Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them. Some one
needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you get 1000 times your
legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms to help.

"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents are. If
its genetically engineered, how is that a patent? How can one patent a
lifeform, good or bad for the humankind? The link kind of said it, profit
is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for it. Lock in their patents,
and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the native
foliage returned in less that 2 months. Also tried, at the same time in
different area of same driveway, recommended dilution similar results.
This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for Monsanto, all is green in the
same treated driveway this spring despite the severe drought.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their own use.
Stop using roundup.
--
Dave

How about a tax to support any military conflict/police action over 3 months
old?

An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.

"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them. Some
one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you get 1000 times
your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate. The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in the face
for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today are typically
ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't care.
--
Dave

Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant to
Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill seed
in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations that
will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the root, but
those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try the one that
kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and if those don't
work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what it
is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed may die
or may just die back to the root depending on the species and how well
established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the spot the weed
occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If it rendered soil
infertile, which it would have to do to prevent the driveway from
being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much use in preparing
fields for planting and every time you used it on a weed in a lawn
there would be a permanent hole in the location the weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that will
displace the weeds.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion undercut
your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you know--they have
bills to pay.

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into various
legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:20:23 -0500, Charlie wrote:


Think Farm Bill and subsidies. Think Cargill, ADM, Monsatano. Think
any bills will get introduced, let alone passed with these criminals
helping run this country, and the world?

We would be better off to follow the advice of one of the founding
fathers.

Care
Charlie


perhaps these?

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant to
Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.
Since 1970.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill seed
in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations that
will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the root, but
those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try the one that
kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and if those don't
work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what it
is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed may die
or may just die back to the root depending on the species and how well
established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the spot the weed
occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If it rendered soil
infertile, which it would have to do to prevent the driveway from
being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much use in preparing
fields for planting and every time you used it on a weed in a lawn
there would be a permanent hole in the location the weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that will
displace the weeds.
Try reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup...logical_impact
Glyphosate and the impurities are just more concerns as our "Body
Burden" of un-natural chemicals increase and we are left wondering just
what their synergistic affect on ourselves and our children are.
http://www.chemicalbodyburden.org/

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion undercut
your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you know--they have
bills to pay.
The market for organic foods is growing dramatically. It is estimated
that organic sales of food products through supermarkets, mass
merchandisers and natural supermarkets was $3.6 billion in 2006 in the
U.S., double the figure in 2000. The Organic Trade Association estimates
that the total organic food and beverage sales were $13.8 billion in
2006 (Mintel Organic Foods, p.1). From 2004 through 2006, sales of
organic food through supermarkets, drug stores and mass merchandisers
(such as Wal-Mart) increased
2
by 38.4 percent (Mintel Organic Foods, p.31). Furthermore, it is
estimated that sales of organic foods will increase by 71 percent from
2006 through 2011. Clearly, organic food has become mainstream. For
example, out of 125 research and development professionals in the food
and beverage industries 61.4 percent desired increased natural or
organic ingredient innovations (Mintel, FPSA, p.33).
http://www.aec.msu.edu/Product/docum...ganicfood1.pdf

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into various
legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
The Revolution will not be Microwaved, p. 47

The Enola bean provides a clear example of biopiracy. In 1999 a U.S.
patent was issued for this bean, which was later proven to be
genetically identical to a preexisting Mexican yellow bean variety, one
that had been previously known and grown in the United States. But
meanwhile, yellow beans were stopped at the border, and the patent owner
filed lawsuits against seed companies providing this seed and farmers
growing this bean in the United States, charging patent infringement.
Following intervention from international agricultural institutions, the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviewed the patent, and after years of
study, in 2005 the patent was rejected. "The real crime is that, despite
the legal challenge, the U.S. patent system has allowed the patent owner
to use bureaucratic delays and diversion to legally extend his exclusive
monopoly on a bean variety of Mexican origin for over six years (and
potentially more)‹that's nearly one-third of the twenty-year patent
term," says ETC Group. "In essence, the system enables holders of unjust
patents to monopolize markets and destroy competition." And despite its
rejection, the Enola patent remains in force pending further appeal.
Plant and seed patents are no longer an issue of sovereign prerogative.
The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades
(1986-1994), in which the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created,
"set a milestone on the road towards the privatization of living
matter," observed the Biotechnology and Development Monitor. "It puts
developing countries under the obligation to protect plant varieties by
patents or by an alternative . . . system."" "The State is under siege,"
says Vandana Shiva. Seed patent laws are being forced on people
everywhere by the WTO. The WTO's 1994 Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) treaty requires new intellectual
property rights in the area of plant genetic resources. "Free trade"
demands it.
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/

