California Judge Orders Monsanto's Illegal Genetic Modified Sugar Beet Crop Destroyed

[HOLLYWOOD]

California Judge Orders Monsanto's Illegal Genetically Modified Sugar Beet Crops Destroyed

[/URL]http://www.naturalnews.com/030637_GMO_sugar_beets.html#ixzz17a6c4bzT (http://www.naturalnews.com/030637_GMO_sugar_beets.html#ixzz17a6c4bzT)


For the first time in history, a judge has ruled that an illegally-planted, genetically-modified (GM) crop be destroyed. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White of California ruled back in August that all future plantings of GM sugar beets cease until the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts a valid environmental impact statement (EIS) proving the crop's safety. However, the USDA recently violated this ruling and permitted Monsanto to plant the crops anyway, spurring Judge White to order that they be destroyed.

Last month, Monsanto (http://www.naturalnews.com/Monsanto.html) threw a temper tantrum over the ban, spewing propaganda about how the entire sugar (http://www.naturalnews.com/sugar.html) beet industry would supposedly fold if GM sugar beets (http://www.naturalnews.com/sugar_beets.html) were not permitted to be grown. The biotechnology giant even went so far as to petition the court to allow the plantings so that the company could avoid the loss of the money it spent on researching and developing the technology (http://www.naturalnews.com/030377_M (http://www.naturalnews.com/030377_M)...).

Judge White held his ground and did the right thing, though, citing myriad evidence about the unknown contamination (http://www.naturalnews.com/contamination.html) and other dangers posed by the "Frankencrop", mainly the "irreparable" consequences of cross-contamination. He also challenged the USDA's decision to flagrantly violate his ruling -- and the law -- by permitting Monsanto to plant GM sugar beet seedlings, ordering that they all be uprooted and destroyed.

George Kimbrell, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, is quoted in a Raw Story piece as saying that Judge White's bold move is a "groundbreaking victory for farmers and the environment (http://www.naturalnews.com/environment.html)," and that "[t]his is the first time ever a federal court ordered an illegal (http://www.naturalnews.com/illegal.html) biotech crop destroyed."

You can submit comments on the issue to the USDA (http://www.naturalnews.com/the_USDA.html) at the following link:

[url]http://www.federalregister.gov/arti (http://www.federalregister.gov/arti)...

Be sure to remind the agency that telling Monsanto it could plant GM sugar beets (http://www.naturalnews.com/beets.html) in spite of the court ruling is a violation of the law. The agency will accept comments on the issue until December 6, 2010.

[Dr.3D]

Well, finally a judge with a back bone. He should also fine the USDA for allowing it.

[dannno]

Last month, Monsanto (http://www.naturalnews.com/Monsanto.html) threw a temper tantrum over the ban, spewing propaganda about how the entire sugar (http://www.naturalnews.com/sugar.html) beet industry would supposedly fold if GM sugar beets (http://www.naturalnews.com/sugar_beets.html) were not permitted to be grown.

lol, where the fuck do they find these people and what dimension of hell are they going to end up in because I want to kick their asses for saying something so completely retarded.

(Mods: Curious, is it ok to threaten people in the afterlife :confused:)

[Zippyjuan]

But wait- shouldn't the market, not the government decide what gets planted? Let companies do what they want? Or are there some things which should be regulated? Just wondering.

[Mini-Me]

But wait- shouldn't the market, not the government decide what gets planted? Let companies do what they want? Or are there some things which should be regulated? Just wondering.

No, you're right: The market should decide what gets planted. Given Monsanto exists, they should not be legally restricted from selling their wares.

That said, in a just world, Monsanto would already be history. They should have been sued out of existence years ago for spraying patented seeds on small competitors' farms in order to intimidate and sue them for patent violations. For that matter, Monsanto should have been stormed like the Bastille for trying to patent some of the things they do in the first place, and its executives and board of directors should have been launched into the sun with super-powered catapaults. Plus, their sway over government regulatory policy makes them inherently criminal in my book, and every time the government uses force even remotely on their behalf, God kills a kitten. So really, I wouldn't mind if God instead smote them with a damn asteroid, provided the asteroid respected their neighbors' property rights and only gave clock-punch villains a few scrapes and burns.

