steve in anticipation of a green light on getting the Summary changed.

Thanks,

Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

WHAT’S AT STAKE?

(This is a reminder because we are forgetful creatures.)

– Lockheed Martin is involved in the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada that is continuously being added to.

– Under the Patriot Act, American corporations and their (Canadian) subsidiaries, if requested, must supply data bases to which they have access, to the American Government (think NSA, their National Security Agency).

– From testimony given at my trial by the then-head of the Census operations at Statistics Canada, I know that NAMES are on the individual records on the StatsCan data base. The information is NOT “anonymous”.

– The data on individuals being collected by StatsCan is increasingly comprehensive. The number of questions went up to more than 50 in the 2006 Census (once every five years). The Census long form then became the (on-going data collection) National Household Survey. Within a couple of years the number of questions was up to approximately 80. StatsCan uses coercion and manipulation to force people to answer the questions (see on-going people’s stories on my blog).

– We have known from newspaper reports that the Americans want the information on all Canadians. Excerpt from CHRONOLOGY: …

2008 November: OTTAWA CITIZEN, “CANADIAN OFFICIALS .. WILL MEET THE NEW STANDARD” FOR SUPPLYING DATA ON CANADIANS TO THE AMERICANS…”

“… American officials are pressuring the federal government to supply them with more information on Canadians, says an influential analyst on Canada-U.S. relations.

“Not only about (routine) individuals, but also about people that you may be looking at for reasons, but there’s no indictment and there’s no charge,” Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute told a security intelligence conference in Ottawa yesterday. . Canadian officials have said this country will meet the new standard, “plus or minus a little,” by 2011, he said. “But there’ll be tremendous pressure (from the U.S.) to get there faster.“

(Link no longer valid) http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=64f59d78-ce97-48dc-b2fd-381859ce6c84

What better vehicle for the American military to get information on all Canadians than through the Census with Lockheed Martin as the conduit?

– We have known HOW it is to happen. Maclean’s Magazine Sept 2006:

The President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin, Ron Covais, active on the SPP with Stephen Harper, tells Macleans Magazine in an article entitled Meet NAFTA 2.0,

“We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes, because we won’t get anywhere.” The main avenue for changes would be through executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulations, he said, adding: “The guidance from the ministers was, ‘Tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen.‘”

(Link no longer valid) http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20060911_133202_133202

– There is harmonization and integration of data on citizens through Census Bureaux in Western Nations, under the influence of the American power elite and their puppets.

In the early stages of my trial I represented myself. I did the cross-examination (not well!) of the StatsCan witness who was head of the Census operations. Because of similarities I was seeing between the U.S., Canadian, and U.K. census operations I was curious about the extent of “harmonization and integration”.

It was told to the Court that the Census Bureaux from numerous Western nations meet and cooperate, etc.

Lockheed Martin in involved in the U.K. census data base, as it is in the Canadian and American. I don’t know the full extent, other nations.

– We have known since 2009, NSA to Build $1.6 Billion Storage Facility to House Personal Surveillance Data, Utah (The amount increased to $2 billion and the centre is now in operation.)

– The “revelations” by Edward Snowden only confirmed what we have known. From the last email I sent out (Who will win? Our feudal lords or us?!):

It’s rather exciting when the New York Times publishes an editorial that explains, in easy to understand language, how the NSA gets into “secure” data bases: Close the N.S.A.’s Back Doors, NY Times Editorial

– There is much more, e.g. the deployment of drones all along the Canada-U.S. border, but surely the preceding is more than sufficient motivation to share information with more Canadians.

– If I lose the request for leave-to-appeal to the Supreme Court, it will be the end of the legal process. The decisions of the lower Courts would prevail: I would remain “guilty”. Which would mean that Effectively we do not have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.

– It will not be a disaster if that happens. It is one skirmish in the larger battle for democratic values. But it would be very nice to win this one!

– Right now, the best way to help is to just pass the information along. And trust that it will fall into the right hands through those “6 degrees of separation”!

Thanks,

Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

NOW THE FUNNY SIDE!

We can’t hide behind the delusion that we are rational beings – – there is simply too much research to the contrary (3 examples below).

