"By my math there were just over 62 million votes counted for Bush in 2004. Estimated population of the United States in 2004 was just shy of 293 million. If simple division serves me right then that means over 78% of the U.S. population did not vote for Bush in 2004 (either by voting for someone else, not voting, or being ineligible)."

What's your point? That the only people who have to abide by the laws signed by the president are the people who voted for him?

In the last election I voted in, I didn't vote for the guy who won, but he still represents me nonetheless.

All of this is true, but has NOTHING to do with whether or not the GM crops themselves are safe to eat.

When you buy genetically modified corn, you are buying corn. If you need a label to tell you that you are buying corn, perhaps you should leave your grocery shopping to someone else.

I understand that companies are also modifying crops to resist pests, eliminating the need for chemical pesticides. Wouldn't that be a good thing for the environment??

I'm perfectly fine with that.

What does that have to do with labeling GM food?

"For me, I don't want to support Monsanto if at all possible. I think it's absolute bullshit that a farmer can have his crop infested with Monsanto "product" from a neighboring farm, and then get sued when he uses it. And yes, I think there needs to be patent reform, copyright reform, trademark reform, etc, but I also won't actively support a company that abuses those systems."

I'm 100% with you there, but that's an entirely different debate from whether or not GM foods are safe.

"Requiring a label ain't so bad (we could be pushing to limit it's use or outlaw it the way they've done with smoking, for instance, which I also feel should be ones choice but should be correctly labeled), and it leaves the choice to the individual."

Not really sure that's a valid comparison: smoking has been proven time and again to be bad for one's health, and the opposite for GM food.

"I predict that the sheeple hysteria will have little to no effect on the purchasing numbers should producers be required to label GM foods. Ya know why? Cause those people have already moved to the "Organic" trend."

So we should label food (at the expense of paying customers) to help people make a choice they have already made. Makes perfect sense to me.

So now *I* have to subsidize people's irrational fears? That's so much better.

1: People have fears about GM food.
2. State proposes regulation based on fears.
3. Industry proves GM food is safe.
4. State insists that industry label GM food anyway.
5. People see label on GM food; fears persist.

That's some fine circular logic there, Lou.

And the farms/companies that produce these crops have a right not to have to pay to indulge people's irrational fears.

"I'm not aware of any plants that have naturally built man-made pesticides into their DNA sequences..."

Perhaps because that's not what's happening in the lab either.

People speaking from an assumed position of authority without sufficient knowledge to do so are a big part of the problem.

"But label the damn things so people can choose."

To what purpose? Making sure people see that GM food is "different" and perpetuating the hysteria?

If the idea is to simply replace textbooks (as suggested by the headline) there are better options than the iPad. Every school district I contracted at was already very restrictive with their IT policies.

What's wrong with setting up a device for students that is restricted to approved educational uses?

I don't think anyone is pushing the idea that tablets can fulfill every need of every computer user. I'm not sure what you are responding to.