The Great GMO Legitimation Crisis

[JohnyCanuck]

The Great GMO Legitimation Crisis

The pro-GMO lobby talks about choice, democracy and the alleged violence of certain environmental groups but says nothing about the structural violence waged on rural communities resulting from IMF/World Bank strings-attached loans, the undermining of global food security as a result of Wall Street commodity and land speculators, the crushing effects of trade rules on poorer regions or the devastating impacts of GMOs in regions like SouthAmerica. To discuss such things is political and thus ‘ideological’ and is therefore not up for discussion it seems.

Much easier to try to focus on ‘the science’ and simply mouth platitudes about democracy and freedom of choice while saying nothing about how both been captured or debased by powerful interests, including agribusiness. By attempting not to appear to be ideological or political, such people are attempting to depoliticise and thus disguise the highly political status quo whereby powerful corporations (and some bogus notion of a ‘free market’) are left unchallenged to shape agriculture as they see fit:

“Anyone who’s seen the recent virally circulated Venn diagrams of the personnel overlap between Monsanto and USDA personnel, or Pfizer and FDA, will immediately know what I’m talking about… A model of capitalism in which the commanding heights of the economy are an interlocking directorate of large corporations and government agencies, a major share of the total operating costs of the dominant firms are socialized (and profits privatized, of course), and “intellectual property” protectionism and other regulatory cartels allow bureaucratic corporate dinosaurs… to operate profitably without fear of competition.” Kevin Carson, Center for a Stateless Society.

SNIP

Failure is us

Even with this power and political influence at its disposal, the GMO agritech industry is far from being a success. Much of its profits actually derive from failure: for example, Andrew Kimbrell notes that after having chosen to ignore science, the industry’s failing inputs are now to be replaced with more destined-to-fail and ever-stronger poisonous inputs. The legacy of poisoned environments and ecological devastation is for someone else to deal with. In his book, Steven Druker has shown that from very early on the US government has colluded with the GMO agritech sector to set a ‘technical fix-failure-technical fix‘ merry-go-round in motion.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/the-great-gmo-legitimation-crisis/

[SoLeftIAmRight]

1. GM foods are of little or no help...

The whole system of food production must be transformed into something that is sustainable.

Nothing about the GM foods moves the system in this direction.

[gregcrawford]

2. The genetic modification of food serves no agricultural purpose...

... that would justify the expense invested in the process. But it does give the most evil corporations on the planet a legal hook on which to hang patents. Through the imposition of draconian restrictions on said patents, they are able to exercise ever-increasing control of food production and delivery systems from seed to supper... literally. And do you really suppose that Monsanto, DuPont, ad nauseam pursue this level of control for the benefit of society?

C'mon... nobody's THAT stupid. Well, I take that back. Teabaggers have already demonstrated beyond the remotest shadow of a doubt that they are, indeed, that stupid. And yet, they are not only allowed to vote, they are encouraged to breed indiscriminately. God fucking help us all.

[erronis]

4. +1 - good analysis of the real reasons for GMO$.

[Octafish]

28. TPP or whatever comes next will be mighty handy for Monsanto, ADM and Big Agra.

For farmers and the rest of humanity, not so much.

[HuckleB]

40. Genetic modification is a part of most agricultural plantings.

Hmm.

I'm not sure what you think makes up your food, but...

[Zorra]

54. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Walter Scott

[HuckleB]

68. So why do you work so hard to deceive people about GMOs?

[gregcrawford]

67. There is a HUGE difference between hybridization...

... achieved through selective breeding, which has been employed for thousands of years, and laboratory-controlled genetic modification. The latter has engendered unintended consequences that are only now being identified, usually with expressions like, "oh, shit."

[HuckleB]

69. In other words, GMOs are more predictable hybrids.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/224613622/GMO-Technology-is-Simply-Precision-Breeding#scribd

Yes, parroting bad ant-GMO doesn't get you far.

