Guys’ eyes are more sensitive to small details and moving objects, while women are more perceptive to color changes, according to a new vision study that suggests men and women actually do see things differently.

“As with other senses, such as hearing and the olfactory system, there are marked sex differences in vision between men and women,” researcher Israel Abramov, of the City University of New York (CUNY), said in a statement. Research has shown women have more sensitive ears and sniffers than men.

“[A] recent, large review of the literature concluded that, in most cases females had better sensitivity, and discriminated and categorized odors better than males,” Abramov and colleagues write Tuesday (Sept. 4) in the journal Biology of Sex Differences.

Abramov and his team from CUNY’s Brooklyn and Hunter Colleges compared the vision of males and females over age 16 who had normal color vision and 20/20 sight — or at least 20/20 vision with glasses or contacts.

In one part of the study, the researchers asked the volunteers to describe different colors shown to them. They found that the guys required a slightly longer wavelength of a color to experience the same shade as women and the men were less able to tell the difference between hues. [Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue]

The researchers also showed the participants images made up of light and dark bars that varied in width and alternated in color so that they appeared to flicker, a measure of participants’ sensitivity to contrast. Compared with the women, the male volunteers were better able to identify the more rapidly changing images made up of thinner bars, the researchers said.

Abramov explained in a statement these elements of vision are linked to specific sets of thalamic neurons in the brain’s primary visual cortex. The development of these neurons is controlled by male sex hormones called androgens when the embryo is developing into a fetus.

“We suggest that, since these neurons are guided by the cortex during embryogenesis, that testosterone plays a major role, somehow leading to different connectivity between males and females,” Abramov said. “The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear.”

Previous research found that men and women also focus differently. In experiments at the University of Southern California, researchers found that men are likely to fixate on the mouth of a person in conversation and also are more likely to be distracted by movement behind that person. Meanwhile, women tend to shift their gaze between a speaker’s eyes and body, and they are more likely to be distracted by other people, the researchers found.

Up until the late 16th century, everyone “knew” that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Up until the late 19th century, epidemic illnesses such as cholera and the plague were “known” to be caused by a poisonous mist filled with particles from rotting things. Up until the early 20th century, the most common procedure performed by surgeons for thousands of years was bloodletting, because we “knew” that blood drained from the body balanced the whacky humors responsible for poor health. Well alrighty then.

But as misinformed as all that may sound now, our predecessors believed these “facts” with the same certainty that we believe that the Earth is round and hot fudge sundaes make us fat.

Living in a time of such dazzling science and technology, we stand firmly behind our beliefs … even if so much of what we think we know to be correct is actually wrong. Here are some of the more common misconceptions, ideas that may have started as wives’ tales or that came from a faulty study that was later proven wrong. Whatever the case may be, these facts are false.

1. Going out in the cold with a wet head will make you sick

“Put a hat on or you’ll catch your death of a cold,” screeches every micromanaging momma as her charges march off into the winter wonderland. But in numerous studies addressing the topic, people who are chilled are no more likely to get sick than those who were not. And a wet or dry head makes no difference. (But these tips can help you stop a cold before it starts.)

2. Vikings wore horned helmets

Is there anything more “Viking warrior” than a helmet fitted with horns? Nary a portrayal shows the seafaring Norse pirates without the iconic headgear. Alas, horned hats were not worn by the warriors. Although the style did exist in the region, they were only used for early ceremonial purposes and had largely faded out by the time of the Vikings. Several major misidentifications got the myth rolling, and by the time costume designers for Wagner’s “Der Ring des Nibelungen” put horned helmets on the singers in the late 19th century, there was no going back.

3. Sugar makes kids go bonkers

The Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of 23 studies on the subject of kids and sugar, the conclusion: Sugar doesn’t affect behavior. And it’s possible that it is the idea itself that is so ingrained as fact that it affects our perception. Case in point: In one study mothers were told that their sons had consumed a drink with a high sugar content. Although the boys had actually consumed sugar-free drinks, the mothers reported significantly higher levels of hyperactive behavior. That said, some scientists warn that sugar can make you dumb.

4. You lose most of your body heat through your head

Everyone knows that you lose somewhere around 98 percent of your body heat through your head, which is why you have to wear a hat in the cold. Except that you don’t. As reported in The New York Times and elsewhere, the amount of heat released by any part of the body depends mostly on the surface area — on a cold day you would lose more heat through an exposed leg or arm than a bare head.

