In the big bad world of organic standards, the typical pattern of corporate colonization is happening. The organizations that set the standards (about what pest controls and soil additives are allowed) were run by people who were also growers-- small scale, conscionable, concerned for the health of the soil and the food. Now the big organic players are buying up the smaller producers, and they are starting to throw their weight around in the standards area. The big guys, of course, want to dilute the standards, and they have deep pockets to buy the congressmen who make the USDA laws. It's a fascinating story that you can read about here: Organic Farmers Fight National Organic Standards For the non-commercial grower and home gardener, the question is, as Kimmsr so nicely describes, what do I accept in my garden based on my own values and knowledge about soil and ecosystem health? There is no single authority out there to tell us what is right and wrong. All inputs and cultural practices exist on a continuum from downright horrible to accepted without question. For example, should we use mineral soil amendments (such as rock phosphate, greensand, carbonatite, etc.) if the minerals have to be trucked thousands of miles across the country? What role do petro-miles play in determining whether a product is environmentally friendly? Another example: coir. Coir is used as an alternative to peat, to aid with moisture retention and aeration in soil and growing media. It is a renewable resource (unlike peat moss) but coconut does not grow in North America. It has to be transported from Southern Asia. How environmentally sound it this practice? And corn gluten for weed control. It is pretty much impossible to buy non-GMO corn gluten on this continent. So, if I advocate the use of gluten as an alternative to 2-4D, am I promoting GM? And bone/blood meal. I'm pretty sure that no certifying body accepts bone meal or blood meal. Yet these products can be obtained locally and, sometimes you can get ground bones from organic meat processors. They do no harm to the soil, and they recycle resources that would otherwise go to the landfill. You see what I'm getting at. We need to learn about what is generally accepted by most certifying organizations, and then we need to make our own decisions based on our own research and values. Thankfully, in the future, we will not be having this debate. All agriculture will be non-chemical. Most conventional fertilizers and pesticides are either made from oil products, or made in factories powered by oil products, and they rely on massive oil-powered transportation networks to get them from the third-world to us. As oil and gas become more scarce and more expensive, and the carbon age comes to an end, there will be very little chemical fertilizers available. So whether we like it or not, organic localism is coming to agriculture. We won't have the luxury of choice among inputs to our farms and gardens. We'll use rotations, green manures, animal and plant compost, cultural practices, trap crops, and lots of manual labour.

Im retired and disabled and have in my lifetime, done a lot of DIY projects as well as having paid to have some done that I messed up. I read and comment on some 30 + DIY forums and others. My favorites are The Garden webs of course Terry Love Plumbing Discussion This Old house House and Garden Master Plumbers.com plumbing.com DIYchatroom.com doityourself.com and off the DIY home subject I spend a lot of time in mercedesshop.com because I collect and drive old Mercedes. Additionally I write a blog on DIY projects and product updates and how to's. Needless to say it keeps me off the streets..LOL Richard