[asiliveandbreathe]

3. We really are fighting an uphill battle re: GMO food labeling yet

Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements -

greed - greed and more greed.....go figure!

[HuckleB]

21. You realize that organic production requirements are just haphazard, right?

There is no science behind the matter.

And the reason people want an organic label is so they can make higher profits.

Thus, I'm not sure what your point is.

[roody]

32. Yet the PTB want the seeds in seed banks labeled, just not GM of course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6394263

[HuckleB]

34. You realize that the "organic" label is for marketing purposes, right?

Thus, some people want to be even more "pure" in their "organic" food products, so they can charge even more money for those products.

Oh, you didn't know that.

Hmmmmm.

[Major Nikon]

5. Another great article from the same source

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/vaccines-cause-cancer-autism-deadly-diseases/

[HuckleB]

35. Holy crap! Why did I EVER vaccinate my child?

How could I be so stupid!????

[ND-Dem]

55. no one's paying attention. cause they see it's bull.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. Not just bull, but

[Archae]

6. Steven Druker is an associate of Jeffrey Smith.

Both are "graduates" of the Maharishi Yogi's "university" that is unaccredited and little more than a diploma mill.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/09/1157-jeffery-smith.html

[99Forever]

9. Shoot the...

.. messenger?

How utterly fucking predictable.

[Archae]

10. If the messenger is unreliable and agenda-driven, ignoring actual science...

They deserve to be slammed.

Neither Smith nor Druker have any credibility, and if fact are as bad as anti-vaxxers, global climate change deniers and creationists.

Make sure you note this link from the same source as the OP.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/vaccines-cause-cancer-autism-deadly-diseases/

[pnwmom]

14. The article is about power and politics, and how they're used by the GMO industry,

which is at the forefront of science denial.

The brainiacs at Monsanto once denied that weeds would ever become resistant to Roundup. Now they're denying that the newly evolved super-weeds will ever become resistant to their newly approved double-whammy-herbicides.

They don't accept Darwin's theory of evolution. They're the science deniers.

[Major Nikon]

15. Flashback

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6383202

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/vaccines-cause-cancer-autism-deadly-diseases/

[pnwmom]

16. The truth hurts, so you try to distract. Typical.

But the truth is undeniable. Monsanto sells their herbicides by claiming that weeds won't develop resistance.

Monsanto doesn't believe in evolution, which makes Monsanto a science-denier.

[Major Nikon]

17. The truth is you employed the exact same tactic

...and to make maters worse, your tactic just wasn't based in reality as the "source" you pointed out was exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

Furthermore you claim a lie is the truth. I've read the source document that you are no doubt repeating 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, and each time the lie gets bigger.

Monsanto never claimed weeds won't develop resistance to roundup. They quoted numerous academics who claimed it was less likely than than the herbicides available at the time, which has been proven over time. Prior to Roundup there were 109 species of weeds which had developed tolerance to herbicides. The very best class of herbicides in use at the time were ineffective against half of those. Now compare that to roundup which has 20 species which have developed resistance over 40 years of use. Turns out Monsanto, or more accurately the academics they sourced, were spot on.

Here's the actual document in question which doesn't say what you think it says:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/93_25801p.pdf

[pnwmom]

23. Monsanto's been saying one thing to the regulators, and another to the farmers fooled into buying

its glyphosphate product, and to using it exclusively and continuously.

Monsanto’s marketing campaign gem: “‘The goal is to kill all the weeds, because we know that dead weeds will not become resistant’

Promoting its own study about whether Roundup could lead to weed resistance, Monsanto’s “advertorial” to farmers specifically claimed: “When Roundup agricultural herbicides are applied at recommended rates, there is no evidence of a population of weed species with increasing tolerance resulting from continuous use.”

Monsanto may have been hedging its claims in reports to regulators, but it’s been selling glyphosphate to farmers as an herbicide that can overcome resistance.

http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2004/twoforone.shtml

Dead weeds don’t become resistant?

