Interesting post I found that tends to reflect my views.

http://comments.startribune.com/comments.php?d=asset_comments&asset_id=105062649&sort=E&section=/local&start=30

What about the content??

I watched this 'documentary'. It had a lot of big unproveable claims about nitrogen and farming causing damage etc. but very short on actual scientific PROOF of the alleged connection. Don't believe me? Watch the film again, and see how many times they use 'weasel words' to make their claims such as 'it is believed that'... and 'scientists think.. and so on. In watching that film, you would think that every farm in the state is somehow dumping nitrogen right into the river, but few farms are directly adjacent to the Mississippi. Bottom line? This film is suspect in its claims, and Himle was correct in giving pause. Unfortunately, all the 'politically correct' 'green police' types are out in force whining about censorship. The film was not balanced, and it had a slanted viewpoint. End of story.

posted by minn12 on Oct. 15, 10 at 7:03 PM |

What surprised me was the total lack of comments on the film itself after the Sunday theater and Tuesday TV release.

http://comments.startribune.com/comments.php?d=asset_comments&asset_id=104599514&section=/opinion/editorials

I tend to be in the Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Climate Disruption "deniers"> I have viewed it twice (TPT/taped) and give it a "B+". ...... What amazed me was the lack of comments either in the media or online after the film was actually shown. The sellout early Sunday Theater showing would constitute a "public release" so comments would have been "fair game" even for those who had an advanced screening. .....

I posted a spiel before and after the TPT viewing. It is at my http://FifthEstate.net in case anyone wants to read it. ........

On second viewing I picked up that the captioning was sloppy (when text is white on a white background backmask) and a bit heavy on the plugs for the grass-fed beef. .....I didn't know the status of the "nitrogen detector". Clever device but there may be alternatives. It is either a sniffer or a color detector. Either should work.....

I didn't see it as a "anti-capitalist propaganda film. Perhaps a bit with the "organic" part but most of it suggests very cost effective solutions. I especially liked the tile drain tube "floodgates". Cheap to make. If they reduce nitrogen runoff by 80% that is fertilizer (and aquifer water) not needed. Both cost the farmer money. The high tech stuff looks like it can be cost effective. .....

I have no dog in the federal agriculture fight. .......

As for ethanol it seems a good sop for corn surpluses but a mandate seems stupid. The original ethanol policy was devised when oil was under $20 per barrel and corn was under $2 per bushel. (Them days seem gone). I'll repost this at my http://FifthEstate.com in case the Strib censors are at it.

I wached "Troubled Waters" on TPT Tuesday.

I was cynical before watching it tonight on TPT. Before viewing I posted this at my http://fifthestate.net

http://fifthestatenet.blogspot.com/2010/10/comments-before-viewing-troubled-waters.html

I was pleasantly surprised when I viewed the film. Overall I would rate it "B+". The negatives might be a few omissions that could have allowed for "fast ones". (As an example did that organic dairy farm have a steady livestock population? Probably but they didn't say).

It was thankfully post "global warming/climate change". With the two adjacent gulleys, one with a tile drain, the other without, the quip that it is hard to blame global warming was appropriate. The other one I caught was the Shakopee tribe representative saying that the grasslands were a "carbon sink". True but it didn't go past there.

Judging from pre-screening comments the film may have undergone some final editing. Specifically the Walker Art Center clip was in the middle and very short.

Back when I went to the U there were tenured professors in their secure jobs proclaiming "money is irrelevant". I sometimes think that many "greens" believed this. (IE: The photo-voltaic projects with a sixty to one-hundred year payback.) Fortunately "Troubled Waters" took the stance that nothing is more relevant than money to this situation. I especially liked the high-tech solutions and the cheap ones like valve plates on the tile drains.

I'll watch it again in a day or two but overall "B+"

I'm cross-posting at my http://fifthestate.net

Comments before viewing "Troubled Waters" today.

I've followed the controversy online for the last few weeks. I anticipate this will be somewhat better than some of the "PC propaganda" on the more educational cable channels. My all time favorite worst was "life after oil" on the National Geographic Channel.

That said I still think that "Troubled Waters" could backfire in the long run. More after I watch it and tape it tonight but points to consider in advance.

1. The timing of the film. It "just happens" to be a month before elections. What a coincidence!

2. The funding for the film. A lot came from the lottery proceeds. The lottery helped fund the big windmills near Northfield and study of the aquifer in the Karst geological formation. A cursory view of the MN lottery webpage winners shows them to be the "hunting and fishing" types. I'll bet 90% of lottery users believe the money is used for DIRECT wildlife habitat preservation and restoration projects.

3. The opening of the film with the organic farm "plug". Best organics might top worst regular farming but organic typically gets half the yield with output selling at twice the price. The New York Times recently had an article on the Amish being a major polluter of the Chesapeake Bay. The Amish are extremely organic but they tend to have too much livestock for the land and poor basic runoff remediation.

4. As for the big (IE: corporate) farms versus "family farms". We have had almost 40 years of the EPA which tends to go after the largest first. Also, large and corporate can afford the latest technology. Basically, with GPS harvest yields can be mapped down to the square yard or less. When it comes to fertilizer, pesticides and such these can be customized to the same square yard areas. Beyond environmental pressure these chemicals cost money just as gas for your car costs money.

5. Watch for "global warming", "climate change" or anything "carbon" mention. This has turned into a "code word" for a political divide on environmental issues. Heck, Osama Bin Laden just came out against "global warming".

6. The "academic freedom" arguments seem awfully lame to the "public" I have bounced it off of. Most people think that the academic environment is "hyper-political" versus office politics and they don't like office politics. This has been a fourth rate public relations disaster and the academic world claims to be a repository of the best and brightest. Nuff said.

More after I watch the show tonight.