with einnocent.

Yes, Quintana says "campesinos... can't compete with U.S. production of corn at artificially low prices", but that doesn't make the point you are trying to establish. Logically, what he says is: if prices are artifically low then campesinos can't compete. However, this is not the same as: if prices are not artifically low then campesinos can compete. The destinction may seem strained, but it is important and logically precise.

In reality it simply means that if artificial prices are removed, then this will not be a means to wipe out campesinos. It says nothing about the viability of campesinos in a non-price supported world.

Continuing, you say "Second, if corn prices are going up, doesn't that mean that campesinos should soon find work..."

Yes indeed, but this says nothing about the eventual equilibrium price of corn. You cannot assume that in the face of increasing fuel demand for corn, the price will level out at a point the poor can afford.

It appears to me what will happen is, as the demand and price for fuel continues to climb, money will increasingly turn to cheap biologicals to convert to fuel. Unfortunately, 'cheap biologicals' are basically what the poor consume, and as economically defenseless, they will be destroyed.

It is optimistic of Andrew to think "There may well be ways to sustainably farm energy crops that generate income for rural farmers without causing a crimp in food supplies for poor people." That 'crimp' is too likely and can't be left to free-market roulette.

No country should relinquish the ability of it's population to feed itself. I was shocked when I read "Mexico no longer maintains a strategic grain stockpile." A country that gives up its soverngnty like this should be brought down by its population. The country is (supposed to be) a system to serve its population but more and more they are serving the interests of large multi-nationals and other corporations. There used to be a slogan that went "the greatest good for the greastest number", but in the capital-driven world that seems to have been replaced by "The greatest wealth to the fewest number". I notice that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor continues to climb in most if not all of the countries experiencing the most benefits of globalization.

it seems inevitable that food must become 'the next oil' as populations continue to climb world-wide and fuel prices assault its stability as well. Countries can risk neither the loss of farm output due to cheap imported food, nor the right to insure that a citizen can feed themselves at a decent price.

Why anyone cares about anything mAnn CultWhore says?

Because America is more than just it's collection of land and citizens. America is about the way people treat other people.

As for the "outrage over the innocent Americans killed on 9/11", are we supposed to wear it on our sleeves every day like you and your America-hating friends do? We will leave that to you since you do it so well.

I think you misread Mona, who is probably being sarcastic, did you notice her use of the word "testilying" instead of "testifying"? In the future you might want to read more slowly.

Stupidity: it's a renewable resource!

The general says:

"...I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."

What planet did he call this in from, if this was true half of the republican politicians in this country would have been prosecuted by now.

for armed rebellion. Get your guns and ammunition. The elected democrates can and will do nothing.

that Giuliani became mayor shortly after the first trade center attack, where it was revealed that emergency services communications were a mess, with workers from different agencies unable to communicate with each other. Because Giuliani did nothing to fix the problem, the same issues plagued the second trade center attack and resulted in many more emergency workers dying than had to. Thanks, Giuliani, for nothing.

of a factory worker that has worked in a noisy factory, without hearing protection, for so long that he can hardly hear and can say with a straifght face "Quite in here, isn't it?"

every group does it. Aztec, Inca, Maya, Christian Muslim Jew Navajo country sports team school company chess club: "We're good, you're bad". And engage in combat, ritual or real. There must be an evolutionary benefit to it, or it wouldn't be so universal. And that is fine as long as you are throwing rocks and spears, but when you can throw nuclear weapons then we need to put the breaks on this behavior. To start with we need to see what we are doing, we are all going "It's you! It's you!" when in fact it is all of us. We are all doing this because it once had a strong survival value, and so is programmed into our genes. To rise above it we must use other things that are also programmed into our genes: the ability to think, and the ability to work cooperatively. If we just keep with more of the same, running with our emotions but continuously scaling up the consequences as technology gets better, then eventually we are just going to wipe ourselves out.

In the digital age, everything is backed up somewhere. Just need to run that down.

My God is the real God.

Your god and his followers are trash and we can kill them.

/insert religion here/