Aside from that though, they shouldn't be restricted from selling their genetically modified craps...their genetically modified crops.

[low preference guy]

yay for governmental violation of private property!

[Rael]

(Mods: Curious, is it ok to threaten people in the afterlife :confused:)

To be a credible threat you have to be capable of carrying it out. Since the afterlife is not even proven I think your safe. Once they are dead let's kick their asses :D

[klamath]

Yaaa. Great libertarian ruling! More power to the government.:rolleyes: Case law for controlling private property.

[Dr.3D]

I don't get it. How is cross contamination of other peoples crops not a problem? Is the market going to correct that kind of problem or should it be illegal to pollute other peoples crops?

[klamath]

I don't get it. How is cross contamination of other peoples crops not a problem? Is the market going to correct that kind of problem or should it be illegal to pollute other peoples crops?
Should it be illegal for MJ growers and smokers to contaminate other people property and lungs?

[Dr.3D]

Should it be illegal for MJ growers and smokers to contaminate other people property and lungs?

What does that have to do with killing off the natural food supply? That is essentially what Monsanto is doing when it makes unnatural plants that cross pollinate with natural plants. There could come a time when there isn't any food if they are allowed to do such things.

[Mini-Me]

What does that have to do with killing off the natural food supply? That is essentially what Monsanto is doing when it makes unnatural plants that cross pollinate with natural plants. There could come a time when there isn't any food if they are allowed to do such things.

That's a good counterpoint, because cross-pollination of Frankencrops interferes with other people's property rights (and the domino effect from that can theoretically be orders of magnitude worse, given the existence of terminator genes). I think that should be treated like any kind of contamination/pollution should though...with lawsuits decided by preponderance of the evidence, rather than a priori coercive regulations. After all, when the government has the power to regulate as such, it inevitably expands into situations with no property-rights-based justification, and it is inevitably used more against small business owners than powerful megacorporations like Monsanto.

[Dr.3D]

That's a good counterpoint, because cross-pollination of Frankencrops interferes with other people's property rights (and the domino effect from that can theoretically be orders of magnitude worse, given the existence of terminator genes). I think that should be treated like any kind of contamination/pollution should though...with lawsuits decided by preponderance of the evidence, rather than a priori coercive regulations. After all, when the government has the power to regulate as such, it inevitably expands into situations with no property-rights-based justification, and it is inevitably used more against small business owners than powerful megacorporations like Monsanto.

The problem with that is, it's like trying to put the cat back inside the bag after it's been let out. If the damage is spreading from cross pollination and causing more and more loss of natural food crops, what is to keep it from spreading to the point where there are no natural food crops of that particular species?

We can look at it as if it's a virus being released upon a population. If somebody decides to release a virus that can kill people but says it is only releasing it on their own property to kill rats, should it be illegal? Should that virus somehow escape into the general population and begins killing people and can't be stopped, wouldn't it have been better not to allow it to have been released on any property in the first place? It would probably have been better to not have let the person develop that virus in the first place, let alone release it on their own property.

It would be pretty sad to try to stop something after the fact by taking them to court, if it was known the damage could be irreparable before the incident happened.

[Mini-Me]

The problem with that is, it's like trying to put the cat back inside the bag after it's been let out. If the damage is spreading from cross pollination and causing more and more loss of natural food crops, what is to keep it from spreading to the point where there are no natural food crops of that particular species?

We can look at it as if it's a virus being released upon a population. If somebody decides to release a virus that can kill people but says it is only releasing it on their own property to kill rats, should it be illegal? Should that virus somehow escape into the general population and begins killing people and can't be stopped, wouldn't it have been better not to allow it to have been released on any property in the first place? It would probably have been better to not have let the person develop that virus in the first place, let alone release it on their own property.

It would be pretty sad to try to stop something after the fact by taking them to court, if it was known the damage could be irreparable before the incident happened.

