Bart - "the farmer in question" - as in singular? You mean that nice Monsanto have prosecuted just one single farmer who was, like, cauught bang to rights? Kind of a different message on this site:
And Monbiot makes a good case for applying greater skepticism towards the well-funded and sometimes insidious PR methods on behalf of the industry, as against the oft-clumsy messages of the rabid anti-GE brigade:
<blockquote>They've been really responsible about the way the crops have gone through safety assessment./<blockquote>
wtf? I guess they must be just one more poor misunderstood, much-maligned, multinational...:
People are looking again at the role of ace neocon Randy Schneumann, who was for a time this year in the pay of both the Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili and the McCain campaign, where he was a senior foreign policy adviser.
But we're all still agreed that 9/11 was just a guy in cave, right?
Yeah I was moved alright - to throw up.
Having correctly named the (actually global, not just European) view that the US and it's imperial ambitions are as much part of the problem as the solution, he segues nicely into the usual US-centric drivel, naming a range of threats and enemies, all of which the US is supposedly helping to combat.
And at the same time as he tours Israel, propping up the Usrael vote (see the lead World story in the Dom Post).
At the same time as that glorious triumph over communism of the Berlin wall, the US was training and running death squads in South America. Not such a great talking point.
No offence Russell, but if this gives you hope, you're needing that hope pretty bad..
Can we just immediately drop "Right to Life" and "Right to Choose" as polarising BS rhetorical phrases?
There is no universal Right to Life or we'd be morally obliged to fund every drug and mdical intervention and damn the cost.
There is no universal Right to Choose in the sense of universal right over one's own body or there'd be no strip search, imprisonment or compulsory vaccination.
What there is is a continuum of negotiable individiual and social rights and duties of care.
Me, I'm all for the right to abort a multiplying group of cells, both from a mora and a realpolitik PoV. Once that group of cells becomes a recognisably human being, then no rhetoric is going to convince me it doesn't deserve the full protection of the law. Just where that line is... fecked if I know, call in the philosophers.
"I also would like this, just a tree no marker, but the last time I checked it wasn't legal."
Natural burial cemetaries are springing up all over NZ. The Wellington one opened a couple of weeks back, there are others aroud the country and more in process of being setup. Googling Natural Burials or similar will point you in the right drection.
It's common practice at these places to plant a tree, but the grave location is also recorded by GPS (so you can find the right tree aterwards..!).
Personally I find some of the eco-rhetoric a bit OTT and not entirely defensible (I did some calculations against the claim that cremation "used a large amount of energy" for instance, and figured it takes about the same amount of energy (gas or electricity) as about 30 litres of petrol - ie not a helluva lot in the context of how much was burnt en-route to the funeral and on the drive out to the cemetary...). But the idea of becoming tree-food is a nice one.
Apologies for the shameless but highly relevant plug which follows..
I've just designed and am in the process of launching a range of contemporary, eco-friendly coffins. Made of engineered bamboo, there's currently two - an adult version and one specifically for infants (a truly tragic event but not uncommon).
A very cobbled-together holding page here: www.tenderrest.co.nz
Hover over the bambino and nextgen icons and right-click/view image for a better view.
Hover on the contact details ad send me an email if you'd like a brochure with the details.
Or if you're in Wellington, they're on display at Pataka gallery for another few days as part of the Inventor Next Door exhibition.
A friend who conducts commerce investigations was pointing to an Australian case where the colluding parties maintained separate prepay phones for their negotiations, which ripped off people by $10's of millions. Their position was that removal of txt archival removed a valuable retrospective audit/investigative trail and that if the information was properly proitected, ie accessible only by search warrant, then it was not an issue. Fair practical point.
My position is the Heisenbergian one that monitoring people necessarily changes their behaviour, even if they're innocent, therefore unless the information is extremely valuable, the cost is simply too high.
Which is, I guess, a classical liberal/conservative standoff.
Superb, thank you Mr Haywood.
Though I might add you've finally laid to rest my youthful dreams of joining the ranks of engineers by inducing freak-out with a simple F.dx and the expression "mathematical proof". I shall now stick to a strategy of intellectual laziness through entrepeneurship whilst enjoying the fruits of well-trained minds such as yours. :-)
Mind you, "Mount Thermo" does sound a bit intriguing...
Oops, perhaps that should read 'latent' rather than 'potential' - my high school physics class was a long time ago..