Year: 2014

I had a thought.  If the stock market is a barometer, not a thermometer — it measures investor expectations about the future — what economic weather was it predicting in March of 2009?

With the Dow at 6,500, was it saying . . . “The future looks bright?”

That . . . “Savvy investors fear no Depression?”

Or was it saying . . . “OMFG!  There really may be no way out of this one.  The Dow could drop further still.  To zero, even, as shareholders are wiped out and bondholders become the new owners.  Boy, do we ever need a steady hand at the tiller.  And even then — even with a Ronald Reagan! — it’s no sure bet we get through this without a full-out Depression.”

That, in fact, is what I think it was saying.

And here we are, with housing prices having rebounded a good bit (we don’t want them all the way back to top-of-the-bubble crazy levels any time soon, do we?) . . . with the $1.5 trillion deficit outgoing President Bush handed incoming President Obama having been slashed by two-thirds . . . with the economy much weaker than it would have been if the Republicans had not blocked The American Jobs Act (borrowing at record-low rates to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure) . . . but growing nonetheless . . . and with the Dow nearly triple that March, 2009, low.

And yes of course Fed chairs Ben Bernanke and now Janet Yellen deserve a load of credit, as Paul Volcker did back in the Reagan years — hurray for competence!

But when Mitch McConnell says — in prepared remarks, no less — that “By any standard, Barack Obama has been a disaster for our country,” does it not make you cry to think he could actually be reelected?  (My money is on Alison.)  And that if we don’t all lean into fighting the Koch brothers — simply by taking the time to vote in a midterm, unaccustomed as many of us are to doing so — Mitch McConnell could actually lead the Senate?  And determine its agenda?  And preside over its next Supreme Court confirmations?

What the market barometer seems to be telling me is that — despite unprecedented obstruction — this President has, in economic terms (whatever you may think about the “social” issues), been a tremendous success.

Would you cut and paste and send this to everyone you know?   And ask them to do the same?

Because if those who’d like to see the economy kicked into high gear by revitalizing our infrastructure just vote 70-odd days from now in the midterm . . . unaccustomed as so many are to doing so . . . and if students who’d like to be able to refinance their federal loan interest rates just vote . . . and minimum wage workers who’d like a 40% raise just vote . . . and those who’d like to see universal background checks (including more than 70% of NRA members!) just vote . . . and those who believe the House climate-change subcommittee should not be chaired by a climate-denier just vote . . .and those who favor the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform package the Senate passed and the President hopes to sign just vote . . . and those who believe women, not the government, should be allowed to control their own health care decisions and that LGBT Americans should be accorded equal rights . . . if all these people — or even just an unusually high percentage of them — take the time to be sure they’re registered and then just vote*, the Republican death grip will be broken and we will be able to move forward.  And today’s pricey Dow will prove a barometer indeed.

(Should the stock market have treated you well these last five years, use this link.  But the main thing, if this message resonates with you, is to cut and paste and spread the word.  Or just forward the link.)

*Democrat, because Democrats favor all these things.  And if you can’t bring yourself to go that far, then express your horror at what the Party of Abe-and-Teddy-and-Ike has become by just staying home.  One day, you will get your party back.  It can’t come soon enough.

PACE YOURSELF

Long-time readers may recall a post on this topic from April, 2003 — when 42-inch TV’s cost $4,999.  These being the lazy, crazy days of summer, I re-post it here:

Have you tried PriceGrabber.com? It seems like a good site to visit before making a significant purchase. The range of prices on the amazing Casio Exilim EX-M2 digital camera – which can attach sound to your photos and short videos and play Beethoven’s Ninth – is a low of $309 to a high of $399. The prices on a 42-inch Panasonic Plasma TV – which I gotta tell you I am dying one day to own – ranged from $4,999 to $3,526 after allowing for tax and shipping to my zip code. The mini-countertop portable dishwasher that Office Depot delivers to your door for $296.79 is yours, delivered, for $189.48 from Wal-Mart.

Remember when you actually had to let your fingers do the walking through the Yellow Pages? And, before that, actually walk? We didn’t realize it at the time, but life was hell. Comparison shopping could take all day.

(All that said, remember that the cheapest plasma TV of all is not to buy one. That’s my brand. I know you only live once, but I have always believed in pacing myself.  An annoying young man once wrote, ‘A luxury once sampled becomes a necessity.  Pace yourself!  Tease yourself with anticipation. Ease the fingers of your aspiration up the inner thigh of your cupidity. Tickle your fancy.’ . . . ‘Of course money buys happiness!’ he concluded. ‘But both will last longer if you remember the importance of foreplay.’ So I’m waiting a few months more. As to countertop dishwashers – would it kill you to rinse your fork and plate in the sink and then wipe them clean on your shirt sleeve?)