The problem is, the same justification can be used for any and every form of pre-crime or behavior that could eventually become dangerous for someone. When the government has the power to make those kind of subjective value judgments, you know what it does with them. This extends from global warming regulations to government micromanagement of your everyday life.

At the same time, I wholly understand the desire to prevent seriously catastrophic threats from becoming a problem before it's too late. I just don't know how to do it without handing over the keys to a pervasive and totalitarian regulatory ecosystem. Is there a way to objectively separate those from actual catastrophic threats like terminator genes and manufactured ebola?

If there is no way to do so, we basically have to choose between continuing to hand the government the keys to the kingdom, or living with other threats in exchange for our own freedom.

[Dr.3D]

The problem is, the same justification can be used for any and every form of pre-crime or behavior that could eventually become dangerous for someone. When the government has the power to make those kind of subjective value judgments, you know what it does with them. This extends from global warming regulations to government micromanagement of your everyday life.

At the same time, I wholly understand the desire to prevent seriously catastrophic threats from becoming a problem before it's too late. I just don't know how to do it without handing over the keys to a pervasive and totalitarian regulatory ecosystem. Is there a way to objectively separate those from actual catastrophic threats like terminator genes and manufactured ebola?

Perhaps making it illegal to manufacture such things? Those things are not necessary and only benefit the manufacturer so they can make a profit selling that crap. The line has to be drawn someplace.

[Mini-Me]

Perhaps making it illegal to manufacture such things? Those things are not necessary and only benefit the manufacturer so they can make a profit selling that crap. The line has to be drawn someplace.

You misunderstand my point: How can you objectively separate the things which should and should not be manufactured, without giving the government the arbitrary regulatory power to ban the manufacture of anything else it doesn't like, at its own whim? Should the government have the authority to ban other dangerous things as well? What about guns and knives? You say the line has to be drawn someplace. Who decides where, our wise and benevolent politicians? That language essentially gives aid and comfort to those who would "respect the Second Amendment" by "only" banning this, that, and the other type of gun, including evil black assault rifles. Dangerous, evil guns may be grudgingly permitted, but not all of them, and we're going to restrict how many you can buy, how often, and who from, and we're going to track the hell out of sales, because guns are just too dangerous. What about cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and narcotics? What about toxic chemicals with industrial uses? Antifreeze has come under serious regulatory attack for its Gatorade-like color and its use in several murders. In fact, maybe it would be a good idea to prevent ANY drug from coming to market until it has been tested for safety and efficacy by your friendly neighborhood government bureaucracy. We can call it the FDA. ;)

Unless we specifically ban manufactured ebola and terminator genes with a Constitutional Amendment, the only way to ban these things is to allow the government the Constitutional authority to ban "dangerous things" in general, based on its own subjective value judgments. That's a very dangerous power, and we've seen what the government does with that kind of power. (They already exercise this power, even though it is not authorized by the Constitution. If we are going to fight that, we need to realize that our fight applies to all uses of that power, not just "bad" ones...because ultimately, none of us mundanes are in the position to choose on a case-by-case basis.) Once the government has such a power, how they actually use it is entirely out of your hands or my hands. It is not up to us WHAT the government bans, because we the people do not have anywhere near that fine-grained level of control. It is only up to us whether we Constitutionally grant the government the broad and general authority to ban things. THAT is the problem. I'm having trouble finding a way to head off truly catastrophic threats without giving the government the keys to the kingdom in this way.

[Dr.3D]

You misunderstand my point: How can you objectively separate the things which should and should not be manufactured, without giving the government the arbitrary regulatory power to ban the manufacture of anything else it doesn't like, at its own whim? Should the government have the authority to ban other dangerous things as well? What about guns and knives? You say the line has to be drawn someplace. Who decides where, our wise and benevolent politicians? That language essentially gives aid and comfort to those who would "respect the Second Amendment" by only banning this, that, and the other type of gun, including evil black assault rifles. What about cigarettes, and narcotics? What about toxic chemicals with industrial uses? Antifreeze has come under serious regulatory attack for its Gatorade-like color and its use in several murders. In fact, maybe it would be a good idea to prevent ANY drug from coming to market until it has been tested for safety and efficacy by your friendly neighborhood government bureaucracy. We can call it the FDA. ;)

