The very first article I read about HR933 explained the
legal language and explained how “The Right” is getting a good laugh out of the
“The Liberal” reaction. I can’t find that article now because it is buried in
what I think is an over-reaction. Before you take a side on this one, do some
research.
Fueled by sites like “Infowars” and “NaturalNews”, fear
mongering is rampant over the Farmer Assurance Protection Act. It has been labeled
the “Monsanto Protection Act” and claims are everywhere of how it “slipped
through”. I’m 5 pages into Google and can’t find one article that is not
inflammatory. It seems to be the worst kept secret in Washington. Even sports fans in Arizona have noticed it.
If you want to give in to the fear, here are 5 TERRIFYINGfacts. Fact 1 is just unsubstantiated claims and the rest are how
government currently works. We should be changing how government works, but
screaming about this bill is not going to accomplish that.
If you haven’t seen the Act, here’s a simple summary, “What
it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you
get to harvest it,” Blunt told Politico. “But it is only a one-year protection
in that bill.”
My biggest problem with this is those who are against it are
assuming that farmers are stupid. They assume, and sometimes say it outright,
that farmers are slaves to Monsanto. Not so. Farmers are running a business.
They can choose their suppliers. If they suspect a product is going to be
difficult to market, they aren’t going to plant it. This provision says that one
judge can’t stop a farmer from cultivating the food that they planted. It says
the FARMER can REQUEST that they bring their crop to market and the Secretary
of Agriculture has the final say, not a federal court judge. It says the
Secretary will REVIEW and ANALYZE the case.
To believe that this is terrifying is to believe that our
government would authorize the harvesting of poison after they have seen
sufficient evidence of the poisoning. Not one of the articles I read stated any
specific poison or gave any links to data explaining exactly what is so
frightening about GMOs. One article alluded to “unintentional” proteins. I’m
not defending GMOs, corporations or factory farmers, I’m only asking for
reasons to be so alarmed.
The most balanced articles I’ve found so far are a rating of“mixture” on snopes.com, And this one.
The Corvalis Advocate notes that all farming, since the
beginning of the Agricultural revolution in the Fertile
Crescent, has been altering the environment. Monsanto seeds aren’t
flying everywhere and changing everything. I know of only one case of a farmer
being sued by Monsanto, and that farmer deliberately plowed around a small
patch of Monsanto seed in his fields to encourage that seed to spread. In other
words, he wanted it to crossbreed with his existing corn and improve his
yields.
If liberal, caring, organic loving people give in to this
kind of discussion, we only contribute to the lowering of the standards for
reasonable discourse. Liberalism accepts that no single person is always right.
It puts the value of listening above the values of giving witty retorts and
crushing your opponent with rhetoric. It looks for evidence, not conspiracy.
Much has been said since this last election about how the
Republicans have come unmoored from their traditions, and that is no doubt
true, but it seems to me that liberals have also lost their foundations and are
giving in to the dichotomous thinking and thoughtless speech habits of those we
denigrate. Perhaps a review of our history would be helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment