The monster that is Monsanto
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 15:49
VIEWED: 6598
PAGE 1 of 1
Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?cur
rentPage=1
And a thumbs up to Vanity Fair for a rare case of actual dirt-diggin journalism, instead of the unvetted corporate press releases everyone else seems intent on handing us.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I bet they even throw some of their seeds out the window as they pass farms so they can "get" them later (not kidding here).
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.
The fact that a life-form can be patented is just more proof that greed rules.
They live; we sleep Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your post sounds less fact-based than prejudice-based there AU, but then your fierce, desperate devotion to the status-quo is well known in these parts.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
You just don't get it Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Your post sounds less fact-based than prejudice-based there AU, but then your fierce, desperate devotion to the status-quo is well known in these parts.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
You just don't get it Chrisisall
I'm just reminded of the 'chicken little' crusades that some well intentioned do-gooders went on, like when we had the Alar scare with apples , or how BIG ( insert business field ) does nothing but evil and gives nothing back to humanity. Some folks simply can't exist w/ out the notion that somebody else is doing something evil and making lots of $$ while doing it. Hey , here's a news flash.....just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's evil or wrong.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, Rap never actually reads the posted links, cause they might interfere with his carefully constructed bubble.
Might wanna take that into account, since he's likely unaware of the articles content.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see another issue here - the fact that the US citizen doesn't have the constitutional right to privacy. The Bill of Rights - sadly shredded of late - ONLY protects you from the federal government and possibly (though not certainly) other levels of government.
Employers, businesses, patent-holders - they are legal forces unto themselves and you have no constitutional protection against them.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Chris, Rap never actually reads the posted links, cause they might interfere with his carefully constructed bubble.
Might wanna take that into account, since he's likely unaware of the articles content.
-F
Quick, come up w/ another excuse for me not possibly buying into the hate Monsato club!
From the 2nd line of the article -
Quote:
Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.
This is reporting ? NO, This is fear mongering and opinionated bias on the highest level. What's to believe ?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- You're "less inclined" to believe an article because it was in Vanity Fair?
Okay, DON'T believe it. You shouldn't. You should be a skeptic. Do some research. Find out for yourself. Give us a few solid, well-researched reasons why the linked article is wrong.
But I know you won't do that because you fear accidental contact with fact more than anything. You're afraid of what you might find it you actually rooted around that big wide world of facts out there.
BTW- how's that economy going?
You see 'Rap, you can try to avoid the truth. Run and hide. But sooner or later, it'll bite you anyway. 
I agree with Rue, not surprisingly. Corporate-libertarians are so fucking focused on gummint they don't see the nasty big alligator behind them.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey RAP
It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.
05.pdf
2005 report documents Monsanto's lawsuits against American farmers, revealing thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies.
... AND this.
http://www.pubpat.org/monsantorejections.htm
NEW YORK – July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers.
Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.
One study of the matter found that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed." The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, Rap
Now that you know this HAS happened - anything to say about these FACTS ?
***************************************************************
Or will you just slink away, as usual ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rue, get ready for a ride through Egypt, 'cause here comes denial....
Originally posted by rue:
So, Rap
Now that you know this HAS happened - anything to say about these FACTS ?
You can respond now, AU.
Fact-based Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed."
This is not the issue in these lawsuits. The issue is simple breach of contract. Monsanto requires all farmers using their patented seeds to sign a contract agreeing not to use seeds from the previous years crops. There is no reason the farmer can't choose not to use Monsanto seeds. The farmers want to get the benefit of the Monsanto seed, but not pay for it. I know that some farmers are claiming that the seeds are "blowing" over from nearby farms, but if this is the case the burden would be on Monsato to prove otherwise and they are protected by existing law if it's the truth.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And yet the patent office diagrees with your expert legal opinion.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No...the burden is on the one least able to afford the sharks...
Originally posted by Kirkules:
the burden would be on Monsato
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:AW RUE!!! DAMNIT! You did Rap's homework for him! And now, instead of either (a) being shown for the gutless no-nothing coward that he is or (b) actually have to come to the facts himself (c) you gave him an easy out! Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.
Hey RAP It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits
A few dozen lawsuits is hardly a "assault" on the American farmer. Many American farmers are wealthy enough to fight Monsanto. Those not wealthy enough are probably members of organizations that pool resources to protect farmers rights. I would think that if Monsanto only pursues a few dozen lawsuits they would expend their resources on larger farms where the patent infringement is actually costing them a lot of money.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KIRKULES
Quote:Bullshit. The issue is that Monsanto can use its muscle to intimidate people who haven't even used their seeds, or force them into bankruptcy without "due process".
This is not the issue in these lawsuits. The issue is simple breach of contract. Monsanto requires all farmers using their patented seeds to sign a contract agreeing not to use seeds from the previous years crops. There is no reason the farmer can't choose not to use Monsanto seeds.
It's the same problem with Frakenfoods or hormone-boosted milk production. There was a dairy in Maine- Oakhurst- which marketed its milk as being "hormone-free". Monsanto, which makes rGBH (the recombinant growth hormone) sued Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk with a PERFECTLY TRUTHFUL statement.
Quote:www.veganrepresent.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-2626.html
The landmark lawsuit centers on whether ... a producer has the right to make truthful statements about what a product does not contain, right along with what it does contain. Oakhurst's label tells the truth. But Monsanto contends that, although truthful, the label is misleading and prompts consumer skepticism that undermines the company's lucrative markets.
Monsanto sued Oakhurst on July 3, claiming that a label on Oakhurst milk jugs that states "Our farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" is hurting the multinational chemical company's relationship with dairy farmers and misleads consumers into thinking that there is something wrong with milk produced with artificial hormones. Stanley Bennett II, president of Oakhurst, on Thursday reasserted his stand against changing the label. "We don't feel we have any obligation, nor will we be required or bullied into somehow qualifying our standards," he said.
"Our customers have told us in no uncertain terms that they don't want artificial growth hormones in their milk. Our label is an accurate and
honest attempt to communicate to consumers what we are trying to do. It is our obligation to our customers." This is the third such suit filed by Monsanto against dairy processors
regarding labeling issues. The two other suits, one in Texas and the other in Chicago, were settled out of court.
In addition, big business has a direct effect on the media, including the enforcement of "food disparagement laws" against Oprah - when she discussed the issue of mad cow disease in beef... and
Quote:www.rense.com/health3/milkhormone_h.htm
"Two veteran news reporters for Fox TV in Tampa, Florida have been fired for refusing to water down an investigative report on Monsanto's controversial milk hormone, rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone).
Quote:OMG man! You have GOT to be joking! The only farms "big enough" to "fight Monsanto" are the agribusiness farms. The family farms are overwhelemd.
Many American farmers are wealthy enough to fight Monsanto.
