NEWS: Thank You, Monsanto!

Agreed. $50,000 isn't shit to Monsanto. They should give a lot more.

But that doesn't mean Greensburg should give the $50,000 away. That is my point. A decimated town can always use more help.

(And savings? Really? Do you have enough in savings to rebuild your life? Do you think your neighbors do? Do you think that donations aren't helpful in situations of natural disaster because things like insurance policies and the Red Cross exist? By the by, I don't know this for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that a massive tornado has a good chance of falling under a lot of basic insurance policies' "Act of God" clauses and thus the resultant damages wouldn't be covered anyway. And the Red Cross can only do so much. I don't get your argument in the slightest.)

Ha! I like that.

Of course. I don't think anyone's arguing that Monsanto's displaying some saintly level of generosity here.

But the fact that Monsanto could have given a lot more isn't a good reason why Greensburg shouldn't accept the donation that Monsanto did give. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but what I took issue with in this article is the argument that Greensburg should, "if they're smart," take the donation from Monsanto and give it away to some organic food folks. I found that argument rather nonsensical, given the fact that the agricultural Midwest is pretty much owned by companies like Monsanto in a lot of ways and that farming (and the livelihood of anyone who works in farming, and the economic well-being of towns and communities built around farming), at least in the Midwest, is deeply and inextricably connected to corporations like Monsanto. Giving Monsanto's $50,000 donation to an organization like the Organic Consumers Association would not change that in any way. It really wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for Greensburg to do that. I also found that argument to be rather condescending and self-righteous, because it was coupled with the implicit (or not so implicit, actually) assumption that that argument is the one that any intelligent, forward thinking person would follow, and that assumption was made with no regard to whether the argument is actually applicable or logical in the context of this town and this situation. The idea that Greensburg, KS, should, like, take a stand against this evil giant and throw their support behind independent organic farming by giving away this chump change donation from Monsanto (especially when they actually need all the money they can get right now) is hysterically out of touch with the reality of the situation--both the specific tornado damage situation in Greensburg and the situation of Midwestern farm towns overall.

That was my issue here. My issue wasn't that I thought someone ought to jump to Monsanto's defense 'cos they're just try'na do a good thing here and why y'all hippies gotta be hatin' on them just 'cos they're, like, a corporation and stuff? They're not doing anything special here, at all. It's a ridiculously, insultingly small donation. But the practical reality of things is that the people of Greensburg can use all the money they can get right now, and I say they take this donation without a second thought, along with any other donations offered, in order to start getting things fixed and getting their town back in order.

That's fine...now just show me where I said that Greensburg shouldn't take the money...or that they should give it back.

I didn't think that you were necessarily saying that. I was just responding to your point (and other people's variations on it) about out how much Monsanto is worth and how much more they could have given. I agree with what you posted. I guess in the context of this article and what this article seems to be advocating, though, the fact that Monsanto could have given more didn't seem to change things.

Maybe I'm just hung up on the point about whether or not Greensburg should accept the donation, or maybe I'm keeping the exchange here too closely tied to what I read in the original article. I didn't mean to assume an argument from you that you weren't making, though. I just don't see how it changes anything that Monsanto could have given more.

EDIT: You replied to my post before my minor revisions were complete! I'm always afraid of that happening to me. Grrr.

EDIT 2: And to be fair, this post of yours does seem possibly to be arguing against Greensburg accepting the donation, or arguing that accepting the donation might not be a good idea.

I don't see how that advocates against Greensburg accepting the donation.

The post illustrates that I think it's dangerous for people to allow Monsanto to whitewash their record by tossing a few quarters at the homeless.

Okay, fair enough.