5. You will get arthritis from cracking your knuckles

It seems reasonable, but it’s not true either. You will not get arthritis from cracking your knuckles. There is no evidence of such an association, and in limited studies performed there was no change in occurrence of arthritis between “habitual knuckle crackers” and “non crackers.” There have been several reports in medical literature that have linked knuckle cracking with injury of the ligaments surrounding the joint or dislocation of the tendons, but not arthritis.

6. Napoleon was short

Napoleon’s height was once commonly given as 5 feet 2 inches, but many historians have now given him extra height. He was 5 feet 2 inches using French units, but when converted into Imperial units, the kind we are accustomed to, he measured almost 5 feet 7 inches inches tall — which was actually slightly taller than average for a man in France at the time.

7. You have to stretch before exercise

Stretching before exercise is the main way to improve performance and avoid injury, everyone stretches … but researchers have been finding that it actually slows you down. Experts reveal that stretching before a run can result in a 5 percent reduction of efficiency; meanwhile, Italian researchers studying cyclists confirmed that stretching is counterproductive. Furthermore, there has never been sufficient scientific evidence that pre-exercise stretching reduces injury risk.

8. Cholesterol in eggs is bad for the heart

The perceived association between dietary cholesterol and risk for coronary heart disease stems from dietary recommendations proposed in the 1960s that had little scientific evidence, other than the known association between saturated fat and cholesterol and animal studies where cholesterol was fed in amounts far exceeding normal intakes. Since then, study after study has found that dietary cholesterol (the cholesterol found in food) does not negatively raise your body’s cholesterol. It is the consumption of saturated fat that is the demon here. So eat eggs, don’t eat steak.

9. Dogs age at seven years per one human year

Your 3-year-old dog is 21 years old in human years, right? Not according to experts. The general consensus is that dogs mature faster than humans, reaching the equivalent of 21 years in only two, and then aging slows down to more like four human years per year. “Dog Whisperer” Cesar Millan’s site recommends this way to calculate your dog’s human-age equivalent: Subtract two from the age, multiply that by four and add 21.

10. George Washington had wooden teeth

Our first president starting losing his teeth in his 20s, but contrary to popular belief, his dentures were not made of wood. Although built-in toothpicks would have been handy, Washington had four sets of dentures that were made from gold, hippopotamus ivory, lead, and human and animal teeth (horse and donkey teeth were common components in the day). Also of note: The dentures had bolts to hold them together and springs to help them open, all the better to eat one of his favorite treats, Mary Washington’s seriously delicious gingerbread.

The Poor Among Us: A History of Family Poverty and Homelessness in New York City, published by White Tiger Press, puts current policies in perspective through the lens of nearly 300 years of public and philanthropic efforts to alleviate poverty in New York City.

Authored by Ralph da Costa Nunez, president and CEO of the Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness and professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and Ethan G. Sribnick, senior research associate at the Institute for Children, Poverty, and Homelessness, The Poor Among Us uses more than 100 photographs, etchings, and maps to bring the reader face-to-face with the experience of poverty and homelessness throughout New York City’s past and present.

Dozens of accounts of children and adults — from those experiencing poverty firsthand to the philanthropic reformers working on their behalf — provide a window into what it was like to live during each time period.

“Only by embracing the lessons embedded in our city’s history can we avoid repeating the failed policies of both the recent and distant past, and have true clarity about what action is required to correct today’s public policies. The Poor Among Us is not just a history; it is a foreboding and a call to action,” says Ralph da Costa Nunez.

Conditions that perpetuate homelessness and poverty today have deep roots in America’s past. The Poor Among Us explores the world of New York’s poor children and families, from the era of European settlements to the present day: their physical and social environments, the causes of their poverty, and the institutions and social movements that evolved to improve and regulate their lives. Market Wired

FACTS & FIGURES

The face of American poverty is now a suburban one, according to new research from the Brookings Institution.

Researchers found that the number of people living in poverty in the suburbs soared 64% between 2000 and 2010, more than twice the rate of urban areas-meaning that now more poor people live in suburbs than in cities or rural areas, although the overall poverty rate remains higher in cities, the Miami Herald reports.