It just boggles my mind how much people (YOU) are willing to bend over and be thankful for the oppty to get fucked. But hell, I don't know about your sex life so maybe this is the only fucking you get!
Quote:Do you? Think, that is? Microsoft doesn't go after big companies like IBM. They go after universities and city governments and small organizations. Wal-mart doesn't go after Lowes or Home Depot. They kill the mom&pop shop. And Monsanto doesn't take on agribusiness. They go after mid-sized dairies and family farms and hang their heads on a pike at the corporate gates.
I would think that...
Let's not forget ... and this has already been brought up in lawsuits... that about 10% of the seeds from a non-GM filed wind up containing GM material because of cross-pollination from other fields. So even non-GM farmers will have SOME GM material in their seeds. So is Monsanto going to go after them too? Mostly likely yes.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:AW RUE!!! DAMNIT! You did Rap's homework for him! And now, instead of either (a) being shown for the gutless no-nothing coward that he is or (b) actually have to come to the facts himself (c) you gave him an easy out! Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.
Hey RAP It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...
Let's party like it's 1929.
Ehhhh - sorry about that. I was curious to see how easy it would be to actually find some facts (ridiculously easy - and fast - it took me longer to type my message than to search. It really did only take about 20 seconds). I sorta cross-posted with you b/c of the time it took me to type ...
***************************************************************
So RAP - got anything to say ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.
lolisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, Kirkrules is right. This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.
If you don't want to have to deal with them use other seed sources and wait. I feel antitrust legislation on the way if it becomes difficult to source seed without the "contract."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In addition, big business has a direct effect on the media, including the enforcement of "food disparagement laws" against Oprah - when she discussed the issue of mad cow disease in beef... and
One moment your telling us about how the big evil Monsanto is hurting the poor farmer, and then you're defending ill-informed reporters that can ruin an entire sector of US agriculture with a biased story that the pubic believes. Auraptor's example of Alar is a good one. This leads to other countries halting importation of US agricultural products until they study the facts further. This not only harms Monsanto and farmers, it does damage to the reputation of all US agricultural products for no legitimate scientific reason. If a legitimate concern exists the media would have no reason to fear Monsanto or the "food disparagement laws".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Perhaps you didn't read my post?
This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.
Monsanto has brought suit against people who have not planted their crops and against dairies who do not use their hormones. Its like Microsoft which reserves the right to break your home, business, or university apart on the suspicion that you might be using unlicensed software. By the time you get through proving you're innocence you're dead, economically-speaking.
The issue is that any big company can allege anything against anyone at any time. Unlike "the gummint" there is no "due process", no "innocent until proven guilty". There are far too many examples of businesses that have used their economic clout to drive families and individuals under, using the court system as a financial bludgeon. I'm surprised at your naivete.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The why don't the companies come out and defend their practices in public on the grounds of the allegation, instead of trying to bludgeon people into silence financially? It's not as if they can't pay for airtime! They should be able to say- We don't feed diseased-cow by-products to our cows. We eliminate all downer cows from the food supply. We track our cows rigorously and test every single one for the prion protein before slaughter (as they do in Europe). IF they CAN stand on the basis of FACT, why don't they?
One moment your telling us about how the big evil Monsanto is hurting the poor farmer, and then you're defending ill-informed reporters that can ruin an entire sector of US agriculture with a biased story that the pubic believes
The reason why they don't is because they can't. Widespread practices which put the safety of our food supply at risk continue. So we get horror stories like:
Video Reveals Violations of Laws, Abuse of Cows at Slaughterhouse
Quote:If we're to have an effective democracy, then people need to be fully informed. People need to hear both sides of the story, and decide for truth for themselves. Instead, YOU want what people hear to be decided simply on the basis of who has the most money????
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Video footage being released today shows workers at a California slaughterhouse delivering repeated electric shocks to cows too sick or weak to stand on their own; drivers using forklifts to roll the "downer" cows on the ground in efforts to get them to stand up for inspection; and even a veterinary version of waterboarding in which high-intensity water sprays are shot up animals' noses -- all violations of state and federal laws designed to prevent animal cruelty and to keep unhealthy animals, such as those with mad cow disease, out of the food supply.
Moreover, the companies where these practices allegedly occurred are major suppliers of meat for the nation's school lunch programs, including in Maryland, according to a company official and federal documents.
Tell me... why is is that you like Firefly?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I take it none of the Monsanto defenders has read either of the linked reports ?
* There was a long list of 'investigations' cited in the report which either were directed against the wrong party (the store owner), were directed against farmers who had planted the seeds one year but not the next, where the supposed crops that were planted were not even in the fields at the time, where genetic tests were falsified, or where agreement signatures were forged. In the interests of brevity I didn't reproduce them here. If you care to, you can always read the reports. But it is clear that widespread genetic contamination is a source of many of the lawsuits filed by Monsanto against family farmers.
Following investigations* Monsanto usually sends threatening letters via certified mail to farmers suspected of planting or selling saved patented seed. The letter typically requests that the farmer pay a specified sum of money to avoid legal proceedings. Under financial duress, many farmers who have been accused of patent infringement based on insubstantial evidence have decided to settle out of court rather than face an expensive and lengthy lawsuit.
In addition to sending threatening letters to farmers, Monsanto also distributes letters listing the names of farmers prohibited from purchasing its products to thousands of seed dealers each year. These letters often pressure farmers who wish to retain this purchasing right into settling out of court, regardless of the legitimacy of the company’s investigation. “It’s easier to give in to them than it is to fight them,” said one farmer who is still restricted from using Monsanto’s products as a result of challenging the company’s claims in court.53
Monsanto claims that since 2000, it has settled for millions of dollars in total damages.55
Some farmers agree to sign a settlement obligating them to purchase Monsanto’s products because the offered deal provides for a much smaller settlement fine. Clearly, this provision exemplifies Monsanto’s goal of binding farmers to its genetically engineered seeds and contracts. However, some farmers refuse to settle and subject themselves to paying both attorney fees and larger settlements in order to avoid making a commitment to Monsanto.58 Those not willing to acquiesce to Monsanto’s demands enter the most aggressive stage of these pursuits—the lawsuit.
***************************************************************
This is neither more nor less than a protection racket. Farmers pay up just because they don't have the time or money to fight. Whether Monsanto's claims are legitimate or not is the smallest part of the picture.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Perhaps you didn't read my post?
This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.
Monsanto has brought suit against people who have not planted their crops and against dairies who do not use their hormones. Its like Microsoft which reserves the right to break your home, business, or university apart on the suspicion that you might be using unlicensed software.
Perhaps you have not read my post, I said exactly the same thing. But we are not discussing your links -- or at least I wasn't-- I was discussing the original article. The article deals with basically two issues.