Unless we specifically ban manufactured ebola and terminator genes with a Constitutional Amendment, the only way to ban these things is to allow the government the Constitutional authority to ban "dangerous things" in general, based on its own subjective value judgments. That's a very dangerous power, and we've seen what the government does with that kind of power. Once the government has such a power, how they actually use it is entirely out of your hands or my hands. It is not up to us WHAT the government bans, because we the people do not have anywhere near that fine-grained level of control. It is only up to us whether we Constitutionally grant the government the broad and general authority to ban things. THAT is the problem. I'm having trouble finding a way to head off truly catastrophic threats without giving the government the keys to the kingdom in this way.
I fully understand your trouble.
I don't want to give the government the authority to regulate 'willy-nilly' anything they decide they want to regulate either. Should congress decide things like ebola and terminator genes are not needed in our country, I wouldn't hold it against them. Seriously though, that is something that needs to be addressed in the Constitution and not left up to government bureaucrats to decide. We all know given an inch, the government will attempt to take a light year.

I believe it's about absolute power. We know how that works out. The Constitution has to limit that power or there will be nothing but corruption.

[Mini-Me]

I fully understand your trouble.
I don't want to give the government the authority to regulate 'willy-nilly' anything they decide they want to regulate either. Should congress decide things like ebola and terminator genes are not needed in our country, I wouldn't hold it against them. Seriously though, that is something that needs to be addressed in the Constitution and not left up to government bureaucrats to decide. We all know given an inch, the government will attempt to take a light year.

I believe it's about absolute power. We know how that works out. The Constitution has to limit that power or there will be nothing but corruption.

Exactly. I wouldn't really have a problem with a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning terminator genes, since crops naturally cross-pollinate, and it's practically impossible to grow such dangerous plants without violating someone else's rights. This isn't a purely libertarian stance, but it can be done without opening the gates to the slippery slope, so I have trouble saying no to this one.

Manufactured ebola is a much more difficult proposition though: If the prohibition is too specific, we get into questions about what is and isn't ebola. If it's too broad regarding manufactured viruses in general, we get into willy-nilly territory and preclude an entire emerging branch of medical treatment. Either way, it could pose a problem for researchers simply trying to find a way to cure the damn thing.

[HOLLYWOOD]

I'll just make this short and sweet... There are no free markets with Monsanto Corporation.

Let's pull all their DOA subsidies and US Treasury/Congressional corporate tax credits/write-offs/welfare.

Corporations are using the Bailout laws to write-off profits from the previous 5 years on any losses incurred in the depression. We'll have free markets when you first get the Fascio-Corporatism out of the mix and let's not forget all the games to squeeze out competition through a multitude of immoral and premeditated operations, including bribing the politicians at all levels.

PS: The people are stuck with the debt created by all these gimmicks and corporate welfare.

[sratiug]

This is an example of how corporations are inherently evil and must be abolished.

And by the way, talking about private property rights of a public corporation is a little silly, don't y'all think? There is nothing private about any of their property.

[Zippyjuan]

No, you're right: The market should decide what gets planted. Given Monsanto exists, they should not be legally restricted from selling their wares.

That said, in a just world, Monsanto would already be history. They should have been sued out of existence years ago for spraying patented seeds on small competitors' farms in order to intimidate and sue them for patent violations. For that matter, Monsanto should have been stormed like the Bastille for trying to patent some of the things they do in the first place, and its executives and board of directors should have been launched into the sun with super-powered catapaults. Plus, their sway over government regulatory policy makes them inherently criminal in my book, and every time the government uses force even remotely on their behalf, God kills a kitten. So really, I wouldn't mind if God instead smote them with a damn asteroid, provided the asteroid respected their neighbors' property rights and only gave clock-punch villains a few scrapes and burns.

Aside from that though, they shouldn't be restricted from selling their genetically modified craps...their genetically modified crops.