Millions of Americans suffered a loss of wealth during the recession and the sluggish recovery that followed. But the last half-decade has proved far worse for black and Hispanic families than for white families, starkly widening the already large gulf in wealth between non-Hispanic white Americans and most minority groups, according to a new study from the Urban Institute. NY Times

A top Federal Reserve policymaker has raised the possibility that rising inequality may restrain economic growth for several years in a sign the central bank may be worried about the increasing gap between the rich and poor. The Huffington Post

Edward Woodard, the former chief executive of Bank of the Commonwealth, was found guilty along with two other executives by a federal jury in Norfolk following a multi-week trial, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Federal prosecutors are pursuing several cases stemming from the U.S. financial crisis, which battered large and small banks alike.

Bank of the Commonwealth, which at one time had $1.3 billion in assets, cost the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp an estimated $268 million when it failed, prosecutors said. The bank’s assets were acquired by Southern Bank and Trust Co at the time of the 2011 failure.

Prosecutors secured the indictment against Bank of the Commonwealth’s former executives in July 2012.

Neil MacBride, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement that the verdict “sends a clear message to top executives and insiders in the financial services industry.”

“The brazen greed and dishonesty of these four defendants toppled one of Virginia’s largest financial institutions and intensified the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the public during the height of the fiscal storm,” MacBride said.

According to prosecutors, Bank of the Commonwealth began an aggressive expansion in 2006 beyond its historical focus of Norfolk and Virginia Beach.

Many of its loans were funded without regard to industry standards, prosecutors said. By 2008, losses mounted as loans soured.

From 2008 to 2011, Woodard and Stephen Fields, a former executive vice president and commercial loan officer at the bank, hid the bank’s financial condition, authorities said. Bank insiders also gave preferential financing to troubled borrowers to buy properties Bank of the Commonwealth owned, prosecutors said.

Woodard, 70, was convicted of charges, including conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud and false entry in a bank record.

Other defendants convicted on conspiracy to commit bank fraud and other charges included Fields, Troy Brandon Woodard, Woodard’s son and an employee of a mortgage loan specialist at a bank subsidiary, and Dwight Etheridge, a bank customer. Reuters

FACTS & FIGURES

The Obama administration has been accused of a lackluster enforcement record against big banks in the financial crisis and other matters.

Recently, instead of filing criminal charges against large financial groups, federal prosecutors have begun to file criminal cases against subsidiaries.

The U.S. Department of Justice appears to have neither conducted nor received any analyses that would show whether criminal charges against large financial institutions would harm the economy, potentially undermining a key DOJ argument for why the world’s biggest banks have escaped indictment.

Testimony by a top Justice official and fresh documents made public on Wednesday during a House financial services committee hearing revealed that financial regulators and the Treasury Department did not provide warnings to prosecutors weighing the economic consequences or fallout in the financial system of criminal indictments against large financial groups.

America’s biggest banks project that they get no special advantage, no subsidies, from being too big to fail. And yet people keep finding evidence of those subsidies.

World Bank economist Deniz Anginer, in a study for Bloomberg Markets magazine estimates that the six biggest U.S. banks have saved $82 billion in borrowing costs since 2009 because investors believe the government will never let them fail and thus don’t charge as much to lend them money as they do smaller banks. The Huffington Post

Sitting at the back of the auditorium, I hung on every word the President said. I kept waiting to hear an announcement about changes that would represent a significant shift in policy. Unfortunately, I heard nice words, not the resetting of failed policies.

Instead of announcing the transfer of drone strikes from the CIA to the exclusive domain of the military, Obama never even mentioned the CIA-much less acknowledge the killing spree that the CIA has been carrying out in Pakistan during his administration. While there were predictions that he would declare an end to signature strikes, strikes based merely on suspicious behavior that have been responsible for so many civilian casualties, no such announcement was made.

The bulk of the president’s speech was devoted to justifying drone strikes. I was shocked when the President claimed that his administration did everything it could to capture suspects instead of killing them. That is just not true. Obama’s reliance on drones is precisely because he did not want to be bothered with capturing suspects and bringing them to trial. Take the case of 16-year-old Pakistani Tariz Aziz, who could have been picked up while attending a conference at a major hotel in the capital, Islamabad, but was instead killed by a drone strike, with his 12-year-old cousin, two days later. Or the drone strike that 23-year-old Yemini Farea al-Muslimi talked about when he testified in Congress. He said the man targeted in his village of Wessab was a man who everyone knew, who met regularly with government officials and who could have easily been brought in for questioning.

When the President was coming to the end of this speech, he started talking about Guantanamo. As he has done in the past, he stated his desire to close the prison, but blamed Congress. That’s when I felt compelled to speak out. With the men in Guantanamo on hunger strike, being brutally forced fed and bereft of all hope, I couldn’t let the President continue to act as if he were some helpless official at the mercy of Congress.