The funny side is related to the idea that Court cases, the law, is “Objective” – – ha! Ha! – – and intending no disrespect to the Justices. It is just the way we are as human beings.

Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves. (Carl Sagan)

No need for conspiracy theories – – although Lockheed Martin is certainly “conspiring”!

When you “see through” things, it usually makes you laugh, as when a child creates an imaginative but false reason for having their way.

THREE EXAMPLES, OUR DELUSIONS ABOUT OURSELVES:

– A very interesting, 17-minute presentation about the myth of rationality: The fiction of memory, Elizabeth Loftus, TED Talk.

– Some time ago we circulated the closely related: Perception, an illustration of our fallibility and our gullibility. Dan Simons. Basketball.

– The question of our rationality is addressed brilliantly by John Ralston Saul: Understanding why we flounder, help from John Ralston Saul “On Equilibrium”

“I’m a logician. No matter how wrong I am, I can always convince myself I am right. ” ― Jarod Kintz ( http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/delusion)

So let’s have a good laugh. When I wrote “What’s at Stake?” (above), it DID seem to me that we are collectively a bunch of lunatics! We are ludicrous to the point of being funny.

Maybe the system we have designed for “justice” and the preservation of democracy is even funnier. Or, the role we have assigned to it, and accept, is quirky. The issues in this case are extremely important, but the process so far, does not allow me to address “What’s At Stake?”

Some will say that is deliberate. I don’t think so. There is nothing to prevent us from evolving that which does not serve us well.

We have the freedom to make our minds known, the freedom to communicate with our fellow citizens . . . WHO THAT IS SANE would just give up the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information without a fight? If you have any idea about the role of detailed files on citizens – – it is symptomatic of a police/military state.

As R vs Finley moves through the Justice system, I see the possibility that an Objective Summary written by one lawyer, could halt the “Rational” consideration of whether, under Appeal, the Supreme Court will stand behind our Charter Right.

I better understand how it was that the “influential people of the day”, the lawyers and judges and academics, became participants in the run to power of the Nazis in Pre-World War Two Europe – -but not necessarily did they ALL act out of malice.

I have maintained that the Second World War could have been avoided – – IF the citizens of Germany had opposed early enough, what they knew was wrong.

But perhaps it is ALSO as Sagan says: Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves.

We believe ourselves to be objective. But the research shows we have misplaced faith in ourselves.

Canadian Law, the Charter Right:

“In fostering the underlying values of dignity, integrity and autonomy, it is fitting that s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state.”

If I lose the court case, we will have lost the Charter Right.

Uhhh . . . not exactly a laughing matter.

2013-09 The fiction of memory, Elizabeth Loftus, TED Talk

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Perception, fallibility, Linguistics No Responses »

Sep 302013

http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory.html?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2013-09-28&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_button

Elizabeth Loftus: The fiction of memory

17:36 minutes • Filmed Jun 2013 • Posted Sep 2013 • TEDGlobal 2013

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn’t happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It’s more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back

“Our perceptions are fallible. We sometimes see what isn’t there. We are prey to optical illusions. Occasionally we hallucinate. We are error-prone.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

2013-09-30 Sent to lawyer re SCC Objective Summary. And his response

Privacy of Personal Information; Charter Right; Surveillance; StatsCan Censuses & Surveys No Responses »

Sep 302013

Concern: The Supreme Court of Canada Objective Summary prepared by an SCC lawyer for submission to the Panal of 3 Justices who will decide whether to grant leave-to-appeal is not objective.

I emailed my lawyer as follows.

He responded:

The way I understand it, this is an ongoing process.

I have contacted the SCC to see whether we can get the summary changed.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hi Steve,

What is the deadline for responding to the Objective Summary?

Marie-France’s fax to you (Sept 23) says we are receiving the Summary “to ensure no significant errors”.

It would be easier to correct a “factual mistake” than what has been done in the Summary (see APPENDED).

I think we have to try and get the Summary changed to be “objective”, which it is not.

What is the time-line for doing so?

Sandra

= = = = = = = =

APPENDED

Re: “only allowed to correct factual mistakes” in the SUMMARY

A few points:

1) The particular facts selected have a large influence on the viewpoint created in the reader/listener.

2) The repetition of a single argument in a brief document reinforces a particular viewpoint while simultaneously screening out all other equally valid facts.