Does an individual or say an independent farmer have the resource to take a case to court with a chance of winning against a company with billions of dollars to hire the best witnesses and lawyers? Nice in theory but would it work if that was your only defense against bad corporations? If the industry (any industry) was totally free and not regulated, on what basis could you sue beyond any personal losses (say you used one of their products and your own crop was wiped out)?

[Mini-Me]

Does an individual or say an independent farmer have the resource to take a case to court with a chance of winning against a company with billions of dollars to hire the best witnesses and lawyers? Nice in theory but would it work if that was your only defense against bad corporations?
In today's world, no, of course not. That's not a sufficient case for regulatory power though, because for every regulation that restrains Monsanto relative to its competitors, there are twenty regulations that undermine small competitors to a greater degree, increase the dominance of megacorporations, and reduce overall market efficiency as well. This is not peculiar to our world but rather the inevitable long-term outcome of a world with broad regulatory power invested in a central government. Among other things, probably the biggest problem with regulations is that you and I have little to no control on an ongoing basis over what regulations are actually enacted against whom. The only power we have - and it would take a monumental effort to exert - is to determine whether slimy-ass corrupt politicians should even possess the broad and general Constitutional authority to tilt the market playing field however they see fit. (According to today's Constitution, they don't, but the Commerce Clause is just so ripe for deliberate mischaracterization as a blank check.) Whether you like it or not, actually shaping governmental regulatory power "for the greater good" is practically unworkable in the long run.

So, what else can be done? It's a pretty sad statement that courtroom victory is largely dependent on the relative wealth of the participants. Unlike broad regulatory power though, this is something that might possibly be fixable given enough institutional reform. There's no one-step solution, because the world today is the end result of multiple terrible policies interacting with each other. There's no golden bullet, but I can offer suggestions. I'll start with some circumstances that lead to such an aggravated wealth and power disparity in the first place:
First, let's take a realistic look at Monsanto's power and recognize that a large deal of it derives from the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, etc. Let's move the discussion into a world where small competition isn't so heavily restricted, and we don't have government raids on family farms that have been selling raw milk cheese for a century. In a world where small farmers were not so disadvantaged, and Monsanto did not have any government largesse to draw on, and Monsanto could not indirectly undermine their competitors through the government coercion, where would Monsanto be? They certainly wouldn't be as rich or powerful as they are today, that's for sure. In contrast, the small farmers might just have some legs to stand on.
Although this doesn't apply to all reasons small farmers might sue Monsanto, let's briefly recognize one case of what Monsanto does to them: They patent things that should not be patentable (even if we give the general idea of patents the benefit of the doubt). Then, they spray patented seed onto other farmers' land so they can sue or intimidate them...except without out-of-control patent law to rely on, they wouldn't have any grounds for lawsuits or intimidation in the first place. The crux of this particular issue is our absurdly broken patent system, which is used to obtain exclusive use of an idea and the ability to enforce it coercively via government and the courts. Given patent reform or abolition, what Monsanto is doing in this scenario would be impossible.