Tomorrow: How Come You All Know So Much about Vlad the Impaler?

PATIENCE

Nineteen years ago I bought shares in Texas Pacific Land Trust for $4.35.  I forget where I read about it — Barron’s?  Forbes? — but my notes at the time, entered in Managing Your Money, bless its little antiquated soul, read: “Three shares = 1 acre, plus they have perpetual royalty income and grazing.  They just keep buying back shares with the excess over their dividend.  Stock is worth $60.”  Friday, with the stock up from $4.35 to $188.40, I gave 500 shares to some good cause.

This is not typical of my investing success.  I could give example after example of investments made decades ago that are today worth nothing.  Dozens of examples!  Scores of examples!  Seriously!  But I do believe that, in the right circumstances, patience — it being in relatively scare supply — commands a premium.

Which brings us back (of course) to Borealis.  How long, O Lord, must we continue to wait?  Another two years?  Five?  Or will it be ‘never’?  I don’t know.  I do know that if the odds are 50/50 that five years from now the company will be valued at $500 million or $2.5 billion, it’s worth a lot more than today’s $45 million market cap.  So, being young at heart and possessed of (or in this case, by?) the happy gene, I sit with a smile and wait.

PLANETARY COLLISION

Did you know that Pluto’s elliptical orbit means that sometimes it’s actually closer to the sun than Neptune?  Barely 3.2 billion miles away.  At which point, 11 months from now, our little New Horizons spacecraft launched from Florida January 19, 2006, and zipping along at 56,000 miles an hour, will do some fly-by photography, like a really expensive Go Pro.  But looking at the orbits of these two celestial bodies (one, a planet, one a dwarf planet) — scroll down to the second illustration on this page to see the orbits — it appears they are bound sooner or later to collide.

Good news!  They never will!  There’s at least one big thing you don’t have to worry about.

(But if you have time, check out the New Horizons site.  Quite the acrobat, it flew close to Jupiter not just for photos but to get an extra gravitational boost en route that shortened the cruise time by about three years.  Lots to look and marvel at.  Thanks, Tom!)

HOW TO WASH A CAT

John Seiffer offers this.  Please direct all hate mail to him.

BELGISTAN – #2

Tom Martel:  “Andy, where have you been?  This story/video was originally aired on Mar 15, 2012, on the Christian Broadcast Network.  This issue is a big story all over Europe.  Those promoting Sharia Law are of the same thinking as the ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Turkey Brotherhood, etc.  Remember, the battle of Tours, where Charles Martel drove the Muslims from Europe in the battle of Tours in 732 AD?  Distant relation I hope, haha.”

Jan:  “To some people I am probably one step away from being a flaming Commie, supporting the Liberal party of Canada.  But it seems to me the ‘Christian’ right in the US is as anxious to impose their values on the general population as the nutcase in the video is to impose his version of sharia law on the rest of the world.  How else to explain the crusade to criminalize abortion, restrict access to birth control, refuse to treat LGBT citizens as equals, gerrymander electoral districts, etc. etc.?  How many people are aware that Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world or that there are more non-Arabic Muslims that Arabic ones?  In my opinion the terrorism being exported from the Middle East in the name of Islam is more about tribal conflict and regional instability (which George Bush has much to answer for) than religious crusade.  The CBN has more of these ‘news reports’ about the invading hordes in France among other places, and I find them repugnant with their manipulation of facts and images.   Sorry to rant on like this but I strongly feel that these people don’t deserve any more publicity than they have already managed to garner for themselves.  Thanks for letting me vent!”

Janet: “Have you seen this?”

From: Dr. Arieh Eldad:

I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

It’s from 2008, and largely true.  Snopes has the rundown.  The liberal in me (and in Canadian Jan, above) immediately wonders: how awful must life in the refugee camp have been to lead a woman — presumably not enticed by the prospect of 72 virgins — to blow herself up to free her people?   According to a top CIA Mideast specialist, Bin Laden’s motive was not religious zeal or a hatred of Western civilization.  “Bin Laden [was] precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world.”

None of which for an instant justifies suicide bombings or 9/11 or Arafat’s tragic rejection of the 2000 peace accord.  In my admittedly non-expert view, it’s he and Hamas that the people of Gaza have largely, most recently, to blame for their awful situation . . . which both sides should be seeking urgently to improve.

JP MORGAN

A letter to the editor of the Madison, Wisconsin, Cap Times (thanks, Janet) —

Dear Editor:  I’m a longtime admirer of Dave Zweifel, but when he says in his article “How the GOP has changed for the worse” that “Jamie Dimon is the new J.P. Morgan,” I must offer a friendly demurrer.

J.P. Morgan was not one of the robber barons. He was an honest, compassionate and colorful character who happened to have a knack for making money. He gave much of it to hospitals, schools and museums. When he died, he was president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

When one of his lovers, before he was married, got engaged, he gave her a generous check as a wedding gift.

