Author Archives: AdolphClarkson

Standing in Front of Garbage, Trump Recycles Terrible Ideas About Free Trade

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump launched extensive attacks on free trade, China, and Hillary Clinton during a speech on Tuesday in Pennsylvania, pledging to renegotiate trade deals and repeatedly promising American workers better jobs and more tariff protections.

“Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy, but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache,” Trump said. “I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who’ve led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster after another.”

Standing in front a wall of crushed aluminum cans at a steel plant near Pittsburgh, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee outlined a seven-point plan that included withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he called “the death blow for American manufacturing”; renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (and withdrawing from the treaty if Canada and Mexico don’t agree); and taking numerous steps to crack down on alleged Chinese trade abuses, including currency manipulation.

Clinton, Trump charged, was the handmaiden for anti-working-class policies, having supported TPP and NAFTA. While she was secretary of state, Trump said, she “stood by idly while China cheated on its currency, added another trillion dollars to our trade deficits, and stole hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property.” With these accusations, Trump once again made an explicit appeal to Bernie Sanders supporters. Sanders is a vocal critic of TPP, NAFTA, and other trade deals, and Trump quoted the Vermont senator in attacking Clinton for supporting free trade. “As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton ‘voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs,'” Trump said.

Trump linked his old-school trade policies to the United Kingdom’s vote on Thursday to leave the European Union. “Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders,” he said. “I was on the right side of that issue—with the people—while Hillary, as always, stood with the elites.” Trump was in Scotland last week, arriving just hours after the referendum result was announced, and congratulated the Scots for “taking their country back”—even though Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. He also told reporters there that the pound’s quickly declining value would bring in more tourists and help his golf courses.

Yet while Trump claimed that protectionism and support for manufacturing would “create massive numbers of jobs” and usher in “a new era of prosperity,” there’s little evidence for those promises. For instance, Trump rhapsodized about the prosperity that tariffs would bring back to the American steel industry, but the United States already slaps a 266 percent tariff on some Chinese steel imports and employs other anti-dumping measures. And American manufacturing production has actually increased over the last six years, but technology advances mean those gains don’t create many new jobs.

Meanwhile, the credit ratings agency Moody’s issued a report last week finding that Trump’s plan would result in “a more isolated US economy” with “larger federal government deficits and a heavier debt load.” The agency acknowledged that Trump’s plan was vague, but its best guesses at what his economic policy would look like were frightening. “By the end of his presidency, there are close to 3.5 million fewer jobs and the unemployment rate rises to as high as 7%, compared with below 5% today,” the report read. “During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the average American household’s after-inflation income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.”

Read more:  

Standing in Front of Garbage, Trump Recycles Terrible Ideas About Free Trade

Posted in Brita, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Standing in Front of Garbage, Trump Recycles Terrible Ideas About Free Trade

Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

By on 13 Aug 2015commentsShare

Sharpen your talons, Monsanto haters. Everyone’s favorite biotech company is cooking up a new GMO alternative, and it’s just begging to be crucified.

The new technology, called BioDirect, is a kind of temporary, spray-on defense mechanism for plants. It relies on a natural phenomenon called RNA interference that scientists can use to block crucial genes in, say, Roundup-resistant weeds or killer pests. MIT Technology Review’s Antonio Regalado took a deep dive into the new technology, and it sounds a bit like an Arnold Schwarzenegger character. No one has ever tried spraying RNA on thousands of acres of crops before, so it does raise some legitimate concerns.

Here’s how it works: All living things contain DNA, and that DNA carries the genetic information that cells need to make proteins. But it’s actually RNA, DNA’s less famous workhorse of a partner, that takes that genetic information out into the cell to get shit done. Viruses also use RNA, however, so cells have a kind of defense mechanism to detect viral RNA, memorize its contents, destroy it, and then hunts down its progeny to destroy them too.

Told you it was kind of badass.

With a little tweak, however, this defense mechanism can be turned against itself, so that a cell starts attacking its own genetic code. That’s where BioDirect comes in. Using spray-on RNA that looks like viral RNA but is actually genetic information from weeds or pests or whatever it is Monsanto wants to target, the company can effectively turn the enemy against itself. It could even use BioDirect to target certain genes in crops themselves in order to make those crops, for example, drought resistant.

