posted June 02, 2004 01:21 AM         

The Commons are the universal heritage of people and all living things. They are everything needed to support healthy life on earth: air,
water, food, shelter, health care, energy sources and our genetic heritage. They are what is needed to sustain culture: our multicultural heritages, education, information and the means to disseminate it, essential human services, public spaces, the air waves, and political space. They are equally the land, its forests, the oceans, and all ecosystems.

From the Statement of Unity

Reclaim the Commons Mobilization

www.reclaimthecommons.net

Over the next ten days, June 3-9 in San Francisco, while the biotechnology industry meets in its annual convention, the streets of the city will be filled with marches, demonstrations and actions organized by the Reclaim the Commons Mobilization. The schedule of events is ambitious, even for the progressive Bay Area, a solid week of activities designed to highlight the corporate takeover of our economies, governments, and public life. But beyond the events and actions that are planned, the mobilization is an attempt to forge a new political language, that can help us focus not on any single issue or list of issues, but on the links and connections between them, a anguage to express what we want, not just what we don’t want.

What we don’t want is clear and overwhelming: the whole laundry list of exploitations, corporate takeovers and ‘isms’—racism, sexism, classism and all the others. We can easily become exhausted trying to keep up a decent level of protest on all those issues. Here in the Bay Area, a determined activist could go to two or three protests on most days. Add a few meetings into the mix, and you’d need to forego gainful employment, family life and all other meaningful human relationships just to stay abreast.

posted June 02, 2004 06:57 AM         

I was not even aware that Starhawk had a web presence, or that she was so active. My only experience of her was reading "Dreaming the Dark" years ago, but I can definitely say that book had a major impact on my thinking. To this day I am constantly aware of the dichotomy of "power-over" vs. "power-with" as she presented it. Needless to say, I have added a new bookmark to my browser. And if I lived closer to San Francisco, I would surely be there lending my support.

posted June 02, 2004 01:50 PM         

It is just another excuse to jump on the anarchist, anti-scientific bandwagon. I am sure Starhawk would have led the fight against Pastuer's rabies vaccine or Salks polio vaccine.

It is biotechnology that led to the discovery of the genes that cause Breast Cancer and autism, to name a couple. Biotechnology costs Billions each year in research, most of which results in fruitless studies, so patenting ideas, creations or uses of new devices is a way to protect your innovations.

Oh yeah, and it is a blatent lie to state that anyone can patent an herbal remedy, plant or the use thereof that has already been commonly used. Then again, I don't think starhawk has visted the United States Patent Office to check out the facts. Once a chemical - say Ginseng- has been known for a specific use, you cannot patent it. You can however patent a convulted formulation - which doesn't protect you from other people using Ginseng in the same manner.

Biotechnology has saved many diabetics, it has helped grow tissue necessary in skin graphs, it allows people to live longer. It is not as simple as just taking one gene out of one organism and transferring it into another. The author is skipping about 100 steps along with the fact that there is a rejection rate - but then the author doesn't HAVE to have facts, just a pen to write down the lies for suceptible people to believe.

One gene equals one trait? Yeah, that is spoken like a true Molecular Biology retard. Genes are so amazing in their ability to code for various things. Let's not forget the ability to "cross over" and share traits or mutation rates.

posted June 02, 2004 05:58 PM         

quote:

---

Let's not forget the ability to "cross over" and share traits or mutation rates

---

Listen pidaua, I know Star personally and I can attest to the fact that she is anything but anti-science. She is in fact one of the most well read, intelligent people I know. I would appreciate it if you refrained from calling her a moron, seeing as how you know very little, if anything about her.

------------------
Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

"According to Business Week, the average CEO [Chief Executive Officer] made 42 times the average blue-collar worker's pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990 and a staggering 531 times in 2000."
-- AFL-CIO "Executive Paywatch"

posted June 02, 2004 08:13 PM         

Starhawk does post essays somewhat regularly about her recent activities. There's archives at her site and if you're interested in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, she's traveled there a number of times in the past few years and her writings of it are quite interesting and human.

Dreaming in the Dark is a great book. If you liked that one then you should check out Truth or Dare. It's fantastic.

------------------------------------
"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal."
-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"

posted June 02, 2004 08:31 PM         

quote:

---

I wonder what all the cause headed protesters add to the quality of life for their fellow men and women?