After the panic of 1907, he organized a syndicate of bankers to rescue the economy from collapse, using the government’s own deposits in the banks.

My favorite story about him is the time a visiting clergyman didn’t have time to get to the train station. Morgan told him, “Don’t worry, the train runs right behind my estate. We’ll just go flag it down.” When the conductor learned why his train had been stopped, he informed Morgan in colorful language that that sort of thing was not done. “Who do you think you are?” the conductor asked. “Well, I’m J.P. Morgan, and I happen to own this railroad.” “Well, I don’t give damn! You may own the railroad, but you don’t know anything about trains.” J.P. replied, “You’re absolutely right, sir. I assure you it will never happen again.”

signed / John Morgan, Madison, WI

BELGISTAN

The scariest thing to me about these 5 minutes is how very calm and “rational” the interviewee seems as he predicts the ascendance of Sharia Law in Belgium and then Europe and beyond . . . and not so long from now.  Chilling . . . and challenging to know how to react.  All thoughts welcome.  Have a great weekend.

MUCH BIGGER THAN A BREAD BOX

Two and a half fascinating minutes (thanks, Glenn).  It starts small — a little thing called the moon — and grows from there.  Go ahead: marvel.

CATS AND DOGS

John Seiffer:  “A line early in the Sidecar Dogs film trailer you posted — ‘It’s the best day of his life every time he gets in the side car’ — reminded me of this which I’m sure you’ve seen.”

☞ No!  Hadn’t seen it.  I love it: a dog’s diary contrasted with a cat’s diary.  Go ahead: try not to smile.

CORRECTION

Matt Wilbert:  “I just now read your August 5 post.  I am pretty sure that one of your specific points is wrong, and because this particular point has been widely misunderstood, I thought I should flag it for you.  The US is not exporting more oil than it is importing. It is not even close to exporting more than it is importing. Depending upon how you calculate it, we are probably producing about 65% of our current consumption, and net imports make up the rest. I am not sure why people think differently. It is true that we are now a net exporter of refined petroleum products, and that our net imports are now smaller than domestic production, so perhaps people are confusing these things.  See here.”

☞ Matt is right.  Here‘s a thoughtful overview.  US crude production is up by 50% since 2008, and there are other trends that may eventually lead to energy independence, but it’s still a ways off.  And of course we’d much rather reach it through increased efficiency (conservation) and increased production of clean energy (solar and wind, e.g.) — solar roadways! — than through (say) fracking near aquifers.  And of course, I’m not arguing that President Obama was more crude-oil-friendly than George W. Bush, or that he somehow triggered these production gains.  But that post was in response to Mitch McConnell’s outlandish assertion — in prepared remarks, so not a slip of the tongue — that “By any standard, Barack Obama has been a disaster for our country.”  As he might have been if over-regulation of the oil industry had cut their domestic production.  But, no: the industry if booming on Obama’s watch.  Go ahead: help retire Mitch McConnell.

DOG DAYS – #2

This short, wet clip of Bubbles and Bella can’t fail to make you smile.  But it’s the information that crawls up the screen at the end that really grabs you. (Thanks, Mel!)

SPIRIT – #2

Kevin Smith:  “As it happens, I just flew Spirit to and from NYC (out of FLL) this past weekend.  I’m not particularly young (43) nor poor, but it was the best price I could get.  They do indeed try to charge for all “add-on” items, but you don’t have to pay for anything unless you want to.  I found a carry-on bag that met their guidelines for “one free personal item” (16x14x12) and I allowed them to assign my seat, rather than choosing one.  I had heard that you could purchase a ticket at the airport and save (at least) $16.99 per leg of the trip by avoiding one of their fees on the online ticketing service…so I did that in advance.  I saved $34 on the round trip fare that was available online, less the $3 it cost my to park at FLL airport while I ran in and got the ticket.  I did have a bit of trouble checking in online for the return trip, but after a phone call to customer service, that was solved, as well.  It wasn’t fancy, but we arrived early on both trips, and boarding was reasonably simple, and I got where I needed to go.  I would use them again, certainly, until something goes wrong (but then, I’ve had problems on most airlines at one point or another, who hasn’t?).  I have a round-trip to Chicago planned in October…we will see how that goes.”

I am a dog person.

(A “real” dog person.  If your dog looks like a hamster, or a stick figure, I will try to hold my tongue but may already have said too much.  If your dog appears able to crush my ankle in his jaws — with a look in his eye suggesting he’s considering it — I will exhibit fear and he will sense that fear which will only confirm his suspicion I am up to no good, increasing his snarl and my fear . . . and down it spirals.  I once lived in a home protected by a German shepherd with vision problems.  As many times as I showed him the deed — this was my home; his master worked for me; I bore the cost of both his kibbles and his bits — he never lost the scent of my fear, more than once blocking entry or egress.)