In article ,
Rick wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:28:27 -0800, Jan Flora wrote:

Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan


I happen to use several of Monsanto's products to great effect, but they do
tend to get carried away with their patent infringement battles. Still, they
sell a product and people who intentionally steal it ought to expect legal
trouble.
Rick, you must be the last person in the world to hear about the Percy
Schmeiser and Monsanto. I'll tell you the story and at the end you can
tell me how big a crook Percy Schmeiser is.

Part I

www.arkinstitute.com

An ill-wind blew across Percy Schmeiser's land in 1996. Today in his
70s, the third-generation Saskatchewan, Canada, farmer has been growing
and improving his own canola (oil seed) crops for 40 years. Each year,
he would save some of his harvested seed for planting the following
year. Though some farmers in the surrounding area were growing
Monsanto's patented, genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready canola,
Schmeiser was not. He was growing his own, but the wind blew and bees
flew, both apparently carrying grains of GM pollen from neighboring
fields into Schmeiser's crop. Or maybe it was GM seed transported
from surrounding farms that often blew off trucks traveling the roads
adjacent to Schmeiser's land. No matter. Without his knowledge or
consent, errant, patented Monsanto genes had apparently been
incorporated into some of the Schmeiser family's 1997-harvested canola
seed.

In 1998, the farmer planted over a thousand acres of his land with the
seed he had saved from the previous year's crop. A hired Monsanto
investigator analyzed samples of canola plants taken from Percy
Schmeiser's land, and thecompany found evidence of its patented genes in
the plant tissue. When Schmeiser refused to pay Monsanto fees for use
of its patented herbicide resistance technology, technology he neither
bought nor wanted, Monsanto sued him. According to a report on the
trial (www.percyschmeiser.com), Monsanto sought damages for patent
infringement totaling $400,000. This included about $250,000 in legal
fees, $13,500 for technology fees, $25,000 in punitive damages and
$105,000 in the profits Schmeiser realized from sale of his contaminated
1998 crop.

Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser was heard in a Canadian court June 5 - 20,
2000. According to reports, Monsanto never directly tried to explain
how their genes got into Schmeiser's field. In fact, the Western
Producer, a Canadian agriculture magazine, quoted Monsanto attorney,
Roger Hughes, as saying, "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or
not matters not at all." In other words, Schmeiser's fields were
contaminated by Monsanto's GM technology, and it didn't matter if
Schmeiser was aware of the contamination or not. They were
going to make him pay for it! Percy Schmeiser said, "It was a very
frightening thing because they said it does not matter how it gets into
a farmer's field; it's their property... if I would go to St. Louis
(Monsanto headquarters) and contaminate their plots--destroy what they
have worked on for 40 years--I think I would be put in jail and the key
thrown away."

On March 29, 2001, nearly three years since the contaminated canola was
discovered in Schmeiser's field, Canadian Judge W. Andrew MacKay agreed
with Monsanto that it did not matter how its genes got onto Percy
Schmeiser's fields; the farmer was still guilty of having them without
having paid for the privilege. (You can read the entire decision at
http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca ). Sadly, as part of the damages, the farmer
also lost 40 years of work improving his own canola seed line, as his
crop was confiscated.

As you might imagine, the decision has had a chilling effect on farmers
here and around the world. The Washington Post reported that a National
Farmers Union spokesman said the organization has been following the
Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case "...with apprehension. We're extremely
concerned by what liabilities may unfold for the farmer, particularly
with cross-pollination of genetically modified plants."
The National Farmers Union represents 300,000 U.S. farmers and ranchers.
Monsanto has filed hundreds of similar patent infringement lawsuits
against farmers in the U.S. and Canada. Some of those farmers in North
Dakota and Illinois are counter-suing the company for deliberately
causing genetic pollution and then suing its victims. Win or lose, many
face financial ruin from the court battles alone.

The Percy Schmeiser case, and others ongoing and to come, do not bode
well for farmers, or even backyard gardeners, here or abroad. The idea
that individuals can be held legally and financially responsible for the
fate of patented pollen and seed blown by the wind or carried by insects
in open field conditions is simply absurd.

Part II
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/RRCanola%20Returns.htm

He is as persistent as the Roundup Ready canola that keeps appearing in
his fields. Percy Schmeiser is back in the news, threatening to file a
lawsuit against his nemesis, Monsanto Canada.

The Bruno, Sask., farmer, who lost a high-profile legal battle against
the biotech company that made it to the Supreme Court of Canada, is
butting heads with Monsanto again over Roundup Ready plants on his land.
Schmeiser, who is prohibited by the courts from growing Monsanto's
genetically modified canola, contacted the firm in late September about
volunteer plants that he said had invaded his 50-acre, chemical-fallow
field.

"It's almost identical to how my field was contaminated in 1998," said
the farmer, who travels the world speaking about his fight with Monsanto.

According to the 2004 Supreme Court ruling, 95 to 98 percent of the
1,000 acres of canola Schmeiser grew in 1998 comprised Roundup Ready
plants he knowingly cultivated. Schmeiser, who has never admitted to
planting brown bag seed despite being found guilty by three different
courts of violating Monsanto's patent, claimed this latest incident
parallels what happened seven years ago.
----------

Percy won the latest contest with Monsanto only because he took it to
small claims court. If he had sued for appropriate damages and went to a
jury trial, Monsanto would have skinned him on legal fees alone.

Monsanto's product ruined Mr. Schmeiser's 1998 crop. A thousand acres of
soy beans. It was never shown that Mr. Schmeiser intentionally planted
Monsanto's seeds but it was shown that it was his habit to save seeds to
plant for the following year's crop.

So, Rick, in your estimation, how guilty is Mr. Schmeiser?



I do know that if ones fields are "contaminated" with Monsanto GM crops, one
can charge Monsanto for their removal- at least in Canada!
Small Farmer Wins Moral Victory Over Monsanto
http://www.naturalnews.com/022918.html

One has to stay within the realm of small claims court to win these
pyrrhic victories.
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--

Your kidding, right? Just in case your not:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=896

Karl Rove
In a 1997 deposition, Rove testified that he worked as a Philip Morris
consultant from 1991 to 1996, taking about $175,000 in fees. He said
that Bush was aware of his Philip Morris ties beginning in 1993.

Rove admitted in his 1997 deposition that he steered Bush toward pushing
the tort reform issue as a central prong in his campaigns, though Rove
denied ever misusing his ties to the governor to advance the interests
of Philip Morris. Bush did deliver a major rollback in victims' legal
rights -- highlighted in his presidential campaign -- to the benefit of
Philip Morris.

CAFE Standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy

Cars and light trucks are considered separately for CAFE and are held to
different standards. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed
27.5 mpg, and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under
8500 pounds must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5
mpg in 2010. After this, new rules set varying targets based on truck
size "footprint."

In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than
30 years. On December 19, President Bush signed into law the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires in part that
automakers boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg by the year 2020. This
requirement applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light
trucks." Politicians had faced increased public pressure to raise CAFE
standards; a July 2007 poll conducted in seven states revealed 84-90% in
favor of legislating mandatory increases.[19]
-------

I bought a Nissan Sentra in 1990 that got 40 mpg. What is the problem?
--

Billy

Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/

So in time the wind will polinate all seed with this gene and Monasato will
own all the seed.