3) The Objective Summary is two paragraphs.

PARAGRAPH 1: leads with “refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form”

PARAGRAPH 2: first sentence is “refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form”

4) A rational person who has only this Objective Summary for input, will be misled.

The Law as applied by Statistics Canada and the Justice Department does not provide for partial completion of the form. I had lengthy and on-going conversations with Statistics Canada about the dilemma with the 2006 census, starting two years (early 2004) in advance. They did not offer any option in choosing which questions to answer. It is all or nothing. Beginning in 2008 the consistent and repeated threat to me was to answer the questions and if not, face prosecution, a fine of up to $500 AND/or 3 months in jail.

The fact that there is no option – all or nothing – – is at the very least, equally pertinent to the statement “refused to fill in and return any of the long form census form”.

The Objective Summary presents and repeats one selected fact which significantly biases the Summary.

Sandra

2013-09-27 Who will win? Our feudal lords or us?!

Chris Hedges, Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Ladar Levison, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category) No Responses »

Sep 272013

I am betting on us!

For that to happen: pass along some information to just a few others.

Our Feudal Lords will win if we are unable to get the more accurate story into the hands of enough people.

There are some amazing initiatives that I will put into a later email.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1. Excellent: The war on whistleblowers and journalism (Panel discussion with Assange, Greenwald, O’Brien, Manning’s lawyer, ..)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

2. UPDATE: AUDREY TOBIAS, 2ND APPEARANCE IN COURT, OCT 3 (From Audrey’s friends at VANA, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms)

Audrey Tobias, the 88-year old war veteran who didn’t fill in a 2011 Census form (INSERT: because of Lockheed Martin’s involvement) will be in Court on Thursday, October 3, at 10 am in the Old Toronto City Hall. You are cordially invited to attend to support Audrey. When you get to Old City Hall, ask at the security desk in what room the Audrey Tobias Census charge is being heard.

There’s a picture of Audrey (very colourful lady!), and her story (Jan 23/13) at http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/01/23/toronto_peace_activist_88_could_go_to_jail_for_refusing_to_fill_out_census.html

(We circulated the story and it’s on the blog.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3. It’s rather exciting when the New York Times publishes an editorial that explains, in easy to understand language, how the NSA gets into “secure” data bases: Close the N.S.A.’s Back Doors, NY Times Editorial

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

4. This was bound to happen, but is still a bit of a shock: The BRICS “Independent Internet” Cable. In Defiance of the “US-Centric Internet” (BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. . .).

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

5. Ecuador suspends preferential trade with US over Snowden affair

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6. Will Eric Holder guarantee NSA reporters’ first amendment rights?

The US attorney general vows not to prosecute journalists, but his criminalisation of whistleblowers undermines that assurance

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/18/eric-holder-guarantee-nsa-reporters-rights?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2&et_cid=49594&et_rid=8093198&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fcommentisfree%2f2013%2fsep%2f18%2feric-holder-guarantee-nsa-reporters-rights

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

7. Chris Hedges, Vast Underclass must rise up against global mafia: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16468-vast-underclass-must-rise-up-against-global-mafia-or-die

2013-09-27 The war on whistleblowers and journalism (Panel discussion with Assange, Greenwald, O’Brien, Manning’s lawyer, ..)

Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Ladar Levison, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Arjen Kamphuis No Responses »

Sep 272013

If you have time for only one thing, listen to this remarkable panel discussion from Australia, The war on whistleblowers and journalism, at

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/war-on-whistlelblowers-and-journalists.

(Bradley Manning is now Chelsea Manning)

THE PANELISTS ARE – – WOW!

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder
Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who published the NSA (National Security Agency) information leaked by Edward Snowden
Alexa O’Brien, one of the very few journalists who sat through and wrote about the military trial of Chelsea (Bradley) Manning
David Coombs, Chelsea Manning’s lawyer
Robert Manne, Australian commentator
Bernard Keane, Australian writer, host of the panel.