In case you, too, are a dog person, enjoy this clip — and consider buying a sidecar for your motorbike.

Nothing against cats.  I just seek a less fraught relationship.

AND SPEAKING OF DOGS

John Seiffer:  “Like you, I held on to some SIGA.  Any thoughts on what happens now?”

☞  Well, here’s what happened.  My hope is that the stock — down 30% to $1.60 when John emailed me — is an over-reaction and that any further surprises would be to the upside.  But obviously, this court ruling is not what we hoped.  With money I can still afford to lose, I hang on.

SPIRIT

I’ve never flown them, but if I were young and poor I sure might.  Not least because of this ad, acknowledging a lot of the hate mail they get.  (Warning: a bit off color.)

LANDING AN AIRBUS 380

From inside Lufthansa’s cockpit, on approach to SFO, all the way to the gate.  How cool is this?

+THAT’S+ THE SPIRIT

I thought this CFPB progress report was worth posting:

It Worked

July 21, 2014 

By Elizabeth Warren

Not long ago, I was at a McDonald’s when a man came over, held out his hand and said he had been having trouble with a fee his bank had charged. It wasn’t huge, but he said the bank should not have charged him. He called and argued, talked with customer relations, asked to speak to a manager — and he got a big, fat zero.

Then he said he remembered about the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and told the bank he would file a complaint. They put him on hold and then came back and said they would reverse the fee. The agency worked.

Today is the fourth anniversary of Dodd-Frank, the law that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and the third anniversary of the date the CFPB became an independent agency. And in those three years, the agency has done a lot to help level the playing field:

• The CFPB has forced big financial companies to return more than $4 billion dollars to consumers they cheated.
• The CFPB has put in place rules to protect consumers from a whole host of dangerous financial products and to make sure that companies can’t issue the kinds of deceptive mortgages that contributed to millions of foreclosures.
• The CFPB has helped tens of thousands of consumers resolve complaints against financial institutions that cheated them.

Sure, there is a lot of financial reform work left undone. The big banks today are dramatically bigger than they were in 2008 and they are taking on new risks, and I think that means we need a 21st Century Glass-Steagall law to break them up. But I celebrate the progress we’ve had so far: When big banks have to listen to their customers a little more, the playing field starts to level out just a little bit more.

The big banks spent more than a million dollars a day lobbying against financial reforms, and top lobbyists said that killing off the consumer agency was their number one priority.  Even now, the Republicans continue the attack, introducing bills that would take the legs out from under the agency.

We didn’t have the lobbying muscle or the money that the big banks had. But we got that agency because we fought for it. We joined forces online and through groups, and we made our voices heard. And now, after three years, it’s starting to work.

I smiled at the guy who said he got his money back. I smiled because I love to hear how the CFPB works. But mostly I smiled because it reminded me of what we can do when we fight.

Happy anniversary!

And happy Monday.

It started with a post at Gawker slamming my pal Mo Rocca for hosting a panel for Conde Nast sponsored by Monsanto (“Here’s How Conde Nast and Mo Rocca Are Making Propaganda for Monsanto”).  Well, it turned out Mo was not, in fact, hosting the panel — Gawker would note that the next day — but in the meantime, the story had begun this way:

Genetically modified agribusiness and pesticide conglomerate Monsanto has a reputation (rightly or wrongly) as one of the most evil companies in America. Here’s one way they’re working on their PR: by enlisting the help of Conde Nast, and Mo Rocca, and some desperate charities.

There were a lot of links in the story — who has time to follow the links in a story? — but the “wrongly” link piqued my interest and led to the New Yorker.

The New Yorker has fact checkers and stuff, so — no knock on Gawker — I was curious to see what case could be made in such a leftie venue that Monsanto was wrongly cast as evil.  (The New Yorker, conspiracy theorists please note, is owned by Conde Nast.)

So I started reading this, by the estimable Michael Specter, which basically just offers up a letter from a young centi-millionaire to his employees — perhaps the most interesting letter I’ve ever read not to have come out of, say, a Birmingham jail.

I commend it to you for your weekend reading.  And, while a subscription to the New Yorker is not free, as Gawker is, I commend that to you as well.

NOVEMBER 4, 2013

Why the Climate Corporation Sold Itself to Monsanto

BY MICHAEL SPECTER

For this week’s issue of the magazine, I wrote about the Climate Corporation, a company that is trying to deploy a vast and growing trove of data to help farmers cope with the increasingly severe fluctuations in weather caused by climate change, in much the way that Google organizes and presents the world’s information. The New York Times, citing a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also noted this weekend that warming trends will pose an increased risk to the world’s food supply in the coming decades.