I wonder if this is what is killing the bee's?

In article , Charlie says...
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:37:48 -0700, "aluckyguess" wrote:

I wonder if this is what is killing the bee's?


I believe it is one of several contributing factors.

The underlying cause is as old as mankind........greed.

Well said.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"aluckyguess" wrote in message
...
All farmers need to ban together and never buy anything from them.
Some one needs to pass a law that if you are falsely accused you
get
1000 times your legal fees. Then tere would be plenty of big firms
to help.


Someone. Who? Big corps own Congress and the Senate.

And this is why more and more restrictions get placed on tobacco
companies and automobile manufacturers and the like? Because they
_love_ being regulated?

The delegation
system used as part of voting is the thing of the past. A slap in
the face for the typical voter of today. Yet, the lemmings of today
are typically ignorant of this. And, if they are aware, don't
care.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Well, sorta. Laws get passed, the corps "find" legal loopholes for the laws
they permitted Congress to pass. Too much limelight for tobacco and
automobiles. But, they are still dragging their feet regarding gas mileage
requirements. Early Honda Civics (underpowered I admit) were getting real
50 mpg highway.
--
Dave

An actual war, we can do what's been done in the past.
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Dioclese wrote:
"Jan Flora" wrote in message
...
Billy, Charlie, Everyone --

Go read this:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...monsanto200805

Jan

Specifically, I would like to know exactly what Monsanto's patents
are. If its genetically engineered, how is that a patent?

It's not that it's genetically engineered, it's that it's resistant to
Roundup or produces BT toxin or whatever.

How can
one patent a lifeform, good or bad for the humankind?

By going down to the patent office and filing a form.

The link kind
of said it, profit is the goal. If the law allows it, they go for
it. Lock in their patents, and attack those who don't adhere.
Mother nature, here in S. TX ain't adhering either. Sprayed half
the
dilution recommended roundup on a roadbase driveway in full sun, the
native foliage returned in less that 2 months.

Same plants or new ones from seed? Ordinary Roundup doesn't kill seed
in the soil and it doesn't kill roots. They have formulations that
will control weeds for up to 4 months and that will kill the root, but
those features aren't in the "normal" formulation. Try the one that
kills roots and the one that is good for 4 months and if those don't
work, _then_ complain.

Also tried, at the
same time in different area of same driveway, recommended dilution
similar results. This, despite TX summer heat. Worse yet, for
Monsanto, all is green in the same treated driveway this spring
despite the severe drought.

What makes you think that Roundup is supposed to prevent this? It
doesn't permantly render soil infertile you know. Seems to me that
you didn't bother to read the label on the product to find out what it
is and is not supposed to do. You spray it on a weed the weed may die
or may just die back to the root depending on the species and how well
established it is. Anything that tries to grow in the spot the weed
occupied, including another weed, will grow fine. If it rendered soil
infertile, which it would have to do to prevent the driveway from
being "green this spring", then it wouldn't be much use in preparing
fields for planting and every time you used it on a weed in a lawn
there would be a permanent hole in the location the weed had occupied.

Next time, after you use the Roundup, try planting something that will
displace the weeds.

The solution for these locked-in farmers is simple, get seed from a
different source. Grow seed bearing crop intentionally for their
own
use. Stop using roundup.

Stop making money as farmers who don't follow your suggestion undercut
your prices. Farmers aren't in business for fun you know--they have
bills to pay.

Somebody needs to toss some Monsanto soybeans or whatever into various
legislators' flowerbeds and then sic Monsanto on 'em.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



Would hardly classify Roundup as a true herbicide. Rather, a renewablely
needed product to temporarily eradicate most foliage. Otherwise known as a
racket, gimmick. But, only a Monsanto stock holder would do a reply as
yours.
--
Dave