“Excuse me, Mr. President,” I said, “but you’re the Commander-in-Chief. You could close Guantanamo tomorrow and release the 86 prisoners who have been cleared for release.” We went on to have quite an exchange.

While I have received a deluge of support, there are others, including journalists, who have called me “rude.” But terrorizing villages with Hellfire missiles that vaporize innocent people is rude. Violating the sovereignty of nations like Pakistan is rude. Keeping 86 prisoners in Guantanamo long after they have been cleared for release is rude. Shoving feeding tubes down prisoners’ throats instead of giving them justice is certainly rude.

At one point during his speech, President Obama said that the deaths of innocent people from the drone attacks will haunt him as long as he lives. But he is still unwilling to acknowledge those deaths, apologize to the families, or compensate them. In Afghanistan, the U.S. military has a policy of compensating the families of victims who they killed or wounded by mistake. It is not always done, and many families refuse to take the money, but at least it represents some accounting for taking the lives of innocent people. Why can’t the President set up a similar policy when drone strikes are used in countries with which we are not at war?

There are many things the President could and should have said, but he didn’t. So it is up to us to speak out.

If you’re one of those people, and wonder, “Why am I always thirsty — even though I drink plenty of fluids?” here then are a handful of likely chronic-thirst culprits:

• Symptoms of diabetes
• Water intoxication (hyponatremia)
• Sinus infections
• Prescription drug side effects
• Excessive caffeine intake
• Electrolyte imbalance

Drinking the right fluids

It’s rare for someone who is fit, eats a diet rich in all-natural foods and drinks plenty of water to experience chronic thirst. However, for those that form the bulk of the U.S. population— infrequent exercisers who consume a lot of processed food—sugar is often a major ingredient in beverages. Satisfying thirst with sugar-soaked drinks instead of healthy beverages spikes blood sugar levels (especially if they are not consumed at the same time as protein and natural fat), potentially leading to diabetes (more on that shortly).

If you’re always thirsty, avoid drinking seemingly healthy beverages like 100 percent fruit juices or smoothies, as these drinks may contain 30 grams or higher of sugar per serving. Also avoid excessive alcohol and caffeine intake (up to three cups of coffee a day will not severely dehydrate), as both can dehydrate.

Reasons for diabetics to dump sugar

Diabetes, especially the more-common Type 2 variety, is a major contributor to chronic thirst. Think of sugar as an illegal drug: you need more and more of it to elicit a desired feeling. The hormone, insulin, is released by the pancreas and controls blood sugar, carrying it to your trillions of cells.

Like an illicit drug, it becomes less potent and effective over time as someone constantly chases a sugar fix. The cells are already saturated with glycogen (blood sugar); they can’t handle any more insulin knocking at the door. Like an unwanted drug pusher at a party, the cells refuse entry to the extra sugar-carrying insulin cells.

The extra sugar has to go somewhere. So in an effort to carry the excess sugar out through the urinary tract, the cells signal thirst to the brain so more fluids are consumed in an attempt to rid the body of the excess sugars. (But some diabetics can’t help it: In the case of “diabetes insipidus,” the kidneys struggle to conserve water, leading to insatiable thirst.)

Water can be intoxicating

With triple-digit temperatures fast approaching this summer, some people, especially endurance athletes and children, will guzzle water, perhaps gallons of it, in an attempt to stymie the brutal heat.

Excessive sweating causes blood sodium levels to precipitously plummet, potentially leading to nerve synapses misfiring and muscle weakness. Drinking too much water and not replacing electrolytes like sodium may cause “hyponatremia,” aka water intoxication.

Hyponatremia is a serious, potentially deadly electrolyte imbalance. It’s theorized that in some people with hypnoatremia, when low sodium levels occur, it signals thirst by the brain in an effort to alleviate chronic dry mouth.

You lose sodium when you sweat. Drinking water — even copious amounts — will not rehydrate the body with necessary trace minerals like sodium; try sprinkling a few teaspoons of unprocessed sea salt (gray or pink in color) per four cups of water to ensure you resupply the body with enough electrolytes and trace minerals. Or, here is a recipe to make your own electrolyte drink.

Other reasons for being always thirsty

Medications such as phenothiazine can sometimes produce a side effect of dry mouth and lead to an insatiable thirst. Sinus infections and congested noses force you to breathe out of your mouth, another reason for being constantly thirsty.