While I was reporting the piece, David Friedberg, the Climate Corporation’s thirty-three-year-old chief executive, told me that Monsanto had agreed to purchase the company for about a billion dollars. The deal was finalized last week. The Climate Corporation, which has nearly two hundred scientists trying to make sense of fifty terabytes of weather data every day, will continue to operate as an independent unit, but I was surprised at Friedberg’s decision, because many food activists consider Monsanto to be the definitively evil corporation. Friedberg was not prepared for the response from his family, friends, and colleagues. (“When I shared the news with my dad recently, his first reaction was, ‘Monsanto? The most evil company in the world? I thought you were trying to make the world a BETTER place?’”)

Friedberg is deeply methodical; his research led him to believe that the common view of Monsanto was simply wrong. He wrote a letter to everyone who works for the Climate Corporation explaining the decision, and he has agreed to let me post it here. It is frank and explicit: “I am not the kind of person that would take easily to partnering with a company that ‘poisons the world’s food system,’ lays waste to the land, puts farmers out of business, or creates a monoculture that threatens the global food supply,” he writes.

It is not possible to assert publicly that Monsanto is anything other than venal without being accused of being a sellout, a fraud, or worse. If Friedberg doesn’t know that, he will soon learn, as I did many years ago. No matter what you think you know about Monsanto, Friedberg’s letter is worth reading. He is an ambitious man and his goals are not minor: “The people of The Climate Corporation are going to lead the world to revolutionary solutions to historic problems,” he writes. I have no idea if he will succeed, but for the sake of us all, I certainly hope so.

He sent me the following version of his letter:

Folks:

I understand there are a lot of questions emerging about the Monsanto partnership. I’m certain a number of you have been feeling assaulted by friends and family about “joining up with Monsanto” and that you feel ill-equipped to respond to claims and accusations made about the company.

For some of us, this is a very difficult time. I understand and want to try and address concerns head-on and make sure everyone feels like they have the appropriate context and information needed to feel informed, comfortable, and hopefully, excited about the unique opportunity in front of us.

When I shared the news with my dad recently, his first reaction was “Monsanto?! The most evil company in the world?! I thought you were trying to make the world a BETTER place?” Now, my Dad has a bit of a dramatic flare (might be where I get it from), generally tends towards reading “liberal” blogs as his primary news source, and likes to quickly jump to big hefty conclusions, but I was not prepared for the sort of reaction I got from him. In fact, it hurt to hear this from my close family—especially after all of the work needed to get to this point and with so much excitement about what was ahead; to be chastised for this exciting decision was really really hard. So, I started sending my dad information, talked to him at length about GMOs, the history and business practices of Monsanto, and the future we could now enable, and, ultimately, he understood my perspective. In fact, he actually started sharing my enthusiasm, telling some of his friends over the past few days how they have it all wrong. It definitely took me a while to get him to that point—I had many months of research behind me to prepare for those conversations and the conversations themselves were lengthy and detailed.

Now I know a lot of you don’t yet feel that well informed, making it very difficult for YOU to respond to the family member or recruiter that emails you with the awful subject line “Do you REALLY want to work at the MOST EVIL COMPANY IN THE WORLD??!!”.

Like I said the other night when we announced the news, I too knew very little about Monsanto when we first met with them. I knew they were a big agribusiness and had some reputation issues, which followed my reading of various websites and blogs. As I dug in, it all changed for me. And I found myself shifting from saying we’d never sell our company to being more excited than I’ve ever been about the impact possible through our work.

In 2004, I was working at Google when we announced Gmail. At the time, it was an extraordinary revolution—1GB of free email! Prior to that, I think you had to pay lots of money for anything 10MB or more. To make this service free, Google used its automated advertising system (AdSense) to identify keywords from the content in an email and provide keyword-triggered ads on the right side of the page. There was outrage over this “evil” technology. In addition to “reading your emails”, Google was accused of storing all your email for the Federal government to read, and Google now CONTROLLED ALL YOUR INFORMATION. This blossomed into a nuclear mushroom cloud of evil-calling. A silent sadness fell over everyone for creating something they never thought of as “evil”—they were creating a great free product for the world that could make email as accessible as web browsing, helping billions of people around the world communicate more easily with one another. Over time, as the benefits of the service were better understood, the pundits learned about the complicated technology that enabled Gmail and its advertising system, and more people fell in love with its utility, the noise died down.

Calling a company evil is easy. And if you do it enough times it can become the “reality”—because reality is just the most common perception. Say something enough times and everyone thinks it’s the truth.

Generally, things that are big or revolutionary are the easiest targets. I think this is because, ultimately, people can feel out of control in the face of very new and very big things. This is especially true for new technologies delivered on a large scale. As Arthur C. Clarke commented “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Meaning it can’t really be understood at first. Done at scale, something that can’t really be understood can be very scary. And the reaction is to call it evil. And find reasons to frame it as evil.