I wanted to make the above two points to reemphasize the difference between today's market and a free market, and how today's regulatory world exacerbates the wealth and power disparity between the large and the small. However, let's get back to the courts. What if Monsanto plants crops with terminator genes, and they contaminate neighboring fields and ruin entire harvests. What can be done there to lessen the effects of money?
Back to the court system itself: As one small part of the issue, I would suggest that judges have too much power over the proceedings. For instance, judges have a large degree of influence over the information that jurors hear. In principle, making certain information and arguments inadmissible is meant to prevent slick, oily lawyers from misleading jurors with hearsay, tricky legal arguments, and potentially tainted evidence. After all, the judge is much more experienced than the jurors. In practice, it leads to a walled garden where the paternalistic/maternalistic judge can keep the stupid rubes safe from information that might be too confusing for their unwashed ears, and where an interested judge can subtly shape the jury's perceptions by force, without a counterbalance. While there are legitimate reasons for these powers, and I would not necessarily advocate abolishing them, I think it would be wise to consider scaling them back to the bare essentials.
Similarly, judges feign too much power over the jurors with their judges' orders as well. This is part of the court system and legal guild's long-standing campaign to undermine jury powers in favor of their own. This needs to stop. The jury should be openly afforded more freedom in rendering a verdict for their own reasons and for sentencing based on their own rationale. I could go on for a long time about this and get much more detailed, and I'm sure the objection to it regards "mayhem and chaos," but that's not particularly what I have in mind. ;) FIJA has it right, and then some.
On one hand, most class action lawsuits are basically excuses for lawyers to get rich "working for" hordes of plaintiffs who don't even know they're involved, whereas the plaintiffs get a few pennies out of the deal. On the other hand, the basic premise behind pooling the resources of many plaintiffs is a powerful one. When it comes to companies like Monsanto, they don't just pick on one or two independent farmers; they screw over a large number of farmers. That's a great use case for a class action lawsuit.
Finally, let's get to the crux of the problem: Lawyers are expensive. Why are lawyers expensive? Lawyers are expensive because the court system has a legal requirement that you must possess a law degree and bar certification (essentially a title of honor and nobility) to practice. (Also, judges have similar requirements, which kind of taints the pool of people who have access to the already excessive powers that judges possess.) This is BULLSHIT, just like all licensing systems. The supply of lawyers is being artificially restricted by coercion in order to benefit the existing legal class, and this also greatly benefits the rich and powerful in court relative to the poor and ordinary. "Oh, but if just anyone could practice law, we'd have fumbling morons holding up the proceedings!" So? They'd lose, and they wouldn't exactly obtain the reputation to keep working as a lawyer and holding up the proceedings for long. "Oh, but if just anyone could practice law, the market would be flooded with low quality lawyers, and the defendants and plaintiffs would suffer!" So? They'd lose, and they wouldn't exactly obtain the reputation to keep working as a lawyer for long. The bottom line: ANYONE should be able to become a lawyer, with or without formal education, and with or without bar certification. The increased competition would drastically level the playing field, and after a while, the market would still be reduced to primarily the decent and better lawyers...except there would be more of them, and they'd have to work for cheaper, and your cousin Jim the mechanic who reads about law as a hobby (and has a secret aptitude for it) would also be able to represent you in court.

In short: Our current situation is the result of a large number of terrible policies. The government has already exercised vast regulatory power for a century, and the number of regulations has dramatically (exponentially?) increased over time. We already have regulation - tons of it - yet Monsanto is still out of control. Maybe "moar regulation" isn't likely to make the situation better? You can argue for "smarter regulation," but that's the same thing as a sparkling pink unicorn that brings you candy on your birthday. So long as we permit regulation, its effectiveness will perpetually spiral downwards. (Meanwhile, the occasional case of Monsanto being regulated in isolation will perpetually trick tunnel-visioned fools into thinking that regulation is a good idea. :rolleyes: ) Instead, we need to look at serious, fundamental reforms...and then we need to look realistically at regulatory power as something that inevitably makes the situation worse, by and large.



If the industry (any industry) was totally free and not regulated, on what basis could you sue beyond any personal losses (say you used one of their products and your own crop was wiped out)?

Well, in that case, wouldn't personal losses be the primary thing you're suing for? However, you should also be suing for court costs, legal fees, lost wages/salary during the preparation for trial and the trial itself, and interest on all damages accrued between the offense and reparation. ;) I may not necessarily believe in "punitive" damages, so to speak, but I think a realistic assessment of damages would take all of the above into account. Actually, I take that back: I do in fact believe in punitive damages when there's a power disparity between parties. When the more powerful bully the weak knowing they're more likely to get away with it (and do get away with it more often), there should be much more serious consequences than when people/organizations of similar strength battle each other. I haven't formalized this or anything, but on a gut feeling, I think it's the right direction to move in.

To return briefly to a specific scenario: Everyone at Monsanto responsible for the patented seed-spraying thing should also be prosecuted for fraud. (Oh, the prosecutors are corrupt? Well, that's what happens when you have a single point of failure. Let everyone press charges, and the grand jury can still sort the wheat from the chaff.)