Are you always thirsty? Post a comment below….

“Sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military are a profound betrayal – a profound betrayal – of sacred oaths and sacred trusts,” Hagel said. “This scourge must be stamped out.”

His comments came a day after President Barack Obama delivered a similar message to graduates at the U.S. Naval Academy, saying sexual assault threatened to erode trust and discipline in America’s armed forces.

The Pentagon is reeling from a series of sex-related scandals in recent weeks, including cases in which military advocates for victims of sexual assault were themselves accused of sex crimes.

A study released by the Defense Department two weeks ago estimated that reports of unwanted sexual contact in the military, from groping to rape, rose 37 percent in 2012, to about 26,000 cases from 19,000 the previous year.

At West Point in New York state, Sergeant First Class Michael McClendon was charged last week with four counts, including indecent acts, dereliction of duty and cruelty, the Army said.

McClendon had served as a tactical non-commissioned officer at the academy since 2009, a job that put him in charge of mentoring and training a company of about 121 cadets.

The incidents have embarrassed the U.S. military and prompted members of Congress to introduce legislation designed to toughen up the Pentagon’s handling of sex crimes.

Hagel, in his address, noted that budget cuts were impacting military readiness and morale. But he cited sexual assault and sexual harassment among other, growing threats to America’s all-volunteer force.

“You will need to not just deal with these debilitating, insidious and destructive forces but rather you must be the generation of leaders that stops it,” he said. Reuters

FACTS & FIGURES

Pentagon leaders have been struggling to deal with what they have come to call an epidemic of sexual assaults in the military. AP

The U.S. military has been rocked by several high-profile sex scandals, involving reports that the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) coordinator for Fort Hood was caught running an on-base prostitution ring and sexually abusing female soldiers under his command. CBS News

U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey has called the sexual assault problem a crisis and said the women who serve in the military are losing confidence that it can be solved. AP

Only a small percentage (17 percent) of sexual assault cases in the U.S. military are ever reported, according to The Washington Times.

Last year 13,900 of the 1.2 million men on active duty endured sexual assault while 12,100 of the 203,000 women in uniform experienced the same crime – or 38 men per day versus 33 women per day. Yet the Defense Department also acknowledges “male survivors report at much lower rates than female survivors.” NBC News

More than 85,000 veterans were treated last year for injuries or illness stemming from sexual abuse in the military, and 4,000 sought disability benefits, underscoring the staggering long-term impact of a crisis that has roiled the Pentagon and been condemned by President Barack Obama as “shameful and disgraceful.” AP

A Department of Veterans Affairs accounting released in response to inquiries from The Associated Press shows a heavy financial and emotional cost involving vets from Iraq, Afghanistan and even back to Vietnam, and lasting long after a victim leaves the service.

In recent years, Iran has made great achievements in its defense sector and attained self-sufficiency in producing essential military equipment and systems.

“The Ground Forces have recently received new anti-armor missiles that feature high capabilities and are specifically used to [target] tanks equipped with reactive armor and are therefore resistant to usual missiles,” he said.

The commander said that the Ground Forces have also received recently-produced military equipment, including ground surveillance radar systems as well as two types of tactical vehicles, which have significantly increased the country’s defense capabilities.

Pourdastan added that a number of the latest military equipment, including personnel carriers, was also tested during the recent Beit-ul-Muqaddas 25 drills held in the central province of Isfahan.

The Islamic Republic has held several military drills to enhance the defense capabilities of its armed forces and to test modern military tactics and equipment.

Iran has repeatedly said its military might poses no threat to other countries, insisting that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.

The Monsanto Company likes to proclaim that they are the good guys, here to selflessly feed the world, help with sustainable agriculture, and, as if those lofty goals are not enough, champion human rights across the globe.  All you have to do is look at their commitments page to see how worthy they are of a shiny corporate halo:

At the heart of Monsanto is a very clear and principled code of conduct – one we expect all employees, contractors and management to live by every day. We operate under a genuine value system—our pledge—that demonstrates integrity, respect, ethical behavior, perspective and honesty as a foundation for everything we do.