A sidebar to the above ad outlined Monsanto's position for managing the risk of selecting glyphosate resistant weeds. These recommendations focus on the use of full rates of glyphosate rather than the inclusion of alternative management strategies. The ad concluded with the following marketing gem: ‘The goal is to kill all the weeds, because we know that dead weeds will not become resistant’. It seems that Monsanto misses the point that glyphosate resistant weeds will not die when exposed to glyphosate - this is the definition of resistance. This is why we feel it is important to utilize integrated management systems that rely on a variety of weed control tactics.

[Major Nikon]

24. And here's what you said....

The brainiacs at Monsanto once denied that weeds would ever become resistant to Roundup.

And still you are no closer to supporting that statement. Furthermore regardless of what Monsanto recommended 20 years ago, they most certainly now are recommending other strategies for herbicide resistance, so the idea that they are somehow "science deniers" for relying on the opinions of numerous academics at the time, certainly changed when new information became available, which is kinda the whole point of science to begin with.
http://www.monsanto.com/glyphosate/pages/herbicide-resistant-weeds.aspx

Meanwhile you're still defending a site that promotes nutbaggery like water memory and the CIA injecting cancer plagues into vaccines and yet still insisting that it's notable when people float sources that promote pseudoscience. The lack of cognitive dissonance is incredible.

[pnwmom]

26. They knew perfectly well 20 years ago that the continuous use of Roundup

would lead to the development of resistant weeds. Basic evolution theory.

But even if they didn't accept Darwinian theory, all they had to do was look at their own sludge sites, where resistant plants were growing. That's how they finally developed their GMO's.

[Major Nikon]

30. They also published that 20 years ago

Had you bothered to read the document I provided, you would have known that:

Care should be taken to inform growers that misuse of glyphosate could theoretically result in a resistant weed population. The same could be said for all commercially available herbicides.

[pnwmom]

31. But that's NOT what they were telling the farmers in the ads of their product.

They were encouraging farmers to use Roundup continuously. As long as the product was used at full strength, it was supposed to wipe out all the weeds.

[HuckleB]

36. Yes, they were saying herbicides must be used continuously. Of course, they were!

[pnwmom]

37. The better way is for crops and herbicides to be rotated, not for one crop and one herbicide

to be used continuously and exclusively. Following the latter path is what led to the quick development of resistant weeds.

[HuckleB]

39. Thanks you for continuing to show everyone your true stripes.

And your ignorance regarding weeds is astounding. (BTW, that statement is being kind, because I don't believe that you are that ignorant.)

[Major Nikon]

38. How dare they publish university research!

How anti-sciencey of them!

Meanwhile your same source who is now wagging his finger at Monsanto was then publishing guidelines which somehow failed to mention the very concerns he is faulting Monsanto for not mentioning.

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/gwc/gwc-2.pdf

[Cha]

57. Aloha pnwmom... I just made a comprehensive post on this thread .. how I feel about Monsanto

that you might be interested in..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6402204

[NuclearDem]

41. Defending crank woo sites?

How utterly fucking predictable.

[99Forever]

42. Defending the ...

... police/surveillance/oligarch state.

How very predictable.

[NuclearDem]

43. Yeah, calling out pseudoscientific bullshit is defending the police state.

You got me.

[99Forever]

44. You have me confused...

... with someone who cares what you think.

[NuclearDem]

45. I am well and truly hurt now.

[99Forever]

48. Well bless your heart.

[HuckleB]

50. So you admit that there is no point in discussing any matter with you at all.

Hmm.

[HuckleB]

46. So, you think it's ok to push BS if it agrees with your preconceptions.

But you have no problem trying to slander actual scientists?

Hmm.

Interesting.

[HuckleB]

51. The messenger is making it up.

And, oddly, the only thing anti-GMO folks can do in the face of science is make attacks against the scientists.

Hmm.

Maybe you should pay attention to the real world.

You've been conned.

[pnwmom]

13. So you're going for guilt-by-association. Who cares? Drucker's just one person mentioned in the beginning of the article,

which is about the interconnectedness of the GMO industry and government.

