The Catskill Chronicle

By Mort Malkin

The classic definition of chutzpah used to be the young man who murders his parents and then throws himself at the mercy of the court as an orphan. In recent years, however, Monsanto (they who worked out their own version of Creation Care) applied to the US Patent Office for exclusive rights to genetically engineered corn, soy beans, canola, and cotton seeds. They swore that it was a new technology never before invented by man or ever seen in Nature. Fair enough, but then they were questioned by the disciples of the goddess of unforeseen consequences about the health risks of eating genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, with a straight face, said “Not to worry, GE crops are no different than century-old farming practices of cross breeding and hybridization.

When that bit of chutzpah raised few eyebrows of the government officials who just granted the patents, Monsanto naturally upped the ante. They declared, before the FDA, that GE crops (also called GM) were “substantially equivalent to natural foods” and required no special labeling. Neither would the FDA have to check on the research of Monsanto scientists. The Feds could just take Monsanto’s solemn word. Further, when those studies showed that GE vegetables and grains promoted tumor growth or depressed kidney and liver function, the Monsanto reviewers of the research just explained away such findings as “irrelevant.”

The Gadfly Revelry & Research gang (GRR) found these assaults on the definition of chutzpah to be intriguing. With modest effort, GRR found a curious law decision involving Monsanto just across the border in Canada. It seems that Percy Schmeiser, a family farmer in Saskatchewan, who had spent 30 years developing a special variety of canola and didn’t want it contaminated by genetically engineered canola, found a few wind blown GE seedlings growing in a ditch alongside one of his fields. Monsanto heard about it and sued him for infringing on their patents. Chutzpah had reached a new level.

So, what happened in court? The judge of the regional federal court, impressed by the Monsanto lawyers bearing patent documentation, ruled against Schmeiser. That stubborn Canadian farmer refused to pay and appealed to a higher court and finally to the Canadian Supreme Court. By a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court said that Monsanto held a valid patent on their Round Up resistant gene, but that Percy Schmeiser who had neither ordered Monsanto’s seeds nor had made a profit on the wind blown plants, did not have to pay royalties or Monsanto’s court costs. Four of the justices went even further in a minority report. They opined that Monsanto might hold patents on the GE gene but not on the life form of the plants or seeds. They sited precedent and wrote that life forms could not be patented.

Monsanto, clearly unhappy, tried to have to last word. Percy Schmeiser was about to clear out any residual GE canola seedlings from his fields and raise his own signature variety of canola. Monsanto, with a show of grace, offered to pay the costs … but Schmeiser would have to sign a non-disclosure form that he would never discuss any details of the now infamous affair. Chutzpah upon chutzpah. Schmeiser refused to sign and sued Monsanto. They finally reached a settlement whereby Monsanto would help with the costs and Schmeiser was free to speak out.

Meanwhile in California, some grass roots citizens decided to go after Monsanto in the court of public opinion, rather than the judiciary. A ballot initiative is in the works for November of this year, requiring the labeling of genetically engineered corn, soy, cotton, canola, and whatever forms of life Monsanto would next aim at with their laboratory weapons of mass destruction. As of now, the US requires labeling even for naturally grown oats and flax seeds, but not for corn or canola shot from gene guns. The balloters even sent their cyber-spies into action and found an internal memo from one of Monsanto’s own executives. He said that opposition to required labeling was important because “if you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.” What chutzpah — using Monsanto’s own words against them.

Not to be outdone in the chutzpah competition, the Republican nominating carnival has given us three more candidates. First, Mitt Romney, the former CEO of Bain capital, has sought votes from poor and middle class citizens, but he seems unashamed to say how rich he is. He is on record saying, “I’m also unemployed. I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.” His speaker’s fees, come to discover, totaled $374,000 last year. But 374 thou out of a net worth of about 200 mill must seem like pocket change to Romney. He punctuated the point with “I’m not concerned about the very poor. They have a safety net.” Finally, to ensure his lead against Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, he said, “I believe in America where millions of Americans believe in an America [that] American’s believe in.”

Newt Gingrich, ever creative, gave us chutzpah with a personal touch. “I pledge to you my life, my fortune, and my personal honor.” Sounds like he was running for the position of Emperor of Rome. Personal honor? The serial adulterer claiming personal honor makes him a serious contender in the chutzpah games, but not quite as good as the poor orphan murderer of the original story.

Finally, we come to Rick Santorum. Santorum longs for the good old days when women knew their place and accepted that their role in the family was to conceive and raise children. “Contraceptives,” he says, “give women license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” But, Rick Santorum is not narrowly focused only on matters sexual. He also opposes women’s equal rights at work. He complained about “radical feminists [who shout] that men and women must be given an equal opportunity to make it to the top in the workplace.” If women are foolish enough to want to go to work, they should not be fast-tracking their careers but reconciling themselves to proper women’s work (at low wages). For example, he says that “helping unmarried mothers get a college education to move up the economic ladder is just wrong.”

Las Vegas is now setting odds on whether Santorum will next advocate for repeal of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

On the other side of the political spectrum, Barack Obama has joined the chutzpah competition. That’s Obama. the man of change and hope. It seems that  the democratically elected president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, has recently been deposed in a police-military coup. Nasheed, you may remember held an underwater cabinet meeting to dramatize the threat of global warming (heating) to his islands nation. The US, which has refused to set strict limits on carbon emissions or to enact a carbon tax, recognized the new military government within just a few days. Then, there’s Obama’s commitment to transparent government, his opposition to torture, and the jailing of Bradley Manning for leaking sensitive (embarrassing) records of US war crimes in Iraq. Worthy chutzpah.

Perhaps chutzpah is in the human genome.