A key part of fulfilling the promise of our value system is by engaging our communities in a significant and positive manner. Not only do we work hard to support the family farmer in a variety of ways, but we also:

• provide extensive educational programs – particularly in science and agriculture – for students around the world

• fund numerous research grants for graduate students

• work in partnership with government bodies, non-profit agencies and advocacy groups to make agriculture more sustainable

If you happen to have your hip-wader boots on, you can delve even further into their purported goodness by reading, in it’s entirety, The Monsanto Pledge:

The Monsanto Pledge is our commitment to how we do business. It is a declaration that compels us to listen more, to consider our actions and their impact broadly, and to lead responsibly. It helps us to convert our values into actions, and to make clear who we are and what we champion.

At the risk of your breakfast, click HERE to learn more about Monsanto’s commitment to integrity, dialogue, transparency, sharing, benefits, respect, acting as owners to achieve results, and creating a great place to work.

Monsanto’s CEO, Hugh Grant, has long been of the opinion that the company is deeply misunderstood.

“From his point of view, the company is working on the side of angels, helping to create commodity crops to feed today’s population and the 2 billion more people who might occupy the planet by 2030. He is proud that Monsanto scientists were among the first to have a patented genetically modified plant on the market—Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced in 1996—and he is excited about new efforts to bioengineer wheat and vegetables, too, as well as the next generation of super beans and corn.” (source)

So why does such a noble, benevolent company require the services of the most notorious mercenary army of modern times?  Why did Monsanto dish out half a million dollars to an arm of Blackwater called Total Intelligence (which now operates under the acronym OODA)?

What is Blackwater?

Blackwater is now known as Academi.  According to Wikipedia, the company:

“…previously known as Xe Services LLC, Blackwater USA and Blackwater Worldwide—is a private military company founded in 1997 by Erik Prince and Al Clark. Academi is currently the largest of the U.S. State Department’s three private security contractors. Academi provided diplomatic security services in Iraq to the United States federal government on a contractual basis.  Academi also has a research and development wing that was responsible for developing the Grizzly APC along with other military technology. The company’s headquarters is located in Arlington County, Virginia.”

They have made numerous attempts to rebrand their hit squads, changing the company name (Xe and Academi) and creating subsidiaries (Total Intelligence, The Terrorism Research Center, and Greystone, to name a few).  They have reportedly done business under the names of at least 30 shell companies.  Because of Despite their tarnished reputation gained from, for one example, gunning down civilians, in 2010, CIA head Leon Panetta awarded them a classified $100 million dollar security contract.

How are Blackwater and Monsanto connected?

While rumor had it that Monsanto had actually purchased Blackwater, that is not the case. Monsanto contracted with the mercenary group for “security services”.  In 2010, an illuminating report called Blackwater’s Black Ops, written by Jeremy Scahill, of The Nation, revealed that Monsanto had given a contract worth up to half a million dollars to Blackwater.

According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto’s security manager for global issues.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson “understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.” Black added that Total Intelligence “would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto.” Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater “could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally.” Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto’s “generous protection budget” but would eventually become a line item in the company’s annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.

Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto’s Wilson initially said, “I’m not going to discuss it with you.” In a subsequent e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating “there was no such discussion.” He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto “with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites.” Wilson asserted that Black told him Total Intelligence was “a completely separate entity from Blackwater.”

How does this affect the current wave of activism against Monsanto?

Although there is no clear evidence that Monsanto and Blackwater are working together against current activists, a recent spate of odd activity indicates that Monsanto is taking surreptitious action against the movement, whether on their own or through the use of “contractors”.    They have engaged in a social media war against activists.  Mysterious things have been occurring on the social networks: posts have disappeared, some posts are hidden from the timelines of readers, and trolls abound on pages promoting this weekend’s March Against Monsanto, happening worldwide on May 25.

After I wrote the article yesterday regarding the odd issues with social media, I was flooded with emails and comments from readers, verifying they, too, had difficulty sharing information related to the March.  Accounts had been banned and blocked by Facebook. Videos had vanished from Youtube.  I even heard from the editor of From the Trenches World Report, who had intercepted a comment that was allegedly from me, saying that the March had been cancelled.

Monsanto has a history of hiring an unscrupulous mercenary army.  Be aware during this weekend’s activism that agent provocateurs may be afoot, particularly at the larger events.  Don’t rise to the bait of those who would try to deflect protesters from their goal. The goal remains clear – we are there to peacefully spread awareness about Monsanto and about the health and environmental hazards of GMOs.  Around the world, the movement for real food has created an enormous global awakening.  Through the power of social media and alternative news, we are cresting a wave with this event.  We must maintain our unity and momentum, and stay focused on the goal, because with every attack made against us, we may be reassured that Monsanto is on the run.