dave_donhoff: "You can't lay this at the feet of the financial industry... the industry doesn't have the power to corrupt the natural constraints, to eliminate levels of competition, or to subsidize/lubricate one area of operation or another. ONLY governments have that capability." I disagree. The industry IS the power. This country is ruled by money and the ability to make billions...those who control that ability, control us....AND the gov't. While Wall St. was indeed enabled and abetted by lack of gov't oversight, regs, etc....they continue to hold the nation hostage by manipulating the market to drop anytime anyone even breathes the word "regulation". Case in point..the Dow rallied on the news of a bailout; as soon as noise was made about building in restrictions, oversight, etc...the Dow dropped. Message? Bail us out, but don't even THINK about trying to prevent us from doing this again as soon as we mange to cook up our next ponzi scheme. The entire finance system has been purposely and systematically engineered to operate covertly and in such a convoluted and often incomprehensible manner, with Gov't enabling and abetting the system...that most of the dirty deeds that generate millions or billions never come to light...or if so, it's too late..such as now. The bottom line is that "Wall St." has lost its credibility as the "experts" who are those best suited to choose their own SOP's. While I am hardly a fan of government regulation...I can't really see any other way to at least try to prevent them from screwing with everyone again at some point in the not too distant future....and most important, to instill some basic level of confidence in the system. Gov't regulates just about EVERY other profession much more stringently than this one...the SEC is pretty much a jokeÂand look what has happened. In addition, in respect to finance, the whole system is currently set up to foster and HUGELY reward fraud, deception and abuse...allowing penalty free activity that if you or I did the same, we would be charged with a crime. Case in point...CEO OÂNeal, formerly of Merrill Lynch, who presided over the company while all of these shenanigans were going on. He is either a moron ÂÂor a thief. Either wayÂhe ran off with millionsÂ....so far scott free...leaving us ALL holding the bagÂ.and he was THE key player in the ultimate demise of Merrill. I don't profess to know how to do it...but the double standard MUST stop. People and entities who know that they have little or no accountability should hardly be trusted with the finances that are the keystone to a healthy economy. Either that...or just give everyone a free pass on fraud and call it a day. Here is an interesting Op/Ed piece that is IMO, entirely on point: ******************************************************* Commentary: Blame boards of directors for financial mess Story Highlights Nell Minow: Wall Street directors ultimately to blame for financial crisis Boards approved huge pay unrelated to long-term performance, she says Executives reaped enormous sums while shareholders suffered, Minow says Minow: Shareholders should be allowed to vote on pay packages By Nell Minow Special to CNN Editor's Note: Nell Minow is editor and chair of The Corporate Library, an independent research company specializing in corporate governance. Minow was named one of the 20 most influential people in corporate governance by Directorship magazine in 2007 and "the queen of good corporate governance" by BusinessWeek Online in 2003. She has written more than 200 articles and co-written three books. Since 1995, Minow has also written "Movie Mom," an online parents' guide to "media, culture and values." Nell Minow says it's great when executives make a lot of money but only if they really earn it. As big Wall Street firms topple like dominoes, there is plenty of blame to go around. Failure this broad and deep takes a village, and regulators, lawyers, compensation consultants, auditors, executives, shareholders, and the press all played a part. But the people who are most responsible for the massive meltdowns of these institutions are the boards of directors. Their sole responsibility is to act as fiduciaries for the shareholders in managing risk. They not only failed to perform this task but indeed, in their approval of outrageous pay plans with perverse incentives, they all but guaranteed the current disaster. I am a capitalist. I love it when executives earn boatloads of money. But it infuriates me when they get it without earning it. If the executives' compensation is tied to the volume of business rather than the quality of business, we should expect dealmakers to be more attentive to the number of transactions than the value they create. This is the basis for much of the sub-prime mess, whose collateral damage is taking down the biggest firms on Wall Street. At Merrill Lynch, former CEO Stanley O'Neal received total compensation of more than $91 million for 2006, according to The Corporate Library's calculations. He was given that package based on performance numbers that came out before nearly $23 billion in write-downs by the company. O'Neal received more than $160 million in stock and retirement benefits while shareholders lost more than 41 percent of their investment value over the year. Three executives brought in to Merrill less than a year ago will share a $200 million payment as they turn over the company to Bank of America in a last-minute deal to help it survive. American International Group (AIG) replaced CEO Martin Sullivan after the company posted losses for two consecutive quarters totaling $13 billion. Sullivan's contract entitled him to about $68 million. His replacement, a board member who served as CEO for three months before the company was taken over by the government, will get as much as $7 million. The boards of directors approved pay that was completely disconnected to performance. This, after all, is the world of the ultimate oxymoron: the "guaranteed bonus." So we should not be surprised that executives took the money and ran. Fewer than 13 percent of public companies have claw-back policies requiring executives to return bonuses based on inflated numbers. All of the incentives are for them to inflate the numbers, take the money, and run. And that is why companies whose names used to be synonymous with stability and trustworthiness will live on through history and business school case studies as discredited, greedy and corrupt. The people who insisted that government regulation interfered with the perfect efficiency of the markets are now getting bailed out by taxpayers with some walloping welfare checks. I just hope that this time the government does a better job of protecting itself than it did with its bail-out of Chrysler almost 30 years ago and this time insists on a piece of the upside rather than a fixed repayment. If the government is going to run a business, it has to act like a business and make sure its interests are aligned with the executives. Despite the post-Enron adoption of the most extensive protections since the New Deal, a survey released this week by Kroll and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that corporate fraud rose 22 percent since last year. The option back-dating and sub-prime messes show that even the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley reform law and expanded enforcement and oversight cannot eliminate the severest threats to our markets and our economy. This proves that there are limits to structural solutions. Ultimately, markets are smarter and more efficient than regulation. What the government needs to do now is insist on removing obstacles to the efficient operation of market oversight. Shareholders must be able to replace directors who make bad decisions and they should have a non-binding "say on pay" vote on executive compensation as they do in the UK and several other countries. Our current system of executive compensation does not tie pay to performance, it does not provide an effective incentive to create long-term shareholder value, and it does not meet any possible market test. Executive compensation must be looked at as any other asset allocation. The return on investment for the expenditures on CEO pay is by any measure inadequate. Some have argued that the amounts at issue are so small in proportion to the assets being managed that they do not have any material impact. On the contrary, the CEO compensation in America's public companies is a leading indicator of serious problems -- and one reason my firm has consistently given most financial services companies "high-risk" ratings. And it is more than a symptom of the pervasive problem that is toppling our most respected financial services companies. It is a perversion of the market that imposes enormous and growing costs on America's working families -- as shareholders, customers, employees, and members of the community. These outrageous pay packages juxtaposed with losses in share value and jobs diminishes our credibility and increases our cost of capital. In today's global economy this is an expense we clearly can no longer afford.

I thought only people who actually worked were getting paid, though late? Or are all the people who couldn't come into work still being paid? Obviously I think everyone should be paid since it wasn't their choice to skip work, and it's not like it was a stress-free vacation. But that is wasting soooooo much money to pay hundreds of thousands of people for not doing anything for a week plus, since the work still needs to be done eventually. Again, that's not aimed at the workers at all but rather the incredibly inefficient government. And the irony that this all happened because of disagreements over spending... I wonder if some companies are understanding and will let federal employees pay late without penalty.