Quote:

---

The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender tohis detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described... as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

We have had many controversies over these penumbral rights of "privacy and repose." These cases bear witness that the right of privacy which presses for recognition here is a legitimate one.

The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

---

Quote:

---

The farmer argued that he was not responsible for paying Monsanto a royalty on the retained seed under the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA), but the court noted that the Patent Act superseded the PVPA. Id. "[T]he right to save seed of plants registered under the PVPA does not impart the right to save seed of plants patented under the Patent Act." Id. (quoting Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291, at 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Also, the court rejected the argument that the patent only applies to the gene in its pure form and not contained in plants or seeds, because the patent specifically refers to a man-made gene, not one that naturally occurs, making the argument invalid. See id. at 1093.

Under 35 U.S.C.A. § 284, "upon the finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court." Id. at 1093.

The royalties used to calculate the damages for this infringement were based upon expert testimony and the substantial benefit conferred upon the farmer for his wrongdoing. Id. at 1094. Consequently, Monsanto was awarded $226,214.40 plus fees and costs for the seed that the farmer saved to plant about 2,222 acres of crop. Id.

---

Quote:

---

First there are no such things as common law rights.

---

Quote:

---

Second the common law is not statute. For example I can make you sign a none disclosure agreement as part of your condition of employment or as part of a contract and sue you if you break it even though you have a common law expectation of free speech.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.

---

Quote:

---

If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.

---

Quote:

---

I'm far more likely to believe the WSJ than VF.

---

Quote:

---

I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

I'm skeptical of a muck raking article from VF ?

---

The reason why you get chapped so often isn't because you're "skeptical", Auraptor. It's because you operate in only two modes: You're either believing what you already agree with, or rejecting that which makes you uncomfortable. In between there's no room for doubt, inquiry, testing of knowledge, or intellectual growth.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
But where are your FACTS????

All you have is opinion.

But no FACTS.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this

---

Quote:

---

Don't need any facts yet, to be skeptical. And I've already admitted there's a chance I could be all wet on this, and the VF piece is dead on accurate per this issue. I just don't like how it sounds, is all I'm saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Deadlockvictim:

Wow, Green.... this would be a good time to plug one of my favorite educational videos.... it follows very closely with what you're saying...

http://www.storyofstuff.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:
Auraptor and Kirkules are the perfect Americans, by which I mean that they believe the party line and are too well indoctrinated to question authority. They watch newscasts on stations with corporate and partisan agendas and believe they are receiving factual, unbiased information. They are compliant and gullible. They are not to be hated, they are to be pitied. Their naïveté coupled with their unwillingness to accept new information ensures that they will support the corporations that systematically poison them. They feed themselves and their children poisoned milk, meat, and produce. They clothe themselves with garments produced using poisonous chemicals in every phase from plant to fiber, from countries that poison the air and water to make them (not to mention the harm to our economy from the trade imbalance), purchased from superstores that poison the local environment and economy. They purchase and purchase, just as they've been trained to do from birth. They consume and waste. They destroy the planet. They are to be pitied. Poor fools. I weep for them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GreenBrowncoat:

For those who aren't yet aware of the collusion between Fox and Monsanto to suppress the reportage of the health risks caused by Monsanto's bovine growth hormone in dairy products, the website http://www.foxbghsuit.com may be of some interest.

---

Quote:

---

all the rest is just fluff, bullshit and details.

---

Quote:

---

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre.

---

Quote:

---

Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Our system is NOT complex at all, simply add in greed, ambition and a total lack of conscience with a minimal to non-existent set of controls and consequences, to a population concerned only with their own personal power, wealth and comfort.

---

Quote:

---

Sometimes... rarely... it evolves into a relatively benign, egalitarian form.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Alan A'Dale.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Is this anything like the " collusion" that CNN had w/ Saddam to not report on the atrocities Iraq was committing and to even go as far as to report puff pieces

---

Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

---

Quote:

---

Nothing I say or post is " baseless". You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quite honestly Rap, you're not telling us anything new. I think the difference between you and most of the rest of us is that we apply skepticism to the universe of actors, not just to those we disagree with. If all you're doing is cherry-picking the news for what you already agree with, you're not really informing yourself.

---------------------------------

---

Quote:

---

Is this a baseless opinion, or do you have anything to back it up?

---

Quote:

---

The press corps's barely-there performance that night, as reporters quietly melted into the scenery, coming at such a crucial moment in time remains an industry-wide embarrassment. Laying out the reasons for war, Bush that night mentioned al-Qaida and the terrorist attacks of September 11 thirteen times in less than an hour, yet not a single journalist challenged the presumed connection Bush was making between al-Qaida and Iraq, despite the fact that intelligence sources had publicly questioned any such association. And during the Q&A session, nobody bothered to ask Bush about the elusive Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind whom Bush had vowed to capture. Follow-up questions were nonexistent, which only encouraged Bush to give answers to questions he was not asked.

At one point while making his way through the press questioners, Bush awkwardly referred to a list of reporters whom he was instructed to call on. "This is scripted," he joked. The press laughed. But Bush meant it was scripted, literally. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer later admitted he compiled Bush's cheat sheet, which made sure he did not call on reporters from some prominent outlets like Time, Newsweek, USA Today, or the Washington Post. Yet even after Bush announced the event was "scripted," reporters, either embarrassed for Bush or embarrassed for themselves, continued to play the part of eager participants at a spontaneous news conference, shooting their hands up in the air in hopes of getting Bush's attention. For TV viewers it certainly looked like an actual press event.

That was not the night's only oddly scripted moment. Before the cameras went live, White House handlers, in a highly unusual move, marched veteran reporters to their seats in the East Room, two-by-two, like school children being led onto the stage for the annual holiday pageant. The White House was taking no chances with the choreography. Looking back on the night, New York Times White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller defended the press corps' timid behavior: "I think we were very deferential because ... it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you' re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war," she told students at Towson University in Maryland. "There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

---

Quote:

---

Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Some folks simply can't exist w/ out the notion that somebody else is doing something evil and making lots of $$ while doing it. Hey , here's a news flash.....just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's evil or wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
What really chapped my ass was how the Dems made this a pissing contest between Congress and the FAA.
...
This had nothing to do w/ 'security' or even public safety, as aviation experts will tell you. I had more to do w/ politics, and the money hungry Dems all bent out of shape that the Bush administration hasn't been sticking it to the airlines via fines for every petty little rule and regulation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Generally when an accusation as that has been debunked, as I did to your charge, the one making the accusation offers up an admission of being wrong ( at the very least ) and an apology.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing I say or post is " baseless". Every bit of it is based on Rush Limbaugh's personal opinion. You ought to know that by now, sheesh.

---

And you see nothing , er, wrong with that, huh?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think that was Citizen's "corrected" version not AU's original.

---

Quote:

---

Man, Citizen is angry these days.

---

Quote:

---

USDA can’t argue that the test kits are useful for diagnosing and managing BSE when used by USDA but are “worthless” when used by a private company. We believe that the rapid test kits are useful for both parties and that there is no justification for denying a company the right to use a USDA-validated rapid test kit to screen cattle for BSE. We urge USDA to allow companies to buy and use USDA-validated rapid test kit for detecting BSE, but require the companies both to report any non-negative results to USDA and to supply USDA with brain samples from these non-negative cases for confirmation of BSE by the USDA at the National Veterinary Services Lab (in Ames, IO). USDA should also allow meat from an animal tested using a rapid test kit to be labeled as having been tested for BSE, and require any non-negative to be withheld from the food supply

---