So if an orange grove in Florida is suddenly overrun with the insect that transmits greening disease (look it up — it’s destroying the orange industry), farmers could, in theory, just spray on some insect RNA BioDirect until the situation is under control and then go about their business — no pesticides or genetically engineered trees required. This technique has a number of advantages over GMOs. Here’s more from Technology Review:

Monsanto isn’t the only one working on genetic sprays. Other large agricultural biotech companies, including Bayer and Syngenta, are also investigating the technology. The appeal is that it offers control over genes without modifying a plant’s genome—that is, without creating a GMO.

That means sprays might sidestep much of the controversy around agricultural biotechnology. Or so companies hope. What’s certain is that a way to accomplish the goals of genetic engineering without having to develop a GMO could bring commercial rewards. Sprays might be quickly tailored to do battle with an insect infestation or a new type of virus. Not only could this be faster than creating new GM crops, but the gene-silencing effects of RNA interference last only a few days or weeks. That means you might spray on traits such as drought resistance in times of water shortage without affecting the plant’s performance in times of normal rainfall.

BioDirect isn’t ready for prime time yet but, according to Technology Review, Monsanto and others are spending a lot of money trying to change that:

[Monsanto] paid $30 million for access to the RNA interference know-how and patents held by the biotech company Alnylam, and it did a similar deal with Tekmira, an RNA delivery specialist based in Burnaby, British Columbia. Monsanto is also the financial backer of a 15-person company called Preceres, a kind of skunk works it established just off the campus of MIT, where robotic mixers are busy stirring RNA together with coatings of specialized nanoparticles.

Meanwhile, Syngenta paid $523 million to buy out a European biotech company that had been working on RNA insecticides.

The obvious question here is: Should we be spraying and/or eating RNA that makes other species kill themselves? First, it’s important to note that scientists can tailor the RNA to target very specific genetic sequences in whatever it is they want to kill or otherwise tweak, so it’s a lot less likely to hurt people than, say, the potato bug that it’s targeting. And we do eat viral RNA all the time, so that’s nothing new. It’s just that lab-synthesized RNA (and lots of it) might give people the willies.

Still, it’s not yet clear how spraying a bunch of RNA on crops could affect the surrounding ecosystems, so as Regalado’s headline suggests, this could very well be “the next great GMO debate.” And yet, as one Israeli scientist working on RNA interference told Regalado, perhaps the biggest obstacle in the way of BioDirect actually has nothing to do with the technology itself:

The real problem can be summarized in a single word: Monsanto. “For half the world, that is enough to know it’s evil,” he says. “Monsanto is introducing a new technology, full stop. But Monsanto is also the best way to make this real. For the scientifically literate, this is the dream molecule.”

Monsanto, word of advice? If you ever want to shake that evil vibe, maybe take a note from Google’s playbook and come up with a new name. Larry Page already snagged Alphabet, but there are plenty of other equally innocent-sounding options out there. How about Teddy Bear? Or Sunshine?

Source:
The Next Great GMO Debate

, MIT Technology Review.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

A Grist Special Series

Oceans 15

What seafood is OK to eat, anyway? Ask an expertWhen it comes to sustainable seafood, you could say director of Seafood Watch Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly is the ultimate arbiter of taste.

What’s there to see at the bottom of the ocean? More than you’d thinkWe know more about the moon than the deep sea. National Geographic explorer David Gruber wants to change that.

What’s it like to be at home on the ocean? Ask a fishermanTele Aadsen fishes for salmon in southeast Alaska, which means she is up close and personal with the sea every day.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Continue reading here: 

Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, mixer, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Monsanto’s coming up with an alternative to GMOs

Quote of the Day: Salt Your Pasta Water, Capiche?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Starboard Value LP, a private investment firm critical of Olive Garden’s current management:

If you Google “How to cook pasta”, the first step of Pasta 101 is to salt the water. How does the largest Italian dining concept in the world not salt the water for pasta?

Quite so. On the other hand, Starboard refers to Olive Garden as an “Italian dining concept,” which is a strike against them. So I guess I don’t know who to root for in this monumental battle for control of low-quality quasi-Italian food.

Continued here – 

Quote of the Day: Salt Your Pasta Water, Capiche?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Salt Your Pasta Water, Capiche?