1) the harassment of a man who did not plant Monsantos crop because of poor information that he did -- seed piracy if you will and a very similar corporate response to the way record companies try to deal with file sharers,
2) farmers who sign the Monsanto contract not knowing, not understanding or not caring that they are not supposed to hold back seed until next year. That's the one I'm talking about. Rue thinks that the invalidation of Monsantos patents somehow deals with this --- it doesnt. If you sign a contract saying you will not plant last years seed that's enforceable if the crop is GM or not. However it would be impossible to prove you broke the contract with normal varieties. Even if tomorrow every Monsanto patent was reversed it would do nothing to change their business practices, in these cases they are using the GM to prove that you are breaking the CONTRACT not to claim you are breaking the patent.
In theory I can write up a contract between us that agrees almost anything. The only exception is that you cant make a contract to "legalise" something which has been made illegal by statute. So I can't contract you to kill me because murder is illegal. Likewise at least in the UK a contract can be contested if both parties are not given all the facts or if one party is considered to have acted fraudulently. Other than that anything goes.
So what has happened here is that Monsanto has a contract that basically says "a condition of buying seed from us is that you don't get to plant it again next year." If you sign it, and they can prove you did plant again they can sue you under the contract. That's it end of story.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch
Actually you missed some parts of the linked reports which DO show that the patents themselves are invalid. Now if the patent is invalid, enforcing said patent is also invalid - no matter what the contract says.
But more than that, farmers are coming under legal threat even when they haven't signed a contract OR planted seeds. The mere threat of having to spend hundreds of thousands to defend against a deep pockets lawsuit is enough to make people 'settle'.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FLETCH2-
Quote:So was I.
Iwas discussing the original article.
And regardless of the legality of the patents, there is something terribly wrong with a system that allows big business to snoop into a person's life and financially ruin - maliciously or otherwise - people who have NOT EVEN signed a contract. There seems to be a pattern in fact that Monsanto goes after people who have NOT purchased their products.
Quote:
Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”
When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey RAP - care to join the conversation ?
***************************************************************
Your contributions went somethg like this:
"If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
I'm just reminded of the 'chicken little' crusades ...
What's to believe ?"
Do you have anything to add to your little gems of wisdom ? Anything based on facts ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch
Actually you missed some parts of the linked reports which DO show that the patents themselves are invalid. Now if the patent is invalid, enforcing said patent is also invalid - no matter what the contract says.
But more than that, farmers are coming under legal threat even when they haven't signed a contract OR planted seeds. The mere threat of having to spend hundreds of thousands to defend against a deep pockets lawsuit is enough to make people 'settle'.
Even with no patent you could still enforce the contract. I could right now sign a contract with you that says I will sell you corn seed but in exchange you can't plant corn next year. I don't own the patent on any corn I'm just making it a (weird) condition of a sales contract. If next year I spy fields of corn at your place I can sue you under the contract. The IP portion has nothing to do with that.
What is needed is something like the alliance now taking on the record industry (who as you know use similar practices.) There is nothing illegal in what they are doing but they are gaming the system and using the threat of litigation as a hammer to force compliance from people who they would be unable to beat in court. Unfortunately the techniques they use are not in themselves illegal and in fact have too many legitimate uses for it to be banned outright. What needs to happen is for them to lose enough cases that the courts no longer consider them a legitimate complainant, and for at least one of their "evidence gathering techniques" to be found actually illegal and subject to penalty and class action status. When money starts leaving their coffers as a result of bogus lawsuits they will stop.
So, legal defense fund... anyone run one?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Even with no patent you could still enforce the contract."
Not true if the common-law right of farmers is to save and plant seeds.
So, you have nothing to say about Monsanto's protection racket ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's the same problem with Frakenfoods or hormone-boosted milk production. There was a dairy in Maine- Oakhurst- which marketed its milk as being "hormone-free". Monsanto, which makes rGBH (the recombinant growth hormone) sued Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk with a PERFECTLY TRUTHFUL statement.
All those 'not from concentrate' orange juice makers better watch out!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First there are no such things as common law rights. Second the common law is not statute. For example I can make you sign a none disclosure agreement as part of your condition of employment or as part of a contract and sue you if you break it even though you have a common law expectation of free speech.
So we are back to you inventing bogus stuff to deal with the fact that you have no real answer. The only way to deal with these people is to beat them in court, repeatedly and with penalties. Do it enough times to discredit their discovery process and the problem is solved. It is as far as I can see the only way to stop them. Bogus patents make their business practices easier but they don't actually need them to keep up this kind of intimidation. Unfortunately the cost of legal recourse in the US means that legal bullying is always an option when you know you have no real case to fall back on.
A few years ago a friend received an email from a guy that was cybersquating a stack of domain names saying that my friend was appropriating his domain because his blog had a similar title --- let's say the squatter had registered a domain called something like "getalife.com" and my friend had a blog called something like "get a life."
The squatter said he had legal right to the name Getalife and all variations and that my friend either had to change the name of his blog or buy the domain for $2000. It was completely bogus, he has no legal right to enforce it, in fact so few rights that even the letter could be considered fraud. My friend knew a well known IP attorney and a simple letter on the stationary of a nationally recognized law firm mad the squater go away.
The point is that people fire off injunctions, cease and desist letters and other legal junk that had very spurious legal backing in the hopes of intimidating people that cant afford to contest it. Those kinds of challenges need to be met in court, with publicity and hopefully some heavy costs for those that try it on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- You're "less inclined" to believe an article because it was in Vanity Fair?
Okay, DON'T believe it. You shouldn't. You should be a skeptic. Do some research. Find out for yourself. Give us a few solid, well-researched reasons why the linked article is wrong.
But I know you won't do that because you fear accidental contact with fact more than anything. You're afraid of what you might find it you actually rooted around that big wide world of facts out there.
BTW- how's that economy going?
You see 'Rap, you can try to avoid the truth. Run and hide. But sooner or later, it'll bite you anyway.
I agree with Rue, not surprisingly. Corporate-libertarians are so fucking focused on gummint they don't see the nasty big alligator behind them.
---------------------------------
.
Why don't you tell me why you're so eager to believe it , being from V.F. I'm reminded they did the puff piece on the duel liars, Joe Wilson and Val Plame. "Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING.
But let me ask you something. If a company spends MILLIONS in developing something which they think can benefit them and their customers, why is it so god damn awful for that company to want to protect its investment ? You think they should just give away their R&D to everyone ? Geee, where do I buy stock in that company ???
btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?
btw II, you're a coward, your feet stink and you dress funny. Now we're even .
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"First there are no such things as common law rights."
As a matter of fact, there are common law rights. Roe v Wade was decided to some extent on common law privacy rights - pregnancy 'before quickening' being considered a personal and private, not public, matter.
"Second the common law is not statute."
But when a contract violates common law the contract can be invalid. For example, no matter how many 'rights' you sign away to your employer they cannot put up a camera in a place where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Now maybe personal rights vis a vis employers, corporations and the like are few and far between, but where they exist it is b/c of common law.