Near the end of the discussion, panelist Robert Manne says there are people inside CORPORATIONS who can leak information. He was talking in relation to oil and gas companies / climate change. (Manning and Snowden blew the whistle on GOVERNMENT atrocities.) . . Yes, there are the corporate people who can help, AND

It seems to me that SCIENTISTS are in an excellent position to get information into public hands – – information that is NEEDED to help stop the insanity of what we are collectively doing to the planet, with climate change at the top of the list.

Manne emphasizes Assange’s belief: courage is contagious. You can see it: Daniel Ellsberg is acknowledged by Snowden; Manning’s bravery was influential on Snowden and more immediate. There are lesser-known whistle-blowers in the wake of Manning and Snowden.

We are seeing scientists in the biotech arena starting to speak up (maybe the March Against Monsanto has helped empower them). Now we need scientists in these other arenas (climate change, for example) to “leak”!

It is easier to be courageous if you know that you have support behind you. Keep that in mind when figuring out how to assist corporate employees and scientists.

An important reason to pass the above link to the Panel Discussion on to others:

when you see and hear these people, you know they are thoughtful people of courage who are working to serve OUR interests.

There are huge efforts to undermine their credibility, turn them into weirdos, or sexual perverts, or sick people (I monitor a google feed of “news” stories re “Assange”. 90% of it is garbage.) We can help protect the whistleblowers and the good journalists; more people have to see for themselves, to be able to distinguish what is the truth about them.

Megan wrote: Funny how the perception of the movement is painted in a radical fashion, when it is truly born from love and adoration of the planet.

2013-09-27 Celiac disease and gluten in wheat

Food, Health No Responses »

Sep 272013

We unwittingly create our own dilemmas!

—–Original Message—–

From: Kerry

To: Sandra Finley

Subject: celiac disease

www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/09/26/226510988/doctors-say-changes-in-wheat-do-not-explain-rise-of-celiac-disease

= = = = = = = = =

Reply to Kerry

I posted to their blog:

RE the statement: he found no significant differences in gluten levels in wheat from the early part of the 20th century, compared with gluten levels from the latter half of the century. (Statement by

If you know how the grain registration system works, you cannot accept the position that gluten content in wheat has not risen – significantly.

I worked for a major flour mill in a wheat-growing province in the 1970’s. The company has/had its own Laboratory and a very large clientele, including large in-store bakeries.

I have also attended a Recommending Committee meeting on grain varieties. The Committee used to determine which grain varieties were beneficial and would therefore be licensed for growing.

The main criterion for the development of wheat varieties, because of the commercial desire for bread that “rises”, was gluten content. A premium was (still is, as far as I know) paid to farmers for wheat that has a high gluten content.

Decades of selective breeding of wheat for gluten content, with financial interests right up the supply chain, from start to finish, ensures that the gluten content of wheat has increased. You don’t have to be a scientist to figure it out.

2013-09-19 Misgivings About How a Weed Killer Affects the Soil

Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Sustainability No Responses »

Sep 232013

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/business/misgivings-about-how-a-weed-killer-affects-the-soil.html?pagewanted=all

Dennis von Arb, near Orange City, Iowa, is concerned about the use of glyphosate on crops.

By STEPHANIE STROM

ALTON, Iowa — The puny, yellow corn stalks stand like weary sentries on one boundary of Dennis Von Arb’s field here.

On a windy day this spring, his neighbor sprayed glyphosate on his fields, and some of the herbicide blew onto Mr. Von Arb’s conventionally grown corn, killing the first few rows.

He’s more concerned, though, about the soil. During heavy rains in the summer, the runoff from his neighbor’s farm soaked his fields with glyphosate-laden water.

“Anything you put on the land affects the chemistry and biology of the land, and that’s a powerful pesticide,” Mr. Von Arb said.

But 20 miles down the road, Brad Vermeer brushes aside such concerns.

He grows “traited,” or biotech, corn and soy on some 1,500 acres and estimates that his yield would fall by 20 percent if he switched to conventional crops and stopped using glyphosate, known by brand names like Roundup and Buccaneer.

In short, it is just too profitable to give up.

“Local agronomists are starting to say we have to get away from Roundup,” Mr. Vermeer said. “But they’re going to have to show me that conventional genetics can produce the same income.”

The local differences over glyphosate are feeding the long-running debate over biotech crops, which currently account for roughly 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and sugar beets grown in the United States.