---

pidaua, this just proves my point that you know virtually nothing about Starhawk and many other 'cause-head' protesters. They do alot of things for humanity. Some of the most important work too. Designing and modeling the kind of world they- we want to live in. A world of sustainability, cooperation and healthy lifestyles- not just for people but for the other creatures of this incredible, irreplaceable planet.

This work ranges from growing organic produce, teaching permaculture design courses, teaching non-violence techniques to Palestinians and folks from many other walks of life, modeling consensus process, helping build affordable housing for poor communites, setting up co-ops for affordable, sustainably harvested food to be sold, the list could go on. Perhaps if you stopped stereotyping people like me or Starhawk into roles that make it easier to discount anything we say you would know of these things, pidaua.

----------------------
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
-- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov 21, 1864.

posted June 03, 2004 12:37 PM         

Here is the actual website concerning patents filed for NEEM oil.
http://pat ft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=neem&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=ptxt

If you log onto that and do a complete reading you will see that you are wrong in your assumptions. Even if a corporation TRIED to stop the use of a known, it would not happen. If for some reason they discovered the use, like we did for citric acid, then they can patent the "use" not the chemical. In our case we also found that citric acid kills the virus that causes FMD (foot and mouth diseas) but we could not patent the use. Do you know why? Because legally the substance had been in use for a long time by rural farmer and picked up the scientific industry. That meant since it had been in common use, NO ONE could patent it.

Like using sugar to sweeten your coffee. No one owns the patent on the use of sugar, it is expired. Companies only get a certain about of time to use that patent and recoop their money. Our citric acid patent expired in 2011, that means anyone can start marketing the product for that use. NOW, if a little farmer had extra citric acid,that he used to treat his the alkalinity of their pond, on his calf hutches, we would not sue him. Just like if the country of China wanted to market our product for their use, we could do NOTHING.

Companies CAN patent specific formulations but not the strict use. I would ask you to do some research and look up the process of filing for a patent. It is labor intensive and requires a gross amount of research to ensure you do not file on something that has already been invented.

As for your cross over with terminator genes. You are applying a total exaggeration of an incident to the entire earth. What a doomsday concept? Yes, we do have problems in science and I am not all the keen on certian inventions. Growing potential insulin producing corn next to another field can cause problems, which is why precautions are taken to ensure the safety of the other plants. That doesn't mean things don't happen and people SHOULD be held accountable, as was the case in Nebraska and Iowa. For the record, there are many of us that are not in support of the gross genetic manipulation of plants and animals. There is something to be said though for the insertion of genes / genetic material that may cause certain organisms to produce material in a more rapid manner. That aids in the ability to provide necessary drugs to people that need them.

Please send me the reference on the bacteria used in the water. I would implore you and people like Starhawk to start producing FACTS not just references to stories heard by this person or that. I have already proved you wrong about the application / patent process especially regarding the International community.

As far as stereotyping people, you too are guilty of the same thing, as is your beloved starhawk. The protest is against ALL biotech, you are not discriminating between one over the other. You all lump science and corporations into a "greedy money hungry Earth hating" group. As though we are all sitting here waiting to destroy the planet. What in the hell was so scientific about what Starhawk wrote? There was absolutely no facts related in her article. Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo thoughts and opinions not based on anything tangible.

I have decided to stop posting to your threads about the earth and anything scientific. It is obvious that you do not base your arguments on hard facts or back them up with any scientific evidence. It has become an exercize in futility to try to present the facts to you and people like starhawk.

posted June 03, 2004 01:33 PM         

Here are some interesting facts about GMO's and biotechnology: http://ohioline.osu.edu/gmo/faq.html

I especially like the following quote:

Q. It doesn’t seem like all scientists agree that GMOs are safe. Why don’t we just wait until everyone agrees that there’s no risk to human health?

A. Actually, scientists have come to a consensus that there’s nothing inherently risky about splicing genes from one organism into another. For example, GMOs have been used for years to produce an enzyme required for processing cheese, and no one has called that dangerous. More recently, a genetically engineered rice that could eliminate vitamin A deficiencies in some populations has been met with widespread acclaim.

It’s true that there is some disagreement about some classes of GMOs and their specific uses: Will certain GMOs cause an allergic reaction in some people? Will a GMO crop designed to kill pests have a detrimental effect on beneficial insects? These issues have been studied, and, in fact, at least one GMO (Pioneer Hi-Bred soybeans with a Brazil-nut protein added) has been abandoned because of an allergic-reaction threat. But not all scientists everywhere agree that all GMOs have been studied enough.

