Friday, November 20, 2015

Musings: Reframing the Debate

With yesterday's approval of the fast-growing AquAdvantage salmon — the first genetically-engineered animal for human consumption — the door has opened for other GE livestock to enter the market.

And that means anti-GMO groups, which like to portray themselves as both green and kind, will be forced to reconcile their opposition with projects that have clear animal welfare and environmental benefits.

Because it's not just about Monsanto and RoundUp Ready corn any more. It's about livestock developed by public institutions — as opposed to easily-vilified chemical corporations — with traits that are hard to hate.

Like cows born that are born hornless, eliminating the de-horning process that both dairy farmers and animal activists hate. Cattle resistant to sleeping sickness, a disease that kills some 3 million animals annually in Africa, and requires large doses of drugs to cure. Poultry resistant to avian flu, which wiped out millions of chickens and turkeys in the U.S. this year. Pigs that can produce enough milk to successfully nurse their full litter, reducing piglet mortality. Cows and pigs that more efficiently utilize feed, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions and frees up land for other purposes.

As these “public good” projects start coming forward, the biotech debate will necessarily be reframed. Is it any wonder that the anti-GMO groups are desperate to stop them? They don't want to lose their cash cow — the fear-mongering, anti-corporate campaigns that keep donations flowing to their coffers.

Center for Food Safety and Food and Water Watch wasted no time in soliciting donations to wage a legal battle against the FDA, which approved the salmon after a 20-year review that cost AquaBounty some $80 million.

Heck, even Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has taken a few tips from her pals at Center for Food Safety, adopting the group's strategy of creating and exploiting fears about GMOs as a fundraising tool. In an email sent to constituents this week, Tulsi ominously warns:

huge agribusiness corporations hide their use of GMOs and keep consumers in the dark about what’s in their food.

It was followed by the big red CONTRIBUTE button to “Help Tulsi Win.”

Anti-GMO groups like Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety can win even when they lose if they sue federal agencies, because they can recover legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

In one case, Earthjustice successfully argued that it obtained "excellent results" — despite failing to secure the permanent injunctive relief it sought — and was therefore entitled to a "fully compensable fee." According to court documents, Earthjustice has submitted bills that included time spent on spent on clerical tasks, public relations, press releases, soliciting clients and other matters unrelated to litigation.

In some cases, legal fees in excess of $2 million have been awarded. 

If they file in expensive places like the San Francisco Bay Area, they get to charge fees that are the going rate for that market. Earthjustice's Achitoff, for example, gets to charge $400 an hour more in the Bay Area than he does in Hawaii. 

In one case, Earthjustice and CFS sought these “enhanced” hourly rates for counsel: Paul Achitoff, $650; Andrew Kimbrell, $650; Will Rostov, $575; Isaac Moriwake, $525; Greg Loarie, $450; George Kimbrell, $410; Kevin Golden, $410; Paige Tomaselli, $385; Kateryna Rakowsky, $350; and law clerks, $150. 

And we'll never know just how much these supposed nonprofits bring in from public donations to these legal campaigns, because they don't have to disclose.

Though it's generally accepted that corporations should be required to disclose everything, it's apparently OK to keep consumers and taxpayers in the dark about how much self-serving opposition is actually costing them in terms of higher food prices and government expenses.

65 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Anti-GMO groups like Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety can win even when they lose if they sue federal agencies, because they can recover legal fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act."

Here is what Joan forgot to mention --
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes the payment of attorney's fees to a prevailing party in an action against the United States absent a showing by the government that its position in the underlying litigation "was substantially justified." 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(1)(A). Section 2412(d)(1)(B)

Joan Conrow said...

And what 8:41 forgot to mention is:

“Substantially justified” does not mean “justified to a high degree,” but rather has been said to be satisfied if there is a “genuine dispute,” or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.