I think you need to bone up on US law.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING. But then your own lack of facts didn't stop YOU from posting. Despite, I might add, a complete lack of credibility on your part. So, now that you know different - that you were wrong - do you have anything to say ?
"btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?" And uh, I hope you're not talking about the US economy. B/c then, I'd have to believe you're just plain nuts. So, how's that roaring US economy going there, Rap ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING. But then your own lack of facts didn't stop YOU from posting. Despite, I might add, a complete lack of credibility on your part. So, now that you know different - that you were wrong - do you have anything to say ?
"btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?" And uh, I hope you're not talking about the US economy. B/c then, I'd have to believe you're just plain nuts. So, how's that roaring US economy going there, Rap ?
So, being skeptical about something equates to being WRONG in your world ? Sorry, I'm just not as gullible as you, it seems. I don't know that I'm wrong, so what was your point again? Or did you even have one in the 1st place?
And yes, MY economy is the best it's ever been. But since the Dems have gained control of the Congress and the Senate, the US economy has gone in the crapper. Funny, that.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tell me... why is is that you like Firefly?
Well, there's lots of guns.
I love the episode where they smuggled the cattle fed with Monsanto growth hormone and sold them to unsuspecting settlers. And there's the one where they sold the Monsanto stamped foodstuffs to the settlers. Turns out the stuff with the Monsanto stamp can feed a family of 4 for a week.
The Alliance isn't all bad, just like our own government it's the size of the Alliance that makes it evil. I think we'll be lucky to have as much freedom as those in the Alliance when there's 30 billion people on earth. By the way, the only why the Earth will support the population numbers that are inevitable at current growth rates is to hope Monsanto continues to develop products that safely increase the food supply.
Did I mention that Firefly has lots of guns.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"First there are no such things as common law rights."
As a matter of fact, there are common law rights. Roe v Wade was decided to some extent on common law privacy rights - pregnancy 'before quickening' being considered a personal and private, not public, matter.
"Second the common law is not statute."
But when a contract violates common law the contract can be invalid. For example, no matter how many 'rights' you sign away to your employer they cannot put up a camera in a place where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v5i9_salveggio.html
and for good measure related directly to the example you gave
Quote:
One issue in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protect a state employee, while in her cubicle, from covert and secret video surveillance, and whether that right was clearly established in this situation. A second issue is whether a state agency’s failure to train and supervise its employees in the proper use of covert surveillance was a “discretionary function” of the agency so as to make the agency immune from liability for that failure.
After the trial court dismissed Ms. Nelson’s claims, she appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Before the court reached a decision, the Supreme Judicial Court decided to take the case. The court held in April 2006 that the college's surveillance did not violate Ms. Nelson's constitutional rights.
http://epic.org/privacy/nelson/
Your right to privacy comes from the forth amendment and is enforced through statute and not the common law.
Show me your "common law right to hold seed" if you are so sure you can find it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
"If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
I'm just reminded of the 'chicken little' crusades ...
What's to believe ?"
Quote:So you never said it was chicken little ? You know, not real, not happening ? That it was about belief and not about facts ? So, now that you KNOW it's based on facts and NOT just a chicken-little story - ie - you were wrong - do you have anything to say about the facts ?
So, being skeptical about something equates to being WRONG in your world ?
Quote:Well, ahem, as usual you're wrong. The democrats are not in control of the senate. Despite the fact that the media keeps calling them the majority their numbers are exactly on par with the repubicans. They simply are neither the majority nor in control. And which laws did they pass that affected the economy, again ? Oh THAT'S right - it's not about FACTS ! It's about innuendo ! So, Rap got any FACTS about how those nasty (not)-in-control democrats ruined the economy, exactly ? What did they DO ? Any history you care to share ?
But since the Dems have gained control of the Congress and the Senate, the US economy has gone in the crapper.
***************************************************************
I'll be waiting for that list of laws those not-in-control democrats passed that were signed by Bush or whose vetoes were over-ridden that put the economy in the crapper. However long it takes, Rap.
I'll be watching for your reply.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And exactly what laws signed by Bush that has made our economy " tank " ? Oh yeah, none. Now I remember. So how's about you stop w/ the childish "how's the economy " game unless you want to start your own damn thread on the issue ? I'm done with that topic until then.
As for VF, they're off painting Monsanto as being this evil corporation, when very little I've seen is anything one wouldn't expect a corporation to do in order to protect its own property, and thus the interest of its investors.
Both GOP and DNC have 49 LISTED members, but Bernie Sanders ( Jr Senator from Vermont ) and Joe Lieberman caucus with the DNC, making their numbers effectively 51 to the GOP's 49, giving the DNC control.
Harry Reid is the Senate MAJORITY Leader. A title the US press, as free as it claims to be, still lacks the power to grant. Nice try.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"
I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is a second issue which has to be mentioned also. The law of Torts (contract law) has various provisions to ensure equitability of a contract, things like full disclosure of relevant facts in the making of a contract, the inability of one party to reword the contract without the others approval (may be UK only.) If the Monsanto contract violates US commercial law in some way, you could work to overturn it but as I said, for any of this to work people HAVE to take them to court.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And exactly what laws signed by Bush that has made our economy " tank " ?"
Oh, just a little running tab Bush uses to keep the Iraq war off the books, though not out of our pockets, called the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
"Both GOP and DNC have 49 LISTED members, but Bernie Sanders ( Jr Senator from Vermont ) and Joe Lieberman caucus with the DNC, making their numbers effectively 51 to the GOP's 49, giving the DNC control."
Really. You know, since you are the one making this claim, I leave it to you to back it up. Otherwise, I'll just presume that, as usual, you're wrong yet again.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"
I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.
There are torts for invasion of privacy. Ie if you invade someone's privacy then they can sue you. In order for that to be applicable there is an implication that you have an expectation of privacy --- otherwise how could you sue someone for an act if what they are doing is not in itself illegal?
Apparently in the US at various times it's been argued that this implies a common law right. The problem is that those are opinions that don't seem to form the basis of any rulings except in the state of Minnesota and that is not US wide and theoretically reversible (while in theory common law principles should be upheld going forward not all courts feel bound by even their own president, and reversals are common.)
In any case this is one of Rue's red herrings. What we need is the common law right to hold and plant last years seed crop, or a statute to that effect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kirkules - just google: "reasonable expectation of privacy" workplace "supreme court".
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Because employers compensate employees to perform their jobs, courts traditionally have granted employers a wide latitude to monitor their employees' work performance and productivity provided that such monitoring does not violate an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Office Searches
While employees may have an increased expectation of privacy to their office, cabinets and personal belongings, an employer may search through those areas and items provided that they possess a work-related reason.
These cases are limited to employer searches, as opposed to law enforcement searches. They show, in essence, that while your expectation of privacy in the workplace is not nonexistent, it is extremely limited.
But - it does exist, despite not being in the consitution.
Also:
In addition while 'employers are frequently advised to have employees sign written policies for computer usage. (and) Having such a policy may diminish privacy expectations ...'
The Supreme Court’s holding in Flanagan reaffirms (that) ... Employees who surreptitiously record or eavesdrop on workplace conversations will now find themselves more vulnerable to Privacy Act claims ...
In other words, the concept of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is well established in the law and in part applies to private parties despite the fact that there is no such constitutional protection. BTW it derives from common law.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Come on folks, lets call a spade a spade here, it's an extortion-protection racket under a thin legal fiction, and I suspect that soon the Grangers are gonna file counter claims under RICO.
Given that some of us with far more legal expertise than this cabbie have begun researching and encouraging exactly that.
Most of my agri-buddies around here are too small to be worth the trouble, not to mention the very real risk of the enforcers winding up planted somewhere in the back forty - they're an awful paraniod, suspicious lot, which started after one of them tried to save on fuel costs by making his own Bio-D, and got slammed with fuel taxes on his whole damn crop at the express behest and encouragement of a certain oil company...
These guys are a substantial portion of my food supply, and like any mammal, I tend to get annoyed when anything threatens it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It doesn't and for the reasons stated.
Now show me the seed law or deal with the core issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Now show me the seed law or deal with the core issue."
And there you are, like Rap, wrong yet again. Common law does have an effect on statutory law, as I've proved twice already. This despite that fact that it's not written into the statutes. This will have to play out in the courts to arrive at the written decision you so frantically demand. But I'm right and you're wrong, so deal with it.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And just to cap it off before I sign off for (probably) a week or more -
To provide information anyone can access I suggest to those with an interest to Google: "common law" agriculture (or some variation of that theme such as "common law" farm -"statefarm"). There were many interesting sites that referred to the common law basis of agriculture. Here are some quotes from two.
For most of the nations history, agriculture has been governed by principles of common law.
-----------------------------------------------
Agricultural law is a unique blend of traditional fields of law- this includes the law of contracts, bailments, torts, criminal, environmental (both state and federal), property, nuisance, wills and estates, and the mind-numbing tax law.
As such, agricultural law is not entirely "new" law; rather it is a gathering and harvesting of provisions of statutory and common law.
***************************************************************
In other words, since Fletch won't tell you this - common law actually governs areas of agricultural practice, rights, and restrictions. As such, the common practice of saving seed for planting next year falls under common law rights.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
here we go again... always disappear off when you are losing an argument.
Expectation of privacy is from Tort, as previously explained. It is not a "right" Lawyers dont use 2 words for the same thing. It is something different.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually you disappeared for quite a while in the middle of an ongoing discussion and though I waited I thought you were gone. But I do need to go soon and I don't feel the need to apologize for having a life and a job. If you bump your preferred argument enough to keep it up at the top I will revisit it when I get back. But you have to make the effort b/c I'm not going to wait around for you to post or keep checking back to see if you have so deigned.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)." This right to privacy doesn't stem from the constitution, however, it stems from the penumbras of thoughts, practices and assumptions of the common laws of the time.
Anything to say about common law and agriculture ? If you do, say it fast, 'cause I'm outa' here soon. I'll twiddle my thumbs for 25 minutes from time of posting, then I'm gone.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch, you're such a chicken.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's look at what was actually said shall we, rather than the Rue version.
Griswold vs Connecticut
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html
Quote:
The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."
We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
No mention of the common law.
You have chosen to interprete it that way.
Agricultural law is not some kind of parallel governance of the common law, it is the body of statute pertaining to agriculture in the same way that maritime law reflects that body of law specific to the sea.
Thank you for pointing me in that direction though because there was an interesting case
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/cases/monsanto-david.html
Quote:
The farmer argued that he was not responsible for paying Monsanto a royalty on the retained seed under the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA), but the court noted that the Patent Act superseded the PVPA. Id. "[T]he right to save seed of plants registered under the PVPA does not impart the right to save seed of plants patented under the Patent Act." Id. (quoting Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, at 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, the court rejected the argument that the patent only applies to the gene in its pure form and not contained in plants or seeds, because the patent specifically refers to a man-made gene, not one that naturally occurs, making the argumeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There are, but in relation to the government.
First there are no such things as common law rights.
Quote:And that is as good a statement of the problem as any. What needs to happen is statutory limitation of the "rights" of the ALREADY big and powerful. YOu know... socialism.
Second the common law is not statute. For example I can make you sign a none disclosure agreement as part of your condition of employment or as part of a contract and sue you if you break it even though you have a common law expectation of free speech.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
heh. They're not my first choice on reliable news either.
Monsanto was on my evil corp list...we all know I'm right about everything except those things I'm not.
It's not so much that Monsanto is inherently evil; they're too big. They, like any business, sometimes make poor legal choices. Not to mention departments not knowing what other departments are doing. I'll give them credit for trying to clean up some (not all) of their past run-off and contamination spots. I still don't like them.
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But if it's in the Bible, you would? Or maybe if it was in the WSJ?
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.
I dunno Rap. Instead of basing your opinion on where you read something, how about looking at the content? Cross-checking with other sources and actually working up a little intellectual sweat?
Yeah, I know... it's hard work, but I'm sure you can do it.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.
Dunno why you brought The Bible into the mix .
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You'll note that I credited their journalism in this case - something that is pretty rare for me to do, yes ?
That's because I *DO* verify and crosscheck from original source, being a skeptical and suspicious type, and never more so than when someone is telling me something I already suspect, cause then I suspect their motives, heh.
They did a good job on their fact checking and research, and I would not have said such a thing if they had not - go on, check for yourself.
To dismiss a factual, fully researched article simply because of it's source is idiotic, partisan and a damnfool thing to do, especially since the other end is swallowing a faery tale whole without so much as a blink if it comes from a favored source.
I'll even throw in a quote from ole Ronnie Ray-Gun that fits ever so appropriately.
"Trust but Verify."
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You STILL don't get it???
I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.
Rap, you shouldn't believe anything, and if you do.... that's your first and biggest mistake, and the reason why most here think you're 12 oz short of a six-pack.
Most here have a fiber or two of intellectual muscle and actually check out various postings. I didn't "believe" the article, I cross checked it by looking at other sources, and the facts of the article turned out to be widely documented. And this isn't the first time I've heard of Monsanto shaking down non-customers, suppressing scientific studies of their products etc. As a chemist by trade I read "general" scientific journals like Science and Nature as well as trade journals like Chemical & Engineering News (which BTW represent industry quite well) and the same trend has shown up over the years in technical journals.
I haven't found any reason to doubt the article. So I challenge you YET AGAIN to come up with a solid piece of evidence to show that the article is false on its face, or false in its implications. And since you haven't, you're either a mental midget who is incapable of doing any research whatsoever, or you DID the research and are just whinging because it didn't pan out for you.