For a long time, Google was evil. Sometimes, Apple is evil. Sometimes, Microsoft is evil. Over the course of history, both Republicans and Democrats have been labeled evil by the populous. Nowadays, Monsanto is frequently labeled as evil. As has been the case throughout history, with new and revolutionary science, Monsanto has delivered hugely impactful technology and people don’t understand the science, see it working at scale, and don’t mind it being labeled as evil. And so, a mushroom cloud of evil sentiment has emerged.

From Galileo to Servetus to Mendel to Einstein. Revolutionary science has always incited visceral hatred on a mass scale. Galileo told us that the Bible was wrong and he was chastised for denying the word of God. Mendel was engaged in the devil’s work. And Einstein “invented a weapon that killed millions” because of his original theories of physics.

It’s a lot easier for a reaction to something new to turn into repeated statements of evil, supported by anecdote and innuendo, and eventually turn into a meme, ultimately becoming the commonplace perception. Melissa McEwen is a blogger who writes about sustainable agriculture and healthy eating. She recently penned an article titled “Just Kale Me: How your Kale habit is slowly destroying your health and the world”. She chastised Kale (a very healthy vegetable) as being deadly. She used innuendo, extrapolation, unscientific references, out-of-context facts and statements to make her point. Her “fake” article spread like wildfire and for about a day was considered “truth” by many “healthy living” bloggers and readers alike. The very next day, she edited the article and admitted to the truth—she was trying to make a point that it is so easy to demonize something without clear logic and fact, and still get everyone to believe you and repeat the bottom line. Her declaration was that when you read “an article that demonizes a food, think about whether or not there are citations and follow those citations”. Her article struck me as very poignant, in light of all the GMO research I had been doing in the prior weeks. There are so many articles (some are repeatedly published) that are wholly inaccurate, based in half-science, extrapolation, innuendo, and out-of-context rhetoric. When I did my own research—to the source and in the science—I was amazed at how far these inaccurate statements had gone and how wrong so many people were, thinking they were right because they repeated the same things others did.

Perhaps Monsanto should have adopted the mantra that Paul Bucheit so cleverly and timely introduced at Google in 2000—“don’t be evil”. Just saying that was their mantra has helped Google countless times avoid the evil designation that so many people have tried to hurl their way over the years. It has worked.

Did you know: Google sues more of its customers each year than Monsanto does? Google spends 3 times as much as Monsanto on Federal lobbying? There are more ex-Googlers in the Obama administration than there are ex-Monsanto employees?

I could go on. But a lot of the “bad things” being said about Monsanto are simple truths about the nature of doing business at scale. On the list of top lobbyists on payroll in DC, Monsanto is not even in the top 50. The “Monsanto Protection Act” is actually called the “Farmer Assurance Provision” and was drafted and written by a number of farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers, and others, to help ensure farmers aren’t denied the right to grow crops that are approved and regulated by the Federal agencies, protecting them from emerging state propositions that aren’t based on science or research.

It seems to me that innuendo, anecdotal evidence, and out of context facts are used to support a simple statement—“the company is evil”—and are rooted in a lack of understanding and fear of the unknown.

In high school I started and was the President of the environmental club—we named it “Students H.O.P.E. (Students Healing Our Planet Earth)”. We ran campaigns, attended rallies, cleaned the beach, organized Earth Day events, and we even had our own green t-shirt that my friend designed.

I am also a vegetarian. I’ve never eaten chicken, fish, or meat in my life. My parents are pseudo-hippies and always taught me that we should try and avoid harming the world and do as much good as possible. Since I was very young, I’ve tried my best. When the first Toyota Prius came out in 2003, I ordered it months before I could even test drive the car. At home, I compost, recycle, and avoid bottled water.

I am not the kind of person that would take easily to partnering with a company that “poison’s the world’s food system”, lays waste to the land, puts farmers out of business, or creates a monoculture that threatens the global food supply. I make decisions as a scientist. Since I was a kid, I’ve loved science, and believe that truth in the world comes from science. So, I have allowed myself to be informed by science and fact as I have explored this partnership opportunity for The Climate Corporation.

Humans have genetically engineered seeds for 11,000 years, primarily through seed breeding, where we “got rid of” the traits we didn’t want and introduced the traits we did. Modern advancements in science have allowed for those genetic advances to be much more organized and specific, rather than haphazard, over time. The notion of introducing specific genes into specific places to create a protein that did not evolve through a natural process has been a breakthrough—one that is hard to understand and comprehend, but powerful in its implications. And through science, we can study the efficacy and risks of this technology. I have read the science—it was not a short and easy effort. And I think Monsanto has created amazing and safe technology. It took me a while to get there. You should take your time, learn about their science, and I’m certain you will get you there too.

As for the history of their company, their business practices, and their future, I suggest you take your time to fully understand these matters—they are not simple and can’t be summarized in a simple sentence or two.

The Monsanto of today is a conglomerate of seed companies that were acquired in the 1990s and 2000s, bundled together, and spun out as a separate company. This new agriculture company was formed to incorporate new science and technology in the development of seed, providing farmers with the ability to create more food with less land, water, and chemicals than had been previously possible.

Monsanto executives debated a new name for that new company, and determined it would cost them $40 million to develop a new brand. They decided to save the money and, in my opinion, made the biggest mistake they ever made. The old Monsanto chemical business would be renamed Pharmacia and was sold to Pfizer and the new seed company would be named Monsanto and spun out as a “new Monsanto”, to this day tarnished by legacy products of an entirely different chemicals business (now owned by Pfizer).

Now, there are some other really important tactical questions that I want to answer directly about our future as “part of Monsanto”. We are going to continue to operate and exist as The Climate Corporation, as an independently run business, owned by Monsanto. We had 100+ shareholders, now we have 1. We used to have a Board, now we don’t. We are not going to be “integrated” into Monsanto. We will not be forcibly “integrated” into IFS or FieldScripts or any of those other products/groups. (We may, at some point, choose on our own to propose some partnerships with other groups at Monsanto). No one will “work for Monsanto”—everyone still works for The Climate Corporation, with the same roles, titles, and responsibilities as you do today. Monsanto does not “set our policy”—what we do, how we operate, and our culture are still our decisions. I am a member of the executive committee at Monsanto, so I can help lobby for resources and data that we may want.

If at any point, you aren’t doing work that you’re passionate about, or we’re operating in a way that doesn’t meet your model or standards, then you can very simply walk away. It is my job to make sure that doesn’t happen. It is my job to keep our culture intact, our team happy, and our work exciting and impactful. I wouldn’t do this if that weren’t the plan.

When the Monsanto team first showed up here, they said “what you have here is really extraordinary; we could really mess this up,” which is exactly why they’ve agreed to let us run independently. They made it really clear that THEY WANT TO LEARN FROM US.

We have an opportunity to be a model for the broader Monsanto organization about how we operate. Our DNA is what makes us who we are, and it might frame for the bigger Monsanto who they want to be in the future. Let’s take advantage of that—the biggest agribusiness in the world can now be modeled by us. That is why this opportunity is so exciting. There is no bigger platform to impact the world. Our work can dramatically change how most people do what they do, to survive and thrive.

I will ensure we get the resources we need to exceed our wildest aspirations—from developing our own satellite and radar systems to opening new engineering offices to launching in new markets. We should aim to be aggressive, impactful, and revolutionary in our science.

Now, none of your questions or concerns will feel fully addressed in 24 hours, and maybe not even for a few weeks. This is going to be a learning process (you don’t learn an entire subject on the first day of class). Those of us that have had some time with Monsanto over the past few months believe that this is the most exciting thing possible for our company and our work. You should not be beholden to rhetoric (on either side of the debate) in determining what it is you want to do with your life, with whom, and how. We are still The Climate Corporation, but you should inform yourself with facts, knowledge, and an understanding of the company that now owns our shares.

The people of The Climate Corporation are going to lead the world to revolutionary solutions to historic problems. This partnership enables us with capital, data, and reach we would not have had on our own.

Let us not be deterred or distracted by misinformation, fear, or anecdote. Let us not be unduly influenced by unfair social pressure. Be strong. Let science and fact guide you. Learn about our opportunity. Learn about our partnership. Take your time.

Eventually, you can inform; but make sure you take the time to first be informed.

We only live one life and should make sure that the work we are engaged in and the way we work delivers to us what we want from our short time here. I believe that is what I am doing and know that all of you will eventually feel the same.

[Michael Specter has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1998, and has written frequently about AIDS, T.B., and malaria in the developing world, as well as about agricultural biotechnology, avian influenza, the world’s diminishing freshwater resources, and synthetic biology. ]

A letter like that I find more thoughtful than the Gawker post that led me to it.  Have a great weekend!

Yesterday (after paying suitable respect to Abe, Teddy, Ike — and even tricky Dick) I offered my favorite rejection of all time and a recent success.  Today, the converse: my favorite success of all time and a recent rejection.

FAVORITE SUCCESS:

I got an e-mail from one of you in 2006 asking if I had any thoughts on a stock he owned a lot of shares of.  “Sorry, no,” I wrote back, “but what do you mean by ‘a lot’?”

“A lot. It’s my entire portfolio.”

“Well, then,” I replied, “I have two suggestions.  The first is to diversify; the second is to join Howard Dean at George Soros’s house for dinner in the Hamptons this Saturday to help us save the world.  What part of the country do you live in?”

“OK,” he said.  “I live in New York.”

Turns out he was a retired marketing exec – 79 at the time, 87 now – and when I explained that the ask for the dinner was $25,000, NOT tax-deductible, he replied, “OK.  I’ll bring a check.  What’s the address?”

And I’m thinking, oh, boy: this has so many ways to go wrong.  Way better to get a credit card, for starters, so I know if this guy is for real.

“Don’t you want the frequent flier miles?”

“Nah.  I’ll bring a check.”

But he did seem sincere (had volunteered at the 1992 Democratic Convention, he said; seemed really affable on the phone) . . . and so my next worry was getting him there.

This was before GPS, he was 79, and every intersection in the Hamptons is either Admiral Halsey Street, Admiral Halsey Court, Admiral Halsey Lane, Admiral Halsey Terrace, Admiral Halsey Road, Admiral Halsey Avenue or Admiral Halsey Boulevard.  I am, frankly, terrified of the Hamptons.  And no, I don’t know “the back roads.”  I have searched for years for the illusive traffic-free Shuttlecock Road that somehow connects the badminton courts of East Hampton with Manhattan’s FDR Drive.  (Oh: it’s Scuttle Hole Road?  Well, I still couldn’t find it.)

“Let me send a car for you,” I said.

“Oh that’s okay,” he said.  “I like to drive.”

“But how will you find it?”

“I’ll get a map.”

I could think of nothing but calamity.  He would get lost.  His car would break down.  He’d show, but having forgotten to bring the check.  The check would be for $2,500. (“I’m 79; my hearing’s not so great”).  It would bounce.

And do you know what happened?  Up to Mr. Soros’s (wonderfully understated) house he drove, handed me the (slightly rumpled) $25,000 check, which cleared, and he has become a great pal who now, at 87, delights in driving a Tesla and has given us eight more max out checks.  He is my hero.  (And that one stock in his portfolio?  A drug company called Celgene?  It’s quadrupled.)  All from a stranger’s email.

RECENT REJECTION:

It is July 5^th, I am up the circular staircase on the crowded rooftop of a house at the beach (obviously not the Hamptons) beside an open bar watching the sun set over the Bay with hundreds of very happy people dancing below.  I am having a fine time seeing old friends and making new ones, including one who comes over to thank me for a book I once wrote that he read in high school – “you must get tired hearing this,” he’s saying; “are you kidding?” I’m thinking, “I live for this” – but it turns out he has some bones to pick with me.

He totally agrees with my politics, but he is really steamed we haven’t been able to get more done . . . that the Republicans have blocked so many things . . . that we haven’t rallied the people to see their self-interest and throw Boehner out . . . that we might actually now lose the Senate (because it’s true: we might) . . . and he is basically saying all the things I say all the time, and work my little heart out to try to make right, and at each pause in his diatribe I ask, “So, hey, can you help us?”

And each time he says no, because he’s angry we haven’t done a better job of winning, etc., and finally – did I mention the open bar? – I said, with some heat, “LISTEN!  We totally agree on all this stuff.  We could be THE SAME PERSON, almost.  Except for one crucial difference.  I’ve done MY big check and you’ve done zero.  How about coming to meet the President July 17 and pitching in like the rest of us?”

He said yes.

And it made sense.  He seemed to have the means; we were in passionate agreement on the urgency of the issues; and with the dark purple clouds, the sea breeze, pulsing music, ample vodka — yikes: it was almost as if God Himself were telling him to do it.  A chance to meet and thank and support the President of the United States.

He was IN!  And right on the spot gave me his Secret Service vetting stuff – date of birth, Social Security number (“you’re not going to steal my identity, are you?” “no, I’m not”) – and then . . . the moment of truth . . . I wrenched the American Express card from his hand – 3797-555555-26002 expiring March 2018.

Does it get any better than this?

At 11am the next morning, just as I was about to press SUBMIT to process his contribution, I get a text: “Great chatting with you last night.  With regard to the contribution, I’ve had a change of heart.  But let’s keep talking.”

So here’s what I want you to do, and why I want you to do it:

Click here to join the enormous effort needed to bend the course of history in the direction of those who “believe in” science.  And diversity and diplomacy and a higher minimum wage, comprehensive immigration reform, enlightened regulation, reproductive freedom, universal background checks, investment in infrastructure – even in the notion that we should make voting easier, not harder.

With your help we’ll be able to fund the tech team that keeps our ground game ahead of theirs and maintain the voter file that gives us the edge in turn-out — and other tasks essential to a good outcome in November and that paves the way to holding the White House in 2016.

If you’ve already done all you can, please just consider this a thank you note.  And maybe find someone else to inspire to help?  We need all hands on deck.