Anonymous said...

and here is what 8:45 forgot to mention:
at the EAJA stage, the test is “whether the agency had a rational ground for thinking it had a rational ground for its action.” Kolman, 39 F.3d at 177. and

the Supreme Court unanimously held that an EAJA award is payable to the litigant, not his or her attorney, and is subject to offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes to the United States.

Spin, spin, spin Joan but it is the law.

Anonymous said...

Joan -- Anti-GMO groups like Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety can win even when they lose if they sue federal agencies

False as 8:41 noted the party must prevail and that means win.

Anonymous said...

Joan "It's about livestock developed by public institutions" Joan forgot to mention "for private profit"

Anonymous said...

This scam is well known in the legal community. Recently produced emails, sought by congress for five years, show that thru a variety of fictitious accounts, Federal agencies would invite a law suit to get around the need for passing a regulation or law. And then play dead. The NGO would get ridiculous attorney fees, the Fed personnel jobs, and the Democrats campaign contributions.

Anonymous said...

Joan is censoring anon comments she simple disagrees with. I have proof. I have been taking screenshots of my anon comments and now have quite a few collected. She is only letting anons that support her to be published or anons that look foolish that oppose her. She has ceased being a journalist. She is no longer credible. proof forthcoming in another venue soon.

Anonymous said...

Joan "Though it's generally accepted that corporations should be required to disclose everything,"

Is that why GMO products are required to be labeled here in the USA? Is that why the Cornell Alliance for Science is opposed to disclosure?

Joan Conrow said...


9:35. I have no problem publishing comments in which people disagree with me. But I am under no obligation to print anonymous comments that snipe at or attack me personally. I don't know where you got the idea you're entitled to have all your comments posted on my personal blog because you aren't. And I'm sorry, but a disgruntled anonymous commenter does not get to determine whether I'm credible or a journalist. Whine on.

8:50. The litigants are groups aligned with EJ and CFS and though the law awards the fees to them they can turn right around and give them back to EJ and CFS. And as I noted, they can recover fees for some results, even if they fail to prevail on all counts. I'm not arguing it's the law. It's the manipulation -- spinning the intent of the law, to borrow your term -- that bothers me.

ReplyDelete

Joan Conrow said...

9:38. It's generally accepted among activist groups that corporations should be required to disclose though they can remain opaque.

And you are broadly and intentionally misrepresenting the position of the Alliance.

Manuahi said...

As referee, I determine that Joan won; the whiners lost. Good show, Joan!

Anonymous said...

"which wiped out millions of chickens and turkeys in the U.S. this year"

Do you have nay idea of the conditions that big AG had those poor chickens living in?
Preventing animal death, in current factory farm conditions, increases suffering.

Anonymous said...

9:38. It's generally accepted among activist groups that corporations should be required to disclose though they can remain opaque.

But you did not say "among activist (sic) groups" you said "generally accepted". Is point this out "attacking you personally" so it will not get printed? And no I am not intentionally misrepresenting the alliance. This doublespeak is taken directly from the Alliance for Science Petition:

"The Freedom of Information Act is essential for a healthy democracy, but this request is not in the public interest. This request is clearly a witch-hunt by an anti-science organization with the goal of chilling academic discourse."

So the target of a FOIA gets to determine whats in the public interest? What' s next how great "voluntary disclosure" works.

Anonymous said...

These Anti's are like those whining college students who need their own "safe places" and feel they've been hurt by free speech. Yes, the Left is getting good at attempting to curb guaranteed Constitutional rights. they whine so much are such "victims" that the ivory tower folks give in just to shut them up. Wa, wa, wa....

Anonymous said...