While regulators and many scientists say biotech crops are no different from their conventional cousins, others worry that they are damaging the environment and human health. The battle is being waged at the polls, with ballot initiatives to require labeling of genetically modified foods; in courtrooms, where lawyers want to undo patents on biotech seeds; and on supermarket shelves containing products promoting conventionally grown ingredients.

Now, some farmers are taking a closer look at their soil.

First patented by Monsanto as a herbicide in 1974, glyphosate has helped revolutionize farming by making it easier and cheaper to grow crops. The use of the herbicide has grown exponentially, along with biotech crops.

The pervasive use, though, is prompting some concerns.

Critics point, in part, to the rise of so-called superweeds, which are more resistant to the herbicide. To fight them, farmers sometimes have to spray the toxic herbicide two to three times during the growing season.

Then there is the feel of the soil.

Dirt in two fields around Alton where biotech corn was being grown was hard and compact. Prying corn stalks from the soil with a shovel was difficult, and when the plants finally came up, their roots were trapped in a chunk of dirt. Once freed, the roots spread out flat like a fan and were studded with only a few nodules, which are critical to the exchange of nutrients.

In comparison, conventional corn in adjacent fields could be tugged from the ground by hand, and dirt with the consistency of wet coffee grounds fell off the corn plants’ knobby roots.

“Because glyphosate moves into the soil from the plant, it seems to affect the rhizosphere, the ecology around the root zone, which in turn can affect plant health,” said Robert Kremer, a scientist at the United States Agriculture Department, who has studied the impact of glyphosate on soybeans for more than a decade and has warned of the herbicide’s impact on soil health.

Like the human microbiome, the plants’ roots systems rely on a complex system of bacteria, fungi and minerals in the soil. The combination, in the right balance, helps protect the crops from diseases and improves photosynthesis.

In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens.

“Antibiotics kill bacteria or reduce their growth, but some of those bacteria are useful,” said Verlyn Sneller, president of Verity, a small company that sells sugar-based fertilizers and water systems and works to persuade farmers like Mr. Vermeer to switch to conventional crops.

But research detailing the adverse effects with glyphosate is limited, and other studies counter such findings.

Monsanto, which sells Roundup and seeds resistant to glyphosate, says “there is no credible evidence” that the herbicide “causes extended adverse effects to microbial processes in soil.” A team of scientists from the Agriculture Department similarly reviewed much of the research and found the herbicide to be fairly benign. In response to a request from Monsanto, the Environmental Protection Agency recently increased the amount of glyphosate that is allowed on food and feed crops.

“Another factor that weighed on our minds quite a bit was that when you look at the yields of the three major glyphosate-resistant crops — corn, soybeans and cotton — there’s generally been a trend upwards that hasn’t changed since they were adopted,” said Stephen O. Duke, one of the U.S.D.A. scientists who worked on the review. “If there was a significant problem, I don’t think you’d see that.”

David Eggen for The New York Times

The roots appear healthier on the conventionally raised plant, right.

In defending the herbicide, Monsanto scientists and others cite research that has found that mineral deficiencies caused by glyphosate can be mitigated with soil additives. They also point to studies showing that the increase in plant diseases — which some have attributed to the use of the herbicide — instead could be linked to weaknesses in the variety of the plant that was chosen for genetic modification, or to the rise of “no-till” farming, which leaves plant materials that harbor pathogens on top of the soil where they can infect the next crop.

The company and the government continue to assess the impact of the herbicide.

The U.S.D.A. is conducting studies in Illinois, Mississippi and Maryland. Earlier this year, Monsanto bought parts of a company founded by J. Craig Venter, the first scientist to sequence the human genome, as part of an effort to develop microbes and other “agricultural biologicals.” The foray into microbes, said Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto’s chief technologist, is to improve yield and address some of the issues raised about glyphosate.

Until the debate is settled, some farmers in the Corn Belt are rethinking their methods.

Several years ago, Mike Verhoef switched to biotech corn and soybeans on his 330 acres in Sanborn, Iowa. He regularly rotated the two crops with oats, which are not genetically engineered, to help replenish the nutrients in the soil.

Almost immediately, he said problems emerged. He noticed that his soil was becoming harder and more compact, requiring a bigger tractor — and more gas — to pull the same equipment across it. The yield on his oats also dropped over time by about half.

