A few years back a group of Muslims decided to plan a community center in lower Manhattan. For whatever reason (bigotry) people were upset about this as it brought up painful memories of the 9/11 attacks, and felt that followers of Islam shouldn't have a community center in New York. Mislabeling it as "The Ground Zero Mosque", people wrongly believed a Muslim place of worship was being built across the street from where the World Trade Center once stood, and took offense to that for reasons unclear (bigotry). Most people had no idea the planned community center is about two blocks away, nor really cared because big scary brown people are infiltrating Merica and implementing Sharia Law so severe I can't walk down main street without a guy named Mohammad trying to cut off my wiener, because I don't require a foot washing station at my place of work. Controversy arose, and still does, because of this issue that should've never been one.
Years before that, a landmark study showed that domestic violence was highest during the Super Bowl. Yes women and children were at greater risk of being beaten by some lite beer guzzling jackass who gets their frustrations out by beating up his family over a game. Since all football fans are nothing but wife beating slack-jawed louses, it only made sense, and people the country over believed it.
Problem was, the study never existed, and women and children are at no greater risk for domestic violence during the Super Bowl than any other day of the year. Actually if they're going to get their asses beat, Christmas and Thanksgiving is the most likely day for a whooping. Yes the day we honor the birth of Lord and Savior is one of the highest days for domestic violence.
The truth was told, football fans are no more harmful than anyone else, including hockey, UFC, and even soccer fans, but no one wanted to hear the truth. The fraudulent non-existent study was called out for what it was, and the country collectively said "yeah, but I still think women are more at risk, because I saw a guy get mad at a game once, and he looked like he was going to hit somebody, but he didn't, but people who get mad always smack others around," or something equally as insipid. People wanted to believe that men are nothing but oafish brutes who want nothing more than to hurt females, and those who happen to enjoy the sport of football are the worst of the lot, so everyone remembers this bullshit, while the truth was widely ignored.
Lately I've been hearing a lot about the Monsanto Protection Act, which according to the illiterate sources, is all about protecting Monsanto from being prosecuted for being all evil. Yes Monsanto, the company that makes genetically modified foods that cause cancer, creates toxic chemicals that cause autism, and the company that sues small farmers out of business and takes over their land to grow franken berries that don't taste as good as the ones out of the farmers' market you claim you shop at, but you don't. But I digress...
So what is the Monsanto protection bill according to those who coined the phrase? Well according to groups like Food Democracy Now, the bill protects the biotech agricultural giant from litigation while they continue to grow foods that'll make us all sterile and the human race will die off, because that's what they think Monsanto wants, and killing off the world's population would be such a stellar business model.
So what does the bill actually say? Well pretend you just read the following:
Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
That's a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. Well since I'm sure you've read and comprehended everything that was just copied and pasted, I shouldn't have to explain what it means, but I will anyways.
It means that if someone planted a crop with a seed that went through years of approvals and red tape to be able to be put unto the soil, and somehow someone notices the paperwork was poor or that their was some oversight on the government's part, the farmer, whether thay be some big giant monolithic destroy the world corporation, or a simple resident of Hooterville, can petition a judge to allow their once legal crop to not be destroyed until it's deemed legal again.
So let me try to put it another way. You're building a home, and after the nightmare of getting the proper permits together and hassling with all the fees and ridiculous red tap, you start construction. Suddenly someone at the office of "Make Home Builders Die of Combustible Hemmroids" (MHBDCH) sees they missed something on the paperwork, and decided your yet to be completed abode was in violation of the law and God almighty and must be torn down in ceremonious fashion. This bill will allow you to go and front of a judge and explain why you shouldn't suffer because of gross incompetence of underpaid civil servants and get to keep building your home until sufficient evidence arises that should do otherwise. The same would apply if someone is suing you for building your home for whatever reason, and you can plea to the court to not have your place destroyed until the case is settled.
So that's it. Monsanto may be an evil corporation with their ridiculous patent lawsuits and what not, but seriously do you expect a corporation not to wield their muscle in order to make money? I mean it's in their very nature to turn a profit, for obvious reasons. Those entities exist for that reason alone, and if they can use the law to their advantage, well the public (YOU) allow it.
Still this Monsanto Protection Act is nonsense. It's a made up term by anti-Monsanto activists who know nothing about science, who are misguided about their GMO phobias, and who should be safely ignored. For whatever reason, anti-GMO fucktards have entered themselves uninvited into the progressive movement, and need to be removed, forcibly if needed.
Yes Monsanto may be crooked and is out to make a profit, just like every other corporation. No there's no evidence that GMOs are harmful, despite what one fraudulent study may say, and it's still wrong to brand this act as some sort of conspiracy with Obama being in bed with them, especially when it protects everyone. If someone is against the so called Monsanto Protection Act, then they're against all farmers, large and small.
You know what? The GMO Truthers have won, for no one will remember what the Monsanto Protection Act actually does, for instead they'll think big bad Barrack Hussein Obama is in bed with Satan's corporation, and they're out to poison your children. The truth will be swept under the rug, while the misinformation is widely spread thanks to your moronic Facebook friends and misguided and uneducated activists.
"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it’s really a small number. Of these, we’ve proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto’s favor.
A very small number of farmers involved in patent infringement cases with Monsanto have sought publicity around their cases, and have characterized the company’s actions in a negative light. In some other situations, outside parties have portrayed particular cases negatively. We take exception to any misleading allegation of wrong-doing. Our employees and contractors respect our customers and their property" - Monsanto