9:35 Censorship- I see many comments that are not complimentary to Ms. Conrow.
She prints all of my inane and nasty posts.
The power is in the pen. Joan has a responsibility. Her blog, which many hate, others love to hate, others have fun with and most read to get a f*cking idea on what is going on on the island.
Joan Conrow is a fine writer. Over the decades several miscreants, right wingers, left wingers, capitalists and unicorn loving, hemp smoking alarmists have tried to get a popular news force going. All have failed. Now Ms Joan in her demure, but forthright fashion has created a beast. KE is a true beast.
Most people who are mentioned in this Blog or in the comments will get more free advertising than if they took out an ad in the GI or KONG. Joan ought to do an under the table ad campiagn. Pay her the big bucks and get a byline.
Somehow Joan the former darling of the left wing nutjobs and now the pinpoint of hate by the Fistees has through fine writing and linkage to what's up on Kauai has developed a following.
Everyone reads it. Da Hoos promises himself "don't read Conrow, oh no don't read Conrow" but he knows he must. This goes for all of the Council.
Anyway 9:35, perhaps through your litigious deviousness you could get a lawsuit to determine what the readership of KE is and force Joan to post all comments.
Why should one person cause so much disruption?
After all she is using the public space to transmit the information.

Anonymous said...

November 20, 2015 at 9:35 AM You string simple sentences together like a lei of turdmuffins. No wonder Joan doesn't publish your work; it would be really, really boring.Thank goodness proof will be forthcoming on another venue so we here are not afflicted by it.

Anonymous said...

I've been working closely with big corporations and environmental groups in Hawaii for many decades. Guess what! It's not the corporations who are the liars. Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety are two of the worst offenders.

Anonymous said...

That's right, 2:26 PM. The corporations don't need to lie. If there's something they don't want out for whatever reason, they just don't say anything. But the Anti's, like the two notorious ones you mentioned, MUST lie because they have no case for their allegations. Nothing! So they must INVENT (or parrot other's who INVENT) their assertions because they have no facts on which to base their venom. It's time for the intelligent Anti's [Are there any??? Oh, ya, liars can be intelligent.] to clear their brains of the misinformation and do some serious research from trustworthy sources. But then, they probably won't because they to a person believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be PAID OFF! That's their answer for EVERYTHING.

Anonymous said...

"..In one case, Earthjustice and CFS sought these “enhanced” hourly rates for counsel: Paul Achitoff, $650; Andrew Kimbrell, $650; Will Rostov, $575; Isaac Moriwake, $525; Greg Loarie, $450; George Kimbrell, $410; Kevin Golden, $410; Paige Tomaselli, $385; Kateryna Rakowsky, $350; and law clerks, $150. "
Joan, don't grumble just 'cause you chose the wrong career!

Dawson said...

9:45 AM wrote:
Joan, don't grumble just 'cause you chose the wrong career!

Gotta love it when a guy misses the point even when it zooms over his head so close that it gives him a buzzcut.

Anonymous said...

Yes! I agree that corporations rule and public interest lawyers suck! Let's hear it for the 1% and the other 50% of us who stupidly believe in the American Dream of achieving 1# status! The rest of you guys are all losers who are chasing dreams and fantasies of changing the world.

Anonymous said...

To 9:45 AM:
Who knew that professional lying paid so well!

It never occurred to me while I was in law school that working for an environmental "non-profit" could be that lucrative, and sleazy.

Anonymous said...

8:42 - It's time for the intelligent Anti's [Are there any???

Joan would not allow an intelligent anti onto this site. She can beat the legions of dummies up pretty good or she will just pretend to be a stupid anon and beat herself up. If she made people identify themselves her game would be up and comments would drop to near zero. Corporations and their front groups like Alliance for Science hire former journo like her to create social media and anon sock puppets to argue with. It is like live-studio wrestling FAKE!

Joan Conrow said...

Congratulations, 2:24! You got on the site! And you're definitely an anti. So does that make you a dummy or an anonymous sock puppet or, more likely, just another dumb anonymous sock puppet blathering to itself?

Anonymous said...

Joan, you never fail to make my day. Thanks.
Signed,
Anonymous, but real

Anonymous said...

9:35 - I have submitted many anon comments that are in strong disagreement with the author's blog and she has printed at least 90% of them, probably because they were reasonable and never personal. I doubt that would happen with the majority of bloggers.

Anonymous said...

It grows bigger, faster.
Just like Americans.
I won't be ordering Salmon anymore.

Anonymous said...

The salmon do not grow bigger. They reach adult size sooner, saving environmental impact.

Anonymous said...

the female salmon will be sterile----is there any ramification for humans if that can be done to the salmon? How does the sterilization happen---what do they use/do to create the sterilization? Kinda scary to me! Anyway, one will choose to consume it or not to---human beings have free will, isn't that a good thing!

Anonymous said...

Just another way big corporations want to control food and its supplies.

Genetically engineered 'Frankenfish' salmon wins FDA approval
By Debra Goldschmidt, CNN

Because there is no difference, the company is not required to identify its salmon as genetically modified with a label or in any other way. (The FDA did publish draft guidance for companies that want to voluntarily label their foods as genetically engineered.)

What happened to consumer rights and the right to know?

I won't be eating no frankenfish and for that reason salmon is off the table for me.

Anonymous said...

"I won't be eating no frankenfish and for that reason salmon is off the table for me."

Nobody cares what you want to eat. Be grateful you have choices.

Anonymous said...

"I won't be eating no frankenfish..."
Is a double negative way too negative or is it just bad grammar?

Anonymous said...

No but people care about what they eat.

So eat on young Frankenstein.

when you and your family develop cancers, nobody will care about you and your family.

Anonymous said...

It's called southern grammah and for you people who think u all so smut it's called the middle fingah.

you are institutionalize just like your GMO salmon.

Anonymous said...

Capitalism:

Create a disease and already have a cure for it = $double dipping$. Just like how them computer virus and anti virus software's are developed and sold.

Soon GMO fish will be the norm and fishermen will be out if business because their fish eggs will be integrated with GMO fish eggs. Cows and chicken will be next and on and on and on until they conquer the world.

It's very dangerous to have just a few select corporations to have total control of the worlds food supply.

Joan Conrow said...

3:20. I'd say it's equally if not more dangerous to have seriously ignorant people weighing in on a debate when they obviously don't have a clue.

Anonymous said...

It's fair to say, KE has had more than its fair share of the cerebrally challenged lately. You have to wonder about their capacity to read labels full of multi-syllabic words if they were provided. It would be nice if they departed to nibble their organic kale without burdening the rest of us with their food preferences. Who really gives a rat's ass what they want to eat. They can grow it themselves.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody cares what you want to eat. Be grateful you have choices."

Its not really a choice without labeling.

Anonymous said...

We've collectively overfished and depleted the ocean's fisheries, enough of fish already if you care about fish or future generations ability to even see real fish. The worst offenders are the tuna eaters, top of the food chain is what they they are - and selfish and/or ignorant people still eat tuna. Try look it up and do some critical reading and see what kind of activist you really might be.

Better yet, do a critical read of activism and ngo's and see what they have morphed into, or even how effective they've been overall in places like Africa and Haiti where they've congregated mightily for decades...

Easiest thing in the world to do is eat healthy unless you are really on a budget and can only afford fast food outlets. Blame our government for fast food subsidies by pandering politicians for those underwritten by us taxpayers MacMeals. Most commenters here are not in that bracket and can eat great fresh, nutritious food. Educate yourself and vote, not that its done most of us any good as campaign finance reform is still as far away as it was when Clinton and then Obama were elected on that as their primary issue.

Anonymous said...

4:51pm

My choice is labeled in a big Green organic label that tells me it's been certified organic or not what more do you want?

Anonymous said...

Monsanto Sues Farmers for 16 Straight Years over GMOs, NEVER Loses

Where is the justice? Since 1997, Monsanto has filed 145 lawsuits, or on average about 9 lawsuits every year for 16 straight years, against farmers who have “improperly reused their patented seeds.”

The biotech giant hasn’t lost a single case, either. Not one. This includes when farmers tried to sue Monsanto over cross-pollination of their organic crops with GMO seed. For example, a federal court dismissed one of those cases, saying that it couldn’t protect Monsanto against unfair lawsuits should they side in the farmers’ favor.