Still, most new technologies are greeted in this manner. Either society as a whole or the scientific community weighs the risks against the benefits. Many technologies involve dangers to health (electricity, automobiles and airplanes, for example), but we’ve adopted them anyway because the benefits outweigh the risks. Perhaps the same disagreement was discussed in prehistoric times when fire came under human control: Surely someone said, “The children may burn their hands, so fire cannot be a good thing.”

Although some scientists have expressed concern about GMOs, an expert committee established by the Food and Drug Administration concluded that the safety of a food depends upon its properties, not the process used to produce it. With this definition, the safety of GMO foods must be—and is—considered on a case-by-case basis. But the goal should be decision by consensus, not by unanimity. Waiting until “everyone” agrees is tantamount to eliminating the possibility of marketing any GMO.

More specifically - let's look at the old "Fish gene into a plant"

Q. I’ve heard the argument that genetic engineering is just an extension of traditional breeding. But how can you breed a fish and a strawberry? You can’t. Why isn’t this type of “cross-breeding” seen as possibly dangerous to human health?

A. First, it is usually inaccurate to talk about a “fish gene” or a “strawberry gene.” Many genes, which are merely blueprints for producing specific proteins, are shared among many organisms.

So, while you cannot “breed” a fish with a strawberry, you could theoretically take a gene from a fish—or something else—and introduce it into a strawberry cell, which can subsequently be regenerated into a whole strawberry plant, which will contain an extra gene and an extra protein. (By the way, fish genes have not been introduced into strawberries.)

In traditional breeding, many genes are transferred between related species, without clear control over just which genes are being transferred and which are not. Genetic engineering is far more precise, which is, in fact, one of its greatest benefits. It allows, for example, a single gene from a cold-hardy plant to be introduced into a strawberry to help increase its tolerance to cold weather. Another example: Genetic engineering has allowed the gene responsible for making human insulin to be inserted into a certain type of bacteria. That bacteria now makes human insulin, a product that has been used by people with diabetes for years with no adverse effects. This type of “cross-breeding” between humans and bacteria obviously would be impossible without genetic engineering.

There is a natural precedent for this type of “cut and paste” operation: The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens performs this type of gene transfer in nature, and is in fact one of the tools molecular breeders use to move genes around.

It’s true that genetic engineering could be used to produce dangerous products. But the same statement can be made about virtually any technology. Scientists generally agree that products from each type of genetic engineering should be reviewed carefully before they are implemented.

posted June 03, 2004 02:15 PM         

I don't see where I called Starhawk a moron. In fact you are the only one that used the word until I just did. In any case, I do know about Starhawk and I sure as heck did see any science in her background:

Beginning as an organizer in her high school during the days of the Vietnam War, Starhawk has been active in social change movements for over thirty years. She has organized, trained protestors, and been on the front lines of antinuclear actions at Diablo Canyon, Livermore Weapons Lab, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the Nevada Test Site, among others. She traveled to Nicaragua with Witness for Peace in 1984 and made two trips to El Salvador to give ongoing support for sustainability programs. She continues to be a witness for peace on the front lines of the Palestine/Israel war, working with Palestinian and Israeli peace activists, as well as teaching nonviolence workshops in the region. She is now active in the revived American peace movement. Starhawk works on countless environmental and land use issues, and is a founder and active member of the Cazadero Hills Land Use Council in western Sonoma County. Her focus for the last several years has been the global justice movement, training participants and taking part in many of the major actions, including those in Seattle, Washington DC, Quebec City, Genoa, and New York City, and doing direct action trainings for groups all over the US, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and South America. Together with Penny Livingston-Stark, she also coteaches intensive seminars that combine permaculture design, political organizing and activism, and earth-based spirituality. Known as EAT, Earth Activist Training, this seminar is now held both in Europe and in the US. (EAT page will open in a new browser window).

Starhawk is a cofounder of Reclaiming, a highly influential branch of modern Pagan religion, and she continues to work closely with the Reclaiming community. Reclaiming is a network of people who combine activism with earth-based spirituality and healing, and offers classes, intensives, public rituals, and training in the Goddess tradition and magical activism across the US, Canada, and Europe. Starhawk writes a regular column for the Reclaiming Quarterly. She is also a columnist on the web for beliefnet.com and for znet.
Starhawk lives part-time San Francisco, in a collective house with her partner and friends, and part-time in a little hut in the woods in western Sonoma County, where she practices permaculture in her extensive gardens and writes.