“It took me that long to figure out what was going on,” Mr. Verhoef said. “What I was using to treat the traited corn and soy was doing something to my soil that was killing off my oats.”

Two years ago, he gave up and started growing conventional crops again. He is now working with Verity to improve soil quality and says his yields of conventional corn and soy are “average to above average” compared with neighbors growing biotech crops. It does take a bit more work, he acknowledges, since he has to walk his fields and figure out what mix of products is needed to treat the issues.

Although a neighbor told him that he would go broke growing conventional crops, Mr. Verhoef has no plans to go back to genetically engineered varieties. “So far, so good,” Mr. Verhoef said. “I’m not turning back, because I haven’t seen anything that is going to change my mind about glyphosate.”

2013-09-21 Close the N.S.A.’s Back Doors, NY Times Editorial

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Ladar Levison, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category) No Responses »

Sep 232013

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In 2006, a federal agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, helped build an international encryption system to help countries and industries fend off computer hacking and theft. Unbeknown to the many users of the system, a different government arm, the National Security Agency, secretly inserted a “back door” into the system that allowed federal spies to crack open any data that was encoded using its technology.

Documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, make clear that the agency has never met an encryption system that it has not tried to penetrate. And it frequently tries to take the easy way out. Because modern cryptography can be so hard to break, even using the brute force of the agency’s powerful supercomputers, the agency prefers to collaborate with big software companies and cipher authors, getting hidden access built right into their systems.

The New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica recently reported that the agency now has access to the codes that protect commerce and banking systems, trade secrets and medical records, and everyone’s e-mail and Internet chat messages, including virtual private networks. In some cases, the agency pressured companies to give it access; as The Guardian reported earlier this year, Microsoft provided access to Hotmail, Outlook.com, SkyDrive and Skype. According to some of the Snowden documents given to Der Spiegel, the N.S.A. also has access to the encryption protecting data on iPhones, Android and BlackBerry phones.

These back doors and special access routes are a terrible idea, another example of the intelligence community’s overreach. Companies and individuals are increasingly putting their most confidential data on cloud storage services, and need to rely on assurances their data will be secure. Knowing that encryption has been deliberately weakened will undermine confidence in these systems and interfere with commerce.

The back doors also strip away the expectations of privacy that individuals, businesses and governments have in ordinary communications. If back doors are built into systems by the N.S.A., who is to say that other countries’ spy agencies — or hackers, pirates and terrorists — won’t discover and exploit them?

The government can get a warrant and break into the communications or data of any individual or company suspected of breaking the law. But crippling everyone’s ability to use encryption is going too far, just as the N.S.A. has exceeded its boundaries in collecting everyone’s phone records rather than limiting its focus to actual suspects.

Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has introduced a bill that would, among other provisions, bar the government from requiring software makers to insert built-in ways to bypass encryption. It deserves full Congressional support. In the meantime, several Internet companies, including Google and Facebook, are building encryption systems that will be much more difficult for the N.S.A. to penetrate, forced to assure their customers that they are not a secret partner with the dark side of their own government.

2013-09-19 BC municipalities pass resolution against GMOs

Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified No Responses »

Sep 192013

Wonderful news! (the province of British Columbia in Canada) BC municipalities passed resolution against GMOs. Thank you to all who phoned, & emailed municipal Councillors to vote yes. The effort was worth it. This is a big victory and a huge step for a GE Free BC. (GE = Genetically engineered)

See press release below.

Happily yours

Phil

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

Union of BC Municipalities Asks Province to Ban GE Crops and Animals

September 19, 2013, Vancouver – This morning, in an unprecedented step, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), at their Annual General Meeting in Vancouver, passed a resolution “that UBCM ask the British Columbia government to legislate the prohibition of importing, exporting and growing plants and seeds containing genetically engineered DNA, and raising GE animals within BC, and to declare, through legislation, that BC is a GE Free area in respect to all plant and animal species.”

Already 14 municipalities in BC have declared themselves GE Free Zones, and 10 Official Community Plans of Regional Districts have come out against GE crops, as communities across the province mobilized for a ban on GE crops.

“We’re overjoyed with our success,” said Teresa Lynne of the Society for a GE Free BC, a volunteer non-profit group, “We’re so grateful to all the councilors who heard our concerns and took this amazing step on our behalf. The provincial government needs to legislate this ban and then ask the federal government to do the same.”

“This was possible thanks to the actions of so many passionate and committed people. Every action made a difference,” said Lynne, “We all want to protect our families, environment and food system from the risks of genetically engineered crops and foods.”

“This is an unprecedented victory for grassroots communities,” said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, “Finally we see a level of government in Canada debate this issue and respond to peoples’ concerns.”

Supporters of the UBCM motion gathered almost 7000 signatures on online and hardcopy petitions, and protested yesterday morning outside the UBCM meeting location.

-30-

For more information: Teresa Lynne, Volunteer, Society for a GE Free BC, 604-475-4457; Lucy Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network; 613 241 2267 ext. 25

http://gefreebc.wordpress.com/

—
GE Free Surrey on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/CoalitionForAGEFreeSurrey

Jeffrey Smith’s website

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

Take Action – Canadian Biotechnology Action Network – CBAN

www.cban.ca/

2013-09-17 The BRICS “Independent Internet” Cable. In Defiance of the “US-Centric Internet”

Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Ladar Levison, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category) No Responses »

Sep 192013

Story related to Edward Snowden’s leaks about NSA spying.

BACKGROUND: (from Wikipedia) BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.^[2] The grouping was originally known as “BRIC” before the inclusion of South Africa in 2010. With the possible exception of Russia,^[3] the BRICS members are all developing or newly industrialised countries, but they are distinguished by their large, fast-growing economies^[4] and significant influence on regional and global affairs; all five are G-20 members. As of 2013, the five BRICS countries represent almost 3 billion people, with a combined nominal GDP of US$14.8 trillion,^[1] and an estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves.^[5] Presently, South Africa holds the chair of the BRICS group. The BRICS have received both praise and criticism from numerous quarters.^[6]^[7]^[8]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

By Umberto Pascali, Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-brics-independent-internet-in-defiance-of-the-us-centric-internet/5350272

The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff announces publicly the creation of a world internet system INDEPENDENT from US and Britain ( the “US-centric internet”).

Not many understand that, while the immediate trigger for the decision (coupled with the cancellation of a summit with the US president) was the revelations on NSA spying, the reason why Rousseff can take such a historic step is that the alternative infrastructure: The BRICS cable from Vladivostock, Russia to Shantou, China to Chennai, India to Cape Town, South Africa to Fortaleza, Brazil, is being built and it’s, actually, in its final phase of implementation.

No amount of provocation and attempted “Springs” destabilizations and Color Revolution in the Middle East, Russia or Brazil can stop this process. The huge submerged part of the BRICS plan is not yet known by the broader public.

Nonetheless it is very real and extremely effective. So real that international investors are now jumping with both feet on this unprecedented real economy opportunity. The change… has already happened.

Brazil plans to divorce itself from the U.S.-centric Internet over Washington’s widespread online spying, a move that many experts fear will be a potentially dangerous first step toward politically fracturing a global network built with minimal interference by governments.

President Dilma Rousseff has ordered a series of measures aimed at greater Brazilian online independence and security following revelations that the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted her communications, hacked into the state-owned Petrobras oil company’s network and spied on Brazilians who entrusted their personal data to U.S. tech companies such as Facebook and Google.

BRICS Cable!

http://www.bricscable.com/ (see video)

SEE VIDEO

BRICS Cable… a 34 000 km, 2 fibre pair, 12.8 Tbit/s capacity, fibre optic cable system

* For any global investor, there is no crisis – there is plenty of growth. It’s

just not in the old world

* BRICS is ~45% of the world’s population and ~25% of the world’s GDP

* BRICS together create an economy the size of Italy every year… that’s the

8th largest economy in the world

* The BRICS presents profound opportunities in global geopolitics and

commerce

* Links Russia, China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the BRICS economies – and the

United States.

* Interconnect with regional and other continental cable systems in Asia, Africa and

South America for improved global coverage

* Immediate access to 21 African countries and give those African countries access to

the BRICS economies.

* Projected ready for service date is mid to second half of 2015.