What about unfair business practices? What about 92% of people saying they want their food labeled if it contains genetically modified ingredients? What about the right of farmers to grow food from seed that hasn’t been altered to turn it into a DNA freak show?

The lawsuit representing over 300,000 farmers who wanted the right to grow organic food was also dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs had been sued by Monsanto! The judge said the farmers’ reasons for suing the biotech giant were ‘unsubstantiated.’ When Monsanto released a statement to the press, they said the plaintiffs had:

If these facts are representative of a country that has utterly lost its governing bodies to thieves and murderers, then I don’t know what it will take to recover our food supply.

Monsanto was given a foot in the door back in 1930 with the Plant Patent Act. Patents – whether on new plants or biotech traits – allow the creator of the technology the opportunity to commercialize their innovation and to obtain a return on their investment of time and money.

And while plant patents aren’t all bad, Monsanto and biotech have turned Mother Nature on her head. Seed patents to this extent should never have been allowed to happen. Monsanto isn’t even protecting their ‘intellectual’ property any more, they are grossly infringing on farmers’ rights to grow good food.

Our courts are even telling organic farmers they have to rely on Monsanto’s assurances on the company’s website that it will not sue them so long as the mix of GMO to non-GMO is very slight, but what if they don’t want a mix at all? Monsanto can’t control wind, rain, pollinating insects, and cross-contamination carried out by nature for neighboring farms.

All Monsanto politicians and Supreme Court justices need to fired – immediately. They are no longer ‘for the people’, if they ever were.



Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-sued-farmers-16-years-gmos-never-lost/#ixzz3sIgwLYFq
Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook





Anonymous said...

Hey, if you don't want to eat genetically enhanced salmon, just don't eat farmed fish. It's not that hard to do. Meanwhile, as wild fish populations shrink, creating the best farmed fish we can is about the only option. Anyone else remember when tilapia were considered junk and useful only as bait? Now they show up in gourmet shops. And increasingly come from fish farms.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps comments posted after the cocktail hour(s) like 10:15PM's shouldn't be posted. Had 10:15 read any of the cases complained about, especially the Schmeiser and Bowman anti-Monsanto "poster child" cases, that asinine and pointless diatribe might never have been written. On the other side of 10:15's equation are the estimated 90% of corn, canola and soy farms planting GE seeds- for which they signed use agreements to plant the seeds. Justice is too precious to be left to a mob of dingbats, and politicians are elected. Elections, however, are open to dingbats They even win sometimes, but fortunately rarely meet the qualifications for appointment to the bench.Thank goodness for the separation of powers.

Read more: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do

Anonymous said...

Isn't salmon to Native Americans like taro to the Hawaiian people?

Anonymous said...

so i agree with the comments that say gmos want to control the worlds food supply and gmo everything i put in my mouth hire people to write stuff about how great gmo is and how dumb anyone who doesn't want to eat gmos and is trying to shut down all resistance to them and how is this good for me again and what evidence in this blog does anyone have that anything i wrote is wrong i have not heard a single thing that can debunk it ever show me facts is not true

Joan Conrow said...

I don't dispute that salmon are important to Native American cultures. But salmon is not like kalo, in terms of the Hawaiian creation myth that holds the first kanaka descended from Haloa, a kalo plant.