[Archae]

25. And so far you've shown nothing to back it up.

Articles from a wack job site, that include opinions from a graduate" of a diploma mill "university."

Feel free though to post more of your posters showing Monsanto with skulls and crows, or scarecrows that look like something out of a horror movie.

Meanwhile I and many others will continue to keep money in our pockets (and no money from Monsanto,) while eating good food.

[pnwmom]

27. Skulls and arrows? Scarecrows? Where did I post a single such poster?

Knock yourself out looking for one. You won't find any posted by me.

[whereisjustice]

7. Monsanto's goal is to collapse the natural ecosystem and get exclusive rights to our food supply,

same thing Wall Street has done with energy, education, health care and our justice system.

All 100% corporate owned.

[99Forever]

8. Precisely.

And the tools of these corporate assholes are everywhere, including this forum.

[CanSocDem]

70. That's exactly right.

The 'left-brainers' are so wedded to the authority of corporate science, that they simply ignore the harm being done to society.

Do they think 'corporate science' will swoop in and pluck us from the brink. Nobody is that dense, right?




.

[MisterP]

11. propaganda doesn't just get believed or buys time, each bit contributes to a larger overall

atmosphere: Fox knows everything they say isn't just false but will be exposed as such--but even if their viewers felt the opposite about EVERYTHING one year vs. the next it wouldn't matter because the TV's still on saying "fear fear fear"

[Major Nikon]

18. Good point

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/what-is-in-your-vaccine/

[HuckleB]

19. So, another "NaturalNews" type crap source.

Shoot. The piece was mere editorial, with nothing to support its claims, as it is.

Why don't DUers get that these sources are not legitimate?

[Major Nikon]

20. Water memory cures cancer

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/can-homeopathy-really-be-used-to-treat-cancer/

[HuckleB]

22. FFS!

[JohnyCanuck]

29. Bangladeshi farmers learn the hard way it's not wise to put much stock in the pro-GMO propaganda.

Looks like some Bangladeshi farmers naively believed the propaganda telling them GM Bt-brinjal (eggplant) was the better way to go, and now they are paying for it. The fields planted with the GM plants either suffered die offs from disease or the GM plants don't fruit properly and are significantly less productive than the local farmers' time tested and likely significantly cheaper (no patents on the seeds) non-GM, local varieties which are doing just fine.

Bt brinjal turns out to be ‘upset case’ for farmers


BARI Bt Brinjal 2 (Bt-Nayantara) and BARI Bt Brinjal 3 (Bt-Kajla) were cultivated by four farmers at Pouli village in Manikganj Sadar under the supervision of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI). The fields belonging to Afzal Hossain and Md Mannaf have turned out to be an ultimate upset as each of the two fields appears half-barren as one looks at.

‘We’ve removed most of the plants after those had died about 15 days ago. The officers (BARI officials) told us to do so to prevent the spread of the disease. Despite that the rest of the plants are dying out in numbers every day,’ Mannaf’s wife Lovely Begum said.

Although only a few of the Bt Brinjal plants have died so far in two other fields cultivated by Boltu Miah and Abul Hossain, who are brothers, of the same village, the fruiting of the plants is nowhere near the satisfactory level, said Lal Chand, father of the two brothers.

SNIP

Md Abul Hayat, who is respected as a successful farmer in the locality, said, ‘Most of the saplings (of Bt Brinjal) have died. The plants are prone to diseases. The officials said it’s due to bacterial attack and prompted by irrigation and soil-type.’
‘If irrigation and soil-type had been a problem, why the local brinjal plants on my other field had not been affected?’ he questioned pointing to a brinjal field beside his Bt Brinjal one.

http://newagebd.net/105070/bt-brinjal-turns-out-to-be-upset-case-for-farmers/#sthash.CmJMx3w3.krtNeqob.dpbs

[HuckleB]

33. This is Why it is Okay to Feed Your Family GMO’s

http://www.mnfarmliving.com/2014/01/okay-feed-family-gmos-2.html

[Major Nikon]

47. Then there's this...

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gmo-labeling-ama-american-medical-association_n_1616716.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf
http://www.genetics.org/content/188/1/11.long
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-genetically-modified-food/
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n9/full/nbt.2700.html
http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=6749
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/htm/articles/Position/fas.htm
http://www.siga.unina.it/circolari/Consensus_ITA.pdf
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/new-genetics-food-and-agriculture-scientific-discoveries-societal-dilemas-2003/

Yet despite the overwhelming consensus of US and international science based organizations along with virtually every regulatory agency in the developed world declaring GMO is perfectly safe, we must discard all of this and believe web sites that publish information from discredited sources along with other pseudo-science gibberish like vaccine conspiracy theories, AIDS denialism, water memory, and other assorted nutbaggery.

[HuckleB]

49. I know. I know.

[salib]

52. I just want labeling for GMOs

What is wrong with that?

[Major Nikon]

53. You mean other than misleading and falsely alarming consumers?

Not to mention using the government to further the commercial interests of the $105 billion industry which is paying to promote the idea along with the large legal entities who author such laws specifically to be difficult to comply with and then make their living filing lawsuits for non-compliance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gmo-labeling-ama-american-medical-association_n_1616716.html

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-board-directors-legally-mandating-gm-food-labels-could-%E2%80%9Cmislead-and-falsely-alarm

http://www.science20.com/science_20/blog/gmo_labels_are_good_for_the_105_billion_organic_industry_but_no_one_else-149780

[pnwmom]

59. There is nothing misleading about correct labeling. And the food manufacturers have zero credibility

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 03:13 AM - Edit history (1)

on this, because they fought Senator Kennedy for more than two decades when he was trying to get them to list common allergens on labels -- even though they knew that for some people, correct labeling of allergens can be a matter of life and death. So now, when they object to the labeling of GMO's, on the basis that it would falsely imply there was a possible health issue with GMO's, we know they are lying. They objected to labeling allergens even though they knew a serious health issue was involved. They just didn't care. They want to sell their product without labeling, no matter what.

On the issue of common allergens, the food industry finally conceded but still insisted on not labeling gluten, which is a serious problem for millions of people with Celiac, dermatitis herpetiformis, and other forms of gluten sensitivity. What is their justification? They have none.

So we are now labeling a number of common allergens that the industry fought tooth and nail not to disclose. And consumers are not being "falsely alarmed." Despite their bleating, the food industry will survive the labeling of GMO's, just as they've survived the labeling of common allergens.

P.S. It doesn't matter that you or anyone else feels that GMO products are exactly like their non-GMO counterparts, and that the glyphosphate residues are of no concern. Millions of others disagree, and they should be able to buy their food accordingly. It is up to Monsanto and other producers to use their free speech rights to educate the public on why their GMO's are so great -- not to refuse to label their products with information consumers want to know.

[Major Nikon]

63. So would it be OK to label food fertilized with shit?

I mean that would be correct labeling, yes? I suspect if people were asked, they would certainly like to know that food fertilized with shit may still contain e coli pathogens which manage to sicken and kill people on a regular basis (unlike transgenic foods). I mean if fertilizing food with shit is such a great idea, producers should be proud of it and have absolutely no issues with being forced to label their products and it should be their responsibility to use their free speech rights to inform their customers about how great of an idea fertilizing with shit is. So it really shouldn't matter that such labeling would have zero impact to public health and would only serve to mislead and scare people about the safety of the food supply.

Food allergens are less of a concern with GMOs, because unlike all other foods they are tested for them and rejected if levels are too high. So it's more than a bit ridiculous to compare food allergen labeling with GMO labeling and pretend it's all the same thing. If you were genuinely concerned about food allergens, you'd want all new hybrids tested including organically certified varietals, because unlike GMO which only alters a small portion of the genome and is subsequently tested for allergens, conventionally bred foods substantially alter the genome and aren't tested at all making them a much greater risk.

[pnwmom]

64. Why wouldn't it be? I wouldn't object to the disclosure of the type of fertilizer used, including manure.

In that case they should, of course, specify whether it was animal or human manure that was used.

I didn't say, in my previous post, that GMO's are more likely to contain allergens, although that is a legitimate concern for some people. The point I was making is that the food industry doesn't only object to labeling regulations for GMO's; it objects to labeling regulations IN GENERAL even when serious health issues are involved -- and the most recent example of that was in their decades long fight with Sen. Kennedy.

And yet, for all the industry's concern about the dire consequences of labeling allergens, they survived. And they will also survive labeling of GMO's, no matter what dire effects they are predicting now. They are the industry that cried wolf, and most progressives are tired of their bleating.

[Major Nikon]

65. Good question

I would be opposed to such labeling. The reason is because mandatory food labeling should be used to inform the public about things which are a genuine health concern. They should not be used as a tool for multibillion dollar industries to scaremonger and leverage government regulation in order to disadvantage their competition.

[pnwmom]

66. There is a profound difference between simple and clear labeling and scaremongering.

Again, the food industry is the boy who cried wolf. It's already proven to be afraid of all labeling. This is nothing new.

And that "multibillion dollar" organic food industry they're so afraid of? It constitutes less than 5% of the food industry. It's no threat.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environment/organic-agriculture/organic-market-overview.aspx

[closeupready]

73. If the labels are true, and the truth alarms consumers, then tough shit.

[Cha]

58. Not a damn thing.. but you will get a Lot of Hot Air from those defending Not Labeling GMO.

[ND-Dem]

71. +100

[Cha]

56. "The Pro gmo lobby" is Orwellian, imo. "Choice"? How about "labeling" their products to actually

have said "choice"? "Democracy"?! Shite, they wouldn't know "Democracy" when looks them in the face. Damn fascists.

The pro-GMO lobby talks about choice, democracy and the alleged violence of certain environmental groups but says nothing about the structural violence waged on rural communities resulting from IMF/World Bank strings-attached loans, the undermining of global food security as a result of Wall Street commodity and land speculators, the crushing effects of trade rules on poorer regions or the devastating impacts of GMOs in regions like South America. To discuss such things is political and thus ‘ideological’ and is therefore not up for discussion it seems.

Now the city of San Diego has to sue Monsanto.. for fucking up their Bay with chemicals..


NEVER!

A Fed Judge thwarted the Will of the People on Kaua'i.. I hate the MOFO. I moved to the other side of the Island to get away from their relentless spraying of poisonous roundup on the West side.

Federal Judge: Kauai's GMO Law Is Invalid



HONOLULU (AP) — A Kauai County law requiring companies to disclose their use of pesticides and genetically modified crops is invalid, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Kurren ruled in favor of four seed companies seeking to stop Kauai's new law from going into effect in October.

Syngenta Seeds, DuPont Pioneer, Agrigenetics Inc., doing business as Dow AgroSciences, and BASF Plant Sciences sued for a permanent injunction, arguing the ordinance unfairly targets their industry.

Kurren's ruling agrees that the ordinance is pre-empted by state law. The judge's ruling stops the county from enforcing the ordinance.

"I'm disappointed but that's the judge's option," said Paul Achitoff, an Earthjustice attorney who helped defend the law on behalf of intervening community groups. "I think the consequences for the people of Kauai, in particular, and throughout the state are very unfortunate."

MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/25/kauai-gmo-law-invalid_n_5711387.html


https://www.facebook.com/Save.Hawai.from.Monsanto

Mahalo, Johny

[pnwmom]

60. Thanks for the information, Cha! n/t

[Cha]

62. You're Welcome, pnwmom!

[ND-Dem]

72. they decide, they choose

[Cha]

74. And, I can't believe we have people defending their toxic actions on a Democratic board.