[Zippyjuan]

Thank you for your detailed responce and for taking the time and thought you put into it.

If you were a farmer today, what would you be suing Monsanto for? If we only relied on the courts to deal with potential harm done by corporations, would that be strong enough to be able to restrain them?

[Mini-Me]

Thank you for your detailed responce and for taking the time and thought you put into it.

If you were a farmer today, what would you be suing Monsanto for? If we only relied on the courts to deal with potential harm done by corporations, would that be strong enough to be able to restrain them?

It honestly depends on what Monsanto has done to me. As much as I can't stand Monsanto, I don't have grounds to sue them until they've actually caused me damages. So far, contaminating small farms with terminator genes (either deliberately or accidentally through cross-pollination) and ruining harvests is only a hypothetical future threat. Nobody can be sued for what they haven't done yet.*

However, if I were a farmer who saw Monsanto's patented GMO crops mysteriously appear in my field, I'd definitely network with other farmers who have had the same thing happen to them. Until Monsanto decided to sue me for patent infringement or intimidate me, it might be too difficult to go for them for fraud, racketeering, or similar, but given the purpose of spraying patented seeds, I'd probably be thinking along those lines. Even before the intimidation, it could be considered some form of vandalism.

Given the way the current court system works today though, it would be difficult to prove even on preponderance of the evidence, unless other farmers joined the lawsuit with me (e.g. class action): As far as I know, it's not really admissible in court to demonstrate trends and patterns involving the defendant/plaintiff(s) as circumstantial evidence, and each case has to be taken individually (except when dealing with something like a class action lawsuit). This, again, is IMO a weakness of the court system that should be rectified. Let's say a man is strongly linked to and suspected of a peculiar type of rape and murder once, twice, three times, and acquitted each time. Then, when a fourth similar trial comes up, and he's also connected to the case, shouldn't the prosecutor be able to mention the previous almost identical allegations and close call trials as circumstantial evidence increasing the likelihood of guilt? I mean, so long as the defense can argue against the notion to their hearts' content, I really think allowing these arguments would be a change for the better, on the whole. After all, the notion of conditional probability is a valid one.

*As I mentioned before though, I wouldn't be averse to a Constitutional Amendment banning terminator genes outright. There is no real benefit from them, unless you consider vendor lock-in a benefit, yet in the extreme case they have the potential to wipe out civilization. While I see only problems coming from general regulatory power invested in a legislature or bureaucracy, I can recognize a truly exceptional special case when I see it. It's not a strictly libertarian stance, and it could be an unnecessary and technically immoral use of force, but I'll wait to live in a strictly libertarian world in peace and prosperity before deciding for sure to take it off the table. ;)

[Mr. Smith]

corporations . no body to incarcerate. no soul to judge.

They are inherently unnatural, anti-human, anti personal liberty creations.

The American war of Independence was just as much about freeing ourselves from English corporations as it was from English government. I don't think a true free market can exist when corporations and governments are one in the same.

We can talk about this or that philosophy all day but the truth is that our government is owned and controlled by big business. Look who's writing all the legislation these days. Corporate lawyers.

Anyway.. good for us. Good for plain old school sugar beets.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Just how cozy are things in our Fascist state?

Monsanto Planting Seeds in the White House March 2009?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-Planting-Seeds-In-by-Asher-Miller-090324-445.html

FDA Website: Meet Michael R. Taylor, J.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods (Formerly of MONSANTO corporation)
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm

http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/documents/image/ucm197472.jpg
Michael R. Taylor was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2010. He is the first individual to hold the position, which was created along with a new Office of Foods in August 2009.
Mr. Taylor is leading FDA efforts to


develop and carry out a prevention-based strategy for food safety
plan for new food safety legislation
ensure that food labels contain clear and accurate information on nutrition

"I am fully committed to working with my FDA colleagues to make the changes necessary to ensure the safety of America’s food supply from farm to table," said Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor again joined Monsanto as Vice President for Public Policy in 1998.