Go do your homework Rap instead of blowing go-se all over the board. You dishonor yourself and the people here. You're delusional and dishonest even with yourself, and as a consequence you add nothing to a conversation. So until you manage to bring some facts to the table, I'm not trouble myself to discuss this with your further.
BTW- How's that economy going? ON FIRE! Right?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why is it so important for you to ridicule me just because I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ? Oh, sure, it does follow the standard Lib fare for accusing big business of being all things unholy, kicking the little guy, just to make a quick buck. We know the drill. I just find it less credible when the writer of this "piece " comes out w/ such biased and slanted language from word one. When that happens, I'm gonna be skeptical. As anyone should be. It's only healthy, imo. I have no stake in the matter either way, other than I hate seeing folks get shaken down for things they didn't do, or for being what they're not.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The reason why you get chapped so often isn't because you're "skeptical", Auraptor. It's because you operate in only two modes: You're either believing what you already agree with, or rejecting that which makes you uncomfortable. In other words, your mind is completely closed. In between there's no room for doubt, inquiry, testing of knowledge, or intellectual growth.
I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ?
For example, you say the article is "slanted" but you haven't disproven a single point in it, nor have you come up with an mitigating evidence: Say, for example, that Monsanto is losing billions of dollars in lost revenue through seed-saving and that it's investigations are generally well-targeted.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:The reason why you get chapped so often isn't because you're "skeptical", Auraptor. It's because you operate in only two modes: You're either believing what you already agree with, or rejecting that which makes you uncomfortable. In between there's no room for doubt, inquiry, testing of knowledge, or intellectual growth.
I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ?
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
no room for intellectual growth ? What a load of go se. Stating that I'm skeptical , and why, isn't the same as claiming cynicism. BIG difference there, if ya don't know. I'll admit that I'm leaving myself open to taking a bath on all this, that I might be wrong. But that still doesn't get the writer for vilifying 'Big FARM ' as being inherently evil, uncaring and greedy.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But where are your FACTS????
All you have is opinion.
But no FACTS.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But where are your FACTS????
All you have is opinion.
But no FACTS.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
Don't need any facts yet, to be skeptical. And I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this, and the VF piece is dead on accurate per this issue. I just don't like how it sounds, is all I'm saying.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*falls off chair clutching chest*
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this
You've taken your first step into a larger world....
Obi-Wanisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then I apologize for pounding on you some more. Some people can't take "maybe" for an answer, and I guess I'm one of them. Sorry 'bout that!
Don't need any facts yet, to be skeptical. And I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this, and the VF piece is dead on accurate per this issue. I just don't like how it sounds, is all I'm saying.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor and Kirkules are the perfect Americans, by which I mean that they believe the party line and are too well indoctrinated to question authority. They watch newscasts on stations with corporate and partisan agendas and believe they are receiving factual, unbiased information. They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them. They feed themselves and their children poisoned milk, meat, and produce. They clothe themselves with garments produced using poisonous chemicals in every phase from plant to fiber, from countries that poison the air and water to make them (not to mention the harm to our economy from the trade imbalance), purchased from superstores that poison the local environment and economy. They purchase and purchase, just as they've been trained to do from birth. They consume and waste. They destroy the planet. They are to be pitied. Poor fools. I weep for them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, Green.... this would be a good time to plug one of my favorite educational videos.... it follows very closely with what you're saying...
http://www.storyofstuff.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them.
Did I miss the part were you demonstrated your vast knowledge of plant genetics and Bovine husbandry. Usually those here add something constructive to the conversation before they tell me I'm an idiot. What "new information" did you add. Oh right, we all know now that you're a pompous ass.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, he got the bovine part, but I ain't sure husbandry was the end product.
Categorizing folk is stupid - you can teach, learn from and exchange ideas with a person, but you cannot do it with a category or caricture of a person.
That's why even when ripping heads off, I take folk as individuals, cause to do otherwise renders the entire idea of an argument invalid and relegates it to just venting or ranting.
Too many folk wanna break it down to a simple "us and them" but it ain't so, there's us, and then there's more of.. us.
E Pluribus Unum.
And to accept that is the first step towards gettin along with folk.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Deadlockvictim:
Wow, Green.... this would be a good time to plug one of my favorite educational videos.... it follows very closely with what you're saying...
http://www.storyofstuff.com
Deadlockvictim, thank you so very much for that link. I'd never seen that video before, but that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Particularly chilling is the the quote:
“Our enormously productive economy...demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption....We need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.” – Victor LeBeau
For those who aren't yet aware of the collusion between Fox and Monsanto to suppress the reportage of the health risks caused by Monsanto's bovine growth hormone in dairy products, the website http://www.foxbghsuit.com may be of some interest.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the thing is that most everyone on this board has an opinion or two on any particular topic. (We're an opinionated lot!) But the opinions that I value most are informed opinions: those that are reached because of unique life experiences or serious study of a topic. Even if I don't agree I can always learn something new from those kind of folks.
The opinions that really knock my socks off are the predictive ones; I figure that if someone can figure out what's going to happen next they've created a really, really accurate model of a complex system, and it behooves me to pay attention to their assumptions and logic!
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem with the Cassandra gig, Siggy...
Is that it is really high in creep factor, and really low in customer satisfaction.
Nobody wants to hear where this is going, and most especially that they are individually powerless to prevent it, within a population unwilling or unable to act cohesively enough to stop it.
I disagree with the system complexity comment for the same reason I disagree with PN's overreaching conspiracies...
Just because a bunch of crabs march across the beach in lockstep, does not mean they are organised and coordinated - although it may look that way, the reality is that their processing is so simple that from the same inputs, within minimal variation, you'll get the same result, see ?
Our system is NOT complex at all, simply add in greed, ambition and a total lack of conscience with a minimal to non-existent set of controls and consequences, to a population concerned only with their own personal power, wealth and comfort.
And then put them in charge of the rest of us, and viola, you've just recreated our entire system, at the root of it - all the rest is just fluff, bullshit and details.
Once you understand how the game works, you only really have to understand the 1% that actually controls any damn thing, and THOSE folk are easy to comprehend.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
Auraptor and Kirkules are the perfect Americans, by which I mean that they believe the party line and are too well indoctrinated to question authority. They watch newscasts on stations with corporate and partisan agendas and believe they are receiving factual, unbiased information. They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them. They feed themselves and their children poisoned milk, meat, and produce. They clothe themselves with garments produced using poisonous chemicals in every phase from plant to fiber, from countries that poison the air and water to make them (not to mention the harm to our economy from the trade imbalance), purchased from superstores that poison the local environment and economy. They purchase and purchase, just as they've been trained to do from birth. They consume and waste. They destroy the planet. They are to be pitied. Poor fools. I weep for them.