Anonymous said...

but can you answer the rest what about trying to gmo every food that we eat and take over the worlds food supply and btw i meant it the other way i see what ur saying but come on everyone knows that lots of ppl that prefer a healthier diet and organic food ie non gmo eat salmon as an alternative to gmp fed beef and chicken and ahnother thing you can farm tilhahphia and salmon jhuhst fine without it being gmo labeling for salmon raised this way that has been genetically artificially altered with or without different species and or genetic material should be disclosed completely through the entire manufacturing chain i still say gmo companies are after the healthy natural food spectrum chasing down each food as people scramble to try and eat ingrehdients that have not yet been gmo there are plans to gmo sweet potato kale leafy dark greens quinwa flax seed and even coconuts and bananas avocadoes and nuts used for making gluten free flours and plants used in making palm oil and also plans to gmo the olives used for making olive oil and hemp as well these items are all important to the healthy natural food movement and gmos are systematically going after each one they wont stop until there is not a nut fruit seed vegetable grain or animal thes companies have not gmo and this is what i object to the taking over of all food and agriculture and seeds on the planet copyrighting all plant and animal life on the planet and using their billions of dollars to crush any dissent against them by suing regular people farmers towns business and states and even countries that dare to stand up to them. convince me this isn't happening because i truly want to b shown facts data and statements from the owners of these places that it isn't i really really do because if all of this is really what the plan is we are all in very deep kimchee sugar vinegar chilies and cabbage all gmo is this pono i don't think so

Anonymous said...

1:58 - I'd say you're the one who has to prove your outrageous allegations of a great conspiracy to control the world's food supply. And try to cite websites other than your chemtrail GMO bullshit conspiracy cites. Ahhh...but you can't. Because it's bullshit!

Anonymous said...

6:19 You want proof? These guys are trying to grab everything and fleece poor farmers the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) right here. Read and weep http://www.isaaa.org/inbrief/default.asp

Mark said...

I'm torn. I really admire Joan's reporting. She once interviewed me for an hour, took the slightest of notes but gave me her full attention, and produced an article on my work that amazed me in its thoroughness and accuracy in relating the exchange we had. She is a remarkable listener and a talented and worthy writer-- a rarity in the Kaua`i media. I appreciate that she vets the comments, sparing us from the thoughtless drivel people are so want to spew out without nearly as much thought to their ideas and content as they put into finding the letters they touch on their devices. I like that she allows the comments of the writer who is so arrogant as to feel he or she does not need any of the conventions of grammar that allow for clear communication to hinder his/her free flow of "thought." But I want her to silence that arrogant ignorance as much as I love that she displays it.

Anonymous said...

actually, salmon is not just "important" to native american cultures. on the contrary, salmon is an integral part of several northern california tribes' sacred rituals, religious, and spiritual world view (please see Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, and Karuk - World Renewal Ceremony). if you are ever in Arcata, California, visit the "Potawot Health Clinic" where you can see an amazing painting/mural depicting this. or even better yet, plan a trip to witness the ceremony itself. thank you for your time Joan!

Anonymous said...

6.15 Where is your proof that there are plans to "GMO" all these foods you name?

Anonymous said...

Sorry 6:43 PM but that link does say anything about controlling the world's food supplies. Maybe it does to the paranoid mind, but not the normal ones.

Anonymous said...

My goodness! You mean the organic food industry isn't honest???

Star-Adv 11/23/15:

"The ERS was also just appointed lead plaintiff in a case against Whole Foods, and the pension fund will soon file an amended complaint against the the grocery retailer, Aburano said.

An initial lawsuit filed against Whole Foods in Texas alleges the company violated securities laws by concealing that it was overcharging customers. When those allegations surfaced, the controversy reduced both retail sales and the share price of the company, according to the Texas case. Whole Foods executives have denied the allegations."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Sorry 6:43 PM but that link does say anything about controlling the world's food supplies. Maybe it does to the paranoid mind, but not the normal ones.

Yes it does say something about controlling the worlds food supply, if by control you mean charging for food. ISAAA says "by facilitating the transfer of technologies to developing countries through public-private partnerships, ISAAA has established its role and contribution in world efforts to help achieve agricultural sustainability and development."

By this ISAAA mean using public educational institutions to acquire and privatize patents and then sell them back at a profit to the public which is now paying for them twice and forever. Slick dez public sector buggas!

Anonymous said...

9:11 AM - You're reading stuff into those statements that isn't there. Are you complaining that people have OPTIONS to buy the organic seed they've been using for decades and suffering from drought, insects, and disease OR paying a little more and getting seeds that will survive and yield healthy crops/produce. Like Joan said, I guess the Left has forgotten what LIBERAL means. It's becoming FACIST by attempting to force people to only make the choices the LEFT, in their infinite wisdom, permits these people to make. I guess the far Right is correct in that they've been warning for years that the Left is no longer about liberty, but all about socialism and fascism. The Nazi Left! Who knew? The Right certainly did!

Anonymous said...

PS - 9:11 AM complained about "charging for food". You mean food has been FREE all this time? Shoots! I'm going over to Whole Foods right now to demand the free food you're talking about!!! Mahalo for the heads up! Or will the Center for Food Safety be handing it out?

Anonymous said...

I eat gmo and I see nothing wrong with labeling food. People have the right to know what they eat.

Anonymous said...

6:48 and 4:53 These corporations knowingly and with lack of due diligence allow their non-sentient agents (GMOs) to trespass onto non-GMO farmer's lands and then sue the farmers for theft of patented seeds because they didn't pay for the seeds. Labeling food allows people to make informed choices. Labeling does not force anyone. Joan has made her anti-democratic views quite clear. She would not allow people she deems uninformed to participate in the debate. They tried that in the racists states with literacy tests to prevent people from voting. People that would limit democratic choice are the fascists, not those advocating expanding choices. Lets not let people know what we are doing, contaminate their crops, and lie about spying on them. Yeah that's the ticket!

Joan Conrow said...

6:15. If you want to state your opinion, fine. But don't misstate mine.

Anonymous said...

6:15. If you want to state your opinion, fine. But don't misstate mine.
8:44 - Here is your exact quote : "Joan Conrow said...
3:20. I'd say it's equally if not more dangerous to have seriously ignorant people weighing in on a debate when they obviously don't have a clue." and that was in response to this "It's very dangerous to have just a few select corporations to have total control of the worlds food supply."

Am I misstating your opinion when I say you think ignorant people weighing in (like voting for example) is "more dangerous" than having a few select corporations have total control over the food supply? If so how am I misstating your opinion and what do you mean?

Joan Conrow said...

You were misstating my opinion when you said, " Joan has made her anti-democratic views quite clear. She would not allow people she deems uninformed to participate in the debate." And yes, you are again misstating my view when you say, "like voting, for example." I have never said anything about restricting anyone's voting rights.

Anonymous said...

10:27

It's perfectly consistent to feel that ignorant people weighing in is dangerous and also support democratic principles.

Your assumption is apparently that the only answer to ignorant people participating is to remove those people from the debate (which, of course, would be anti-democratic).

A democratically-inclined person would, instead, assume that the best response would be to educate and remove the ignorance from the debate, simultaneously improving the quality of discourse and further empowering the participants.

Lest you also assume that education equates to handing One True Answer down from on high, please note that education is not the same as advocacy. A clear view of all facts does not mean that the debate is automatically resolved. Facts, after all, do not dictate the personal and cultural values by which each person weighs their position relative to any given issue.

On the other hand, deliberately spreading misinformation--even if doing so while encouraging participation--is anathema to democracy, and such behavior is ethically reprehensible to supporters of democracy, as misinforming an individual is an attempt to effectively disenfranchise them.

Anonymous said...

talking about the star tulsi gabbard. here's a person who won her seat through the hard work of democrats across Hawaii. what does one say about a person who turns her back on the party that got her elected including her trashy comments about the president of this country? disloyal, self serving, untrustworthy, unworthy, are the kindest terms one can use for a double crosser like tulsi.

Anonymous said...

talking about the star tulsi gabbard. here's a person who won her seat through the hard work of democrats across Hawaii. what does one say about a person who turns her back on the party that got her elected including her trashy comments about the president of this country? disloyal, self serving, untrustworthy, unworthy, are the kindest terms one can use for a double crosser like tulsi.