Welcome to the party, Greenie. Wow, talk about gullible ! You should have died a dozen times over w/ the horrible world you live in! By your comments, it's plain to see that you tote around your agenda everywhere you go. Never mind the fact that I simply stated I was skeptical of the attack on Monsanto. And you seemingly ignore the why, since I gave examples above to show my skepticism wasn't just out of hand.
Poisoned food , air and water ? Wow. So, living longer is a bad thing in your view ? I rarely get sick and suffer from no allergies, so if breathing , drinking and eating from a poisoned planet is bad, then let me be VERY bad.
Greenie, just so there's no misunderstanding, I don't care for your kind. The holier than thou, arrogant and condescending water mellon types ( green on the outside, red on the inside ) who think they know so much more about the planet and it's some how YOUR job to tell us , the great unwashed, how to live our lives in order to " save " this 4.6 BILLION yr old rock in space. I got news for ya , this planet will be around LONG after the species of homo sapiens has become extinct or moved the heck off.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
For those who aren't yet aware of the collusion between Fox and Monsanto to suppress the reportage of the health risks caused by Monsanto's bovine growth hormone in dairy products, the website http://www.foxbghsuit.com may be of some interest.
Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces, which made Iraq look better to the world, so as to get favorable interviews and access for reporters that weren't offered to other news agencies ?
Are we talking THAT level of collusion?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! gasp! HAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! gasp! heheheheheheheh!!!!!!! snort! mrphhHHH!! chuckle! heh heh heh heh...
all the rest is just fluff, bullshit and details.
Yeah but... (you know what "Yes, but..." means? It means "no"
) Every now and again the system ruptures, French- Revolution style. That, or it runs itself off a cliff. Sometimes... rarely... it evolves into a relatively benign, egalitarian form.---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nothing really new here. Check this out if you didn't want to read the long Vanity Fair article. I heard about Monsanto when Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was on the Guns & Butter radio show back in 2005 Nov 2 & 9. I get pissed now every time I hear their name.
You can get those episodes here:
http://gunsandbutter.net/archives.php
http://www.esnips.com/web/percyschmeisergmo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh HUSH, Psych! You're just portraying Monsanto as a big, bad corporation when everybody knows they're the neatest thing since sliced GMO bread! Anyway, Gunsnbutter is loading slow, so here's the story
Quote:www.percyschmeiser.com
Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre.
This is what I've allued to already, altho nobody picked up on it: About 10% of non-GMO seed stock is contamintaed with GMO genetic materials due to cross pollination from nearby fields.
In addition to potentially giving Monsanto leverage over farmers who have never purchased their seed stock, that FACT might want to give you pause when somebody wants to do GMO field experiments: There is no way to contain genetically-modified seed.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?
Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Like Robin Hood, you've hit the bullseye.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Our system is NOT complex at all, simply add in greed, ambition and a total lack of conscience with a minimal to non-existent set of controls and consequences, to a population concerned only with their own personal power, wealth and comfort.
Friar Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Sometimes... rarely... it evolves into a relatively benign, egalitarian form.
For a while, but it's an inherently flawed and unstable system to begin with and always seems to cycle back to the same dynamic which caused the wreck in the first place, which is why I prefer a Crazy Eddie solution instead of something temporary.
Oh, and Chrisisall ?
That's William Tell, ya berk *thunk!*
Despite the inflated tales, Robin of Loxley was a rather indifferent archer, and not much of a swordsman either - it was his fiendish mind and ability to inspire folk that made him dangerous, rather than his martial skills.
And nor are you stoic enough to be Friar Tuck, but rather more in temperment and behavior common to Alan A'Dale.
-Legendary Fremisall.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But I don't remember that he was good at kicking ass....?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Alan A'Dale.
Martial Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?
Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". You ought to know that by now, sheesh.
CNN's Iraqi Cover-Up
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.
asp
CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
In a shocking New York Times opinion piece, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan has admitted that for the past decade the network has systematically covered up stories of Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad bureau.
Read Jordan's op-ed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html
Jordan has not always been so candid -- nor honest. Just six months ago on public radio, when challenged regarding the veracity of CNN's Baghdad reports, Jordan stated:
"CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has a spine; that it's prepared to be forthright... we work very hard to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would not want to be there [in Iraq]."
http://wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts_102502_jordan.html
Below, HonestReporting presents a series of op-ed columns and editorials condemning CNN's policy. At the end of this communique is a response that CNN's Eason Jordan sent to HonestReporting.
Now that this senior CNN executive has come clean, it leaves us wondering: In what other regions ruled by terrorist dictators do the media toe the party line so as to remain in good stead? It is known that the Palestinian Authority, since its very establishment, has employed brutal methods of intimidation against journalists.
For specific examples, see HonestReporting's expose, "Palestinian Intimidation of the Press":
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/Palestinian_Intimidati
on_of_the_Press.asp
Have the major international news agencies also withheld information on the PA in order to stay on good terms with Arafat's henchmen? As HonestReporting chronicled on another occasion, CNN has at the very least lent credence to patent lies stated by the Palestinian Authority:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Broadcasting_the_Big
_Lie.asp
Now that CNN has turned sincere, admitting it buried stories that would smear Mideast dictators, perhaps the time has come for more comprehensive, honest reporting in the region.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A note about skepticism and doubletalk.
One thing I have noticed, especially about mouthpiece fronts offering shaded or misleading information, is the use of doublespeak terms to frame it, much like the overblown and melodramatic denials of a caught red-handed perp.
"Real Clear Politics"
"Straight Talk Express"
"Honest Reporting"
As if this overkill notation is not a dead giveaway that they are about to shade the truth on you...
And yes, BOTH ends of the political spectrum do it, I am well aware of that, but one of them has taken it to new levels of ridiculous, and as such, using such labelling severely undermines their credibility right up front, to the point where even if and when honest information is offered, everyone will automatically distrust it due to nausea from doublespeak overdose.
That bein said - what blinding revelation of the bloody obvious are they gonna focus on next, the sky is blue, water is wet ?
Telling us the mainstream media is fulla shit ain't news, hasn't been since at LEAST 1900, and probably before even that.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Erm.... uh.... aaahhhh..... no comment.
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". You ought to know that by now, sheesh.
I don't see a political motivation for this, but I do see a financial one since CNN was the ONLY western media group with a "bureau" in Iraq. I imagine much the same happens with many news organizations in hostile dictatorships. Reporters want to get the news, but they also want to stay alive. Editors want to publish the news, but they also want to maintain their "bureaus". Much the same as the White House Press Corps self-censoring their questions so they get invited back. Or the press self-censors its corporate coverage so they'll continue to get advert revenue.
I've spoken off the record with reporters, they know FAR more than they publish.That's one of the reasons why I keep urging people to look for what ISN'T in the news. The news is distorted not so much by outright lies (unless of course the press is merely passing along lies given to them by various official spokespersons, like Judith Miller and the NYT) but by selection. I get my best information by looking at the timing and tempo of a news item: when it's turned on and off, etc.
Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. I think the difference between you and most of the rest of us is that we apply skepticism to the universe of actors, not just to those we disagree with. If all you're doing is cherry-picking the news for what you already agree with, you're not really informing yourself.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. I think the difference between you and most of the rest of us is that we apply skepticism to the universe of actors, not just to those we disagree with. If all you're doing is cherry-picking the news for what you already agree with, you're not really informing yourself.
---------------------------------
Hold the phone here. You accuse me of making stuff up per my comment of FACT that CNN was distorting the news by being Saddam's puppet so as to maintain "in favor" w/ the Iraqi Government.
Quote:
Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?
Generally when an accusation as that has been debunked, as I did to your charge, the one making the accusation offers up an admission of being wrong ( at the very least ) and an apology. I see neither in your reply. What oddly appears as a reply on your part is the statement, " Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. " , which simply baffles the mind. OF COURSE I'm telling you something something new, as you had no clue about this point of fact in the first place ! If you did, then why the " baseless opinion " charge in the first place ??
And to top it off, you try to some how equivocate CNN's situation to that of the W.H. Press Corps? Where is YOUR evidence, or is this nothing but baseless opinion on you part ? ( Note, I'm asking, not accusing here ) If you got anything to back up your position, lets see it.
Also, whats w/the quotes around " bureau " for CNN in Iraq ? Seems to me that you are some how dismissing that there ever was a bureau, as it was properly called. Feel free to explain that as well.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, OK. What you said wasn't baseless, it WAS based in fact. So I should, and do, apologize.
But it wasn't exactly news to me either. I thought you were referring to something recent, like since 2003. I perfectly well recall CNN's vast pride in having a Baghdad bureau, and I also remember thinking Sure. Right. when they claimed we were getting 100% news. I know it's easy to claim knowledge after the fact so I really don't expect to be believed.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS
Even the WHPC felt they needed to defend their performance on important occasions. This is what I could find quickly... I don't have a lot of time right now... but there's a lot more on the topic. Maybe I'll have time later.
Quote:
The press corps's barely-there performance that night, as reporters quietly melted into the scenery, coming at such a crucial moment in time remains an industry-wide embarrassment. Laying out the reasons for war, Bush that night mentioned al-Qaida and the terrorist attacks of September 11 thirteen times in less than an hour, yet not a single journalist challenged the presumed connection Bush was making between al-Qaida and Iraq, despite the fact that intelligence sources had publicly questioned any such association. And during the Q&A session, nobody bothered to ask Bush about the elusive Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind whom Bush had vowed to capture. Follow-up questions were nonexistent, which only encouraged Bush to give answers to questions he was not asked.
At one point while making his way through the press questioners, Bush awkwardly referred to a list of reporters whom he was instructed to call on. "This is scripted," he joked. The press laughed. But Bush meant it was scripted, literally. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer later admitted he compiled Bush's cheat sheet, which made sure he did not call on reporters from some prominent outlets like Time, Newsweek, USA Today, or the Washington Post. Yet even after Bush announced the event was "scripted," reporters, either embarrassed for Bush or embarrassed for themselves, continued to play the part of eager participants at a spontaneous news conference, shooting their hands up in the air in hopes of getting Bush's attention. For TV viewers it certainly looked like an actual press event.
That was not the night's only oddly scripted moment. Before the cameras went live, White House handlers, in a highly unusual move, marched veteran reporters to their seats in the East Room, two-by-two, like school children being led onto the stage for the annual holiday pageant. The White House was taking no chances with the choreography. Looking back on the night, New York Times White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller defended the press corps' timid behavior: "I think we were very deferential because ... it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you' re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war," she told students at Towson University in Maryland. "There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:For once, the article didn't tell me anything new.
Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.
These people are as unabashedly wicked as they come.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, what sort of person would think like that:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Some folks simply can't exist w/ out the notion that somebody else is doing something evil and making lots of $$ while doing it. Hey , here's a news flash.....just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's evil or wrong.
Quote:There's that question answered.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What really chapped my ass was how the Dems made this a pissing contest between Congress and the FAA.
...
This had nothing to do w/ 'security' or even public safety, as aviation experts will tell you. I had more to do w/ politics, and the money hungry Dems all bent out of shape that the Bush administration hasn't been sticking it to the airlines via fines for every petty little rule and regulation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Unless of course your name is AURaptor, who is constantly lying about what other people have said, and when caught out just says "no no no uhuh you're a pin head".
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Generally when an accusation as that has been debunked, as I did to your charge, the one making the accusation offers up an admission of being wrong ( at the very least ) and an apology.
Quote:There, fixed that for you.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And you see nothing , er, wrong with that, huh?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.
Entertainment as educationisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:And you see nothing , er, wrong with that, huh?
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.
I think that was Citizen's "corrected" version not AU's original.
Man, Citizen is angry these days.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I prefer improved with truth.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think that was Citizen's "corrected" version not AU's original.
Quote:Not mad, even!
Man, Citizen is angry these days.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And in other agribusiness news.....
Government asks court to block wider testing for mad cow. Quote:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mad_cow;_ylt=Au.O8QjiIyPj2juRV5S4L8qs0NUE
WASHINGTON - The {effing} Bush administration is urging a federal appeals court to keep meatpackers from testing all their cattle for mad cow disease. Government lawyers told a three-judge panel Friday they should reverse a lower court ruling that allowed {not "required"...allowed} Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef to conduct more comprehensive testing to satisfy overseas customers.
The Agriculture Department currently tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease. It argues that more widespread testing does not guarantee food safety and could result in a false positive that scares consumers.
Creekstone claims the Agriculture Department has no authority to prevent companies from using the test to reassure customers.
This is such bullshit (so to speak). Positive results are always be confirmed (or not) by additional testing. And this is typical of the Bush adminsitration leading us... along with cows... to the slaughter.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How exactly can the government prevent a private company from doing MORE testing than is required by statute?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Part of the problem might be self-reporting. But goodwill effort on both sides can resolves those issues, so I don't think that's the real reason.
USDA can’t argue that the test kits are useful for diagnosing and managing BSE when used by USDA but are “worthless” when used by a private company. We believe that the rapid test kits are useful for both parties and that there is no justification for denying a company the right to use a USDA-validated rapid test kit to screen cattle for BSE. We urge USDA to allow companies to buy and use USDA-validated rapid test kit for detecting BSE, but require the companies both to report any non-negative results to USDA and to supply USDA with brain samples from these non-negative cases for confirmation of BSE by the USDA at the National Veterinary Services Lab (in Ames, IO). USDA should also allow meat from an animal tested using a rapid test kit to be labeled as having been tested for BSE, and require any non-negative to be withheld from the food supply
--------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME