2 / 192123SOUTH
The Daily Render

by

A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and Future

| FRONT PAGE | GEOSPATIAL ART | DC HISTORY / TIMELINE | NEWS | COLONIST | FOUND MAPS | FRACTALS |
| PHOTOGRAPHY | ANTIQUE | DESIGN | VIDEO | RANDOM | CONTACT |

Philly Voice: Giant marijuana joints, Sanders supporters among Broad Street marchers on DNC Day 1
|| 7/25/2016 || 9:53 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

“We want to make sure all candidates are for full-legalization of cannabis,” said Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DCMJ.org, an activist group that helped get cannabis decriminalized in Washington, D.C.

PHOTO BY THOM CARROLL/PHILLYVOICE

+ MORE



Washington Post: About that ‘bud summit’ at the White House — pot activists are still waiting
|| 6/25/2016 || 10:55 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

Thirty minutes after the meeting began, Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller, co-founder of DC Marijuana Justice, were done and outside the White House. They held a banner that read “President Obama, We need a higher level meeting.”

Screengrab of the Washington Post story About that ‘bud summit’ at the White House — pot activists are still waiting

+ MORE



Washington Post – Letter to the Editor: The D.C. Council’s marijuana club ban inadvertently creates the ‘smokeasy’
|| 1/11/2016 || 11:44 am || + Render A Comment || ||

Screengrab of the Washington Post Letter to the Editor

The D.C. Council’s marijuana club ban inadvertently creates the ‘smokeasy’

January 11, 2016

The Jan. 7 editorial “Clouded judgment” regurgitated the same tired argument that the District is moving too fast to change discriminatory cannabis laws. But as council member Brianne K. Nadeau (D-Ward 1) said, there is no emergency that warrants a ban.

Beginning July 17, 2014, the day the D.C. Council’s decriminalization law went into effect, it stopped being a criminal offense to have cannabis clubs in the District. It wasn’t a criminal offense to have private events, where the public is not invited and cannabis could be used behind closed doors. The decriminalization law says that the smell of cannabis is not probable cause for police action. Private cannabis clubs could have been created before Initiative 71 was voted on, but they weren’t.

By rubber-stamping the mayor’s ban, the council inadvertently created the “smokeasy,” a private residence where adults consume cannabis together. Is this the “unintended consequence” of poorly crafted emergency legislation? It’s a hallmark of poor governance to enact laws to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. By banning cannabis-using adults from gathering at private venues, the council created a problem.

We look forward to working with the mayor and the D.C. Council on fixing the ban so all adults have access to safe places outside their homes to use cannabis responsibly.

Adam Eidinger and Nikolas Schiller, Washington
The writers are founders of DCMJ and authors of Initiative 71.


SOURCE: Washington Post



Washington Post: On Day 1 of legalization, Bowser submits bill to prevent ‘pot clubs’
|| 2/26/2015 || 6:17 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

“A long time ago, we decided there would be no large events with people smoking,” Schiller said. “It was one of those quiet victories to be celebrated in back yards and in living rooms.”

+ MORE



Dusting off the cobwebs that have collected on NikolasSchiller.com
|| 1/25/2015 || 7:05 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

These are some of the questions I was curious about during my blogging sabbatical:

What happens when a website goes cold?

Which archived entries will become the most popular?

How will idleness affect search engine algorithms?

What will the daily traffic be on this cobweb?

I never formally gave up blogging here. Instead, I simply added the text “i’m currently on daily blogging sabbatical, but i’ll be back very soon.” to the top of the page in the spring of 2011.

I essentially created a digital snapshot-in-time. Looking back at the chronological edit archive, I added a few entries in the spring 2012 & backdated them to the summer 2011, but from then on, it’s been intentionally silent on this website. I was curious about what would happen when this website was paused.

Most websites go offline, but few go on pause. It’s much easier to start a free blog on Tumblr than it is to have your own domain name, purchase a website hosting package, install the content management system, and keep everything running smoothly. Pause also costs money, and in my case, to the tune of hundreds of dollars a year. From dozens of domain names to the hosting package that keeps all the websites running, keeping my small stake of land on the World Wide Web has been both time-consuming and expensive. But it has also been quite rewarding to have this digital time capsule alive and online, albeit collecting dust.

Over the last few years much of my attention has gone to updating different websites that I was paid to manage. This made the intentional neglect of this website much easier to handle. I also never set a specific date that I would return because I didn’t want to be arbitrarily pressured to end my blogging sabbatical.

In lieu of posting new content here, I’ve also kept a secondary scrapbook during these silent years that includes some of my more memorable accomplishments, creations, and endeavors. Over the coming days & weeks I plan to regularly add new entries to the archives in order reflect what has transpired over the last few years. Concurrently, I also plan on recoding the layout of this website because it’s in desperate need of a makeover.

Welcome back! Pardon the dust.



Quoted today’s in DelMarVaNow
|| 12/10/2014 || 10:00 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

“We don’t want members of Congress to overturn our election,” said Nikolas Schiller, a spokesman for the DC Cannabis Campaign.

Today I was quoted in DelMarVaNow concerning Rep. Andy Harris’s attempt to overturn Ballot Initiative 71.

+ MORE



Washington Post: Odds are increasing that D.C. will vote on legalizing marijuana — despite Congress
|| 6/29/2014 || 12:41 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

“I can’t tell you how many times I heard ‘I’m gonna vote for it, but I will not sign it.’ ‘No, I can’t vote for it, I’m a teacher, I’m a federal worker, I’m a government contractor, ‘I’ll lose my job.’?” Eidinger said.

Nikolas Schiller, another top campaign organizer, said he came to see it as a “Snowden factor.” He said, “People don’t want to be put on some government list.”

Screengrab of the Washington Post story Odds are increasing that D.C. will vote on legalizing marijuana — despite Congress/>

Look closely and you’ll see my hands in the back right

+ MORE



Results of the Shareholder Resolution Vote
|| 1/28/2014 || 6:26 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

Item 5.07
Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
 
At Monsanto Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting on January 28, 2014, of the 524,909,387 shares outstanding and entitled to vote, 453,690,682 shares were represented, constituting an 86.43% quorum.  Each matter was determined by a majority of votes cast.
 
The final results for each of the matters submitted to a vote of shareowners at the Annual Meeting are as follows:
 
Item No. 1:
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
 
All of the board’s nominees for director were elected to serve until the Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting or until their respective successors are elected and qualified, by the votes set forth in the table below:
 
 
Votes Cast For
Votes Cast Against
   
Nominee
Number
% of Votes Cast
Number
% of Votes Cast
Abstain
Broker Non-Votes
Gregory H. Boyce
408,216,045
97.88%
8,838,965
2.11%
2,482,408
34,153,264
Laura K. Ipsen
412,473,852
98.89%
4,588,762
1.10%
2,474,804
34,153,264
William U. Parfet
409,746,192
98.24%
7,299,267
1.75%
2,491,959
34,153,264
George H. Poste, Ph.D., D.V.M.
412,324,891
98.86%
4,740,463
1.13%
2,472,064
34,153,264
 
 
Item No. 2:
RATIFICATION OF AUDITORS
 
The appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2014 was ratified by the shareowners, by the votes set forth in the table below:
 
Votes Cast For
Votes Cast Against
   
Number
% of Votes Cast
Number
% of Votes Cast
Abstain
Broker Non-Votes
446,705,816
99.01%
4,455,708
0.98%
2,529,158
0
 
 
Item No. 3:
ADVISORY APPROVAL OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
 
The shareowners approved, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, executive compensation, by the votes set forth in the table below:
 
Votes Cast For
Votes Cast Against
   
Number
% of Votes Cast
Number
% of Votes Cast
Abstain
Broker Non-Votes
406,416,515
97.74%
9,355,656
2.25%
3,765,247
34,153,264
 

 
Item No. 4:
SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL ONE
 
The shareowners did not approve the shareowner proposal presented at the meeting requesting a report related to labeling of food produced with genetic engineering, as evidenced by the votes set forth in the table below:
 
Votes Cast For
Votes Cast Against
   
Number
% of Votes Cast
Number
% of Votes Cast
Abstain
Broker Non-Votes
15,387,230
4.16%
353,816,720
95.83%
50,333,468
34,153,264
 
 
Item No.5:
SHAREOWNER PROPOSAL TWO
 
The shareowners did not approve the shareowner proposal presented at the meeting requesting a report on certain matters related to GMO products, as evidenced by the votes set forth in the table below:
 
Votes Cast For
Votes Cast Against
   
Number
% of Votes Cast
Number
% of Votes Cast
Abstain
Broker Non-Votes
24,112,427
6.51%
346,147,059
93.48%
49,277,932
34,153,264
 
 
 
 
SIGNATURES
 
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
 
                   MONSANTO COMPANY
 
 
 
Dated:  January 28, 2014
              By:            /s/Jennifer L. Woods
                   Name:         Jennifer L. Woods
                   Title:           Assistant Secretary
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

SOURCE: SEC FORM 8-K



Full Text of Ballot Initiative 71
|| 1/10/2014 || 2:47 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

UPDATE: Ballot Initiative 71 became law at 12:01am, Thursday, February 26, 2015


After months of review and numerous public comments, on January 10, 2014 the DC Cannabis Campaign submitted the ballot initiative to the DC Board of Elections and Ethics. After two hearings in February and March, on April 5, 2014, the DC Board of Elections and Ethics finalized the short title, summary statement, and the legislative text for Ballot Initiative #71:

INITIATIVE MEASURE #71
SHORT TITLE

“Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014”

SUMMARY STATEMENT

This initiative, if passed, will make it lawful under District of Columbia law for a person 21 years of age or older to:

  • possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use;
  • grow no more than six cannabis plants with 3 or fewer being mature, flowering plants, within the person’s principal residence;
  • transfer without payment (but not sell) up to one ounce of marijuana to another person 21 years of age or older; and
  • use or sell drug paraphernalia for the use, growing, or processing of marijuana or cannabis.
LEGISLATIVE TEXT

BE IT ENACTED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THAT this act may be cited as the “Legalization of Possession of Minimal Amounts of Marijuana for Personal Use Act of 2014.”

Sec. 2. Section 401 of the District of Columbia Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981 (D.C. Law 4-29; D.C. Official Code §48-904.01), is amended as follows:

Subsection (a)(1) is amended to read as follows: “(a)(1) Except as authorized by this chapter or Chapter 16B or Title 7, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to manufacture, distribute, or possess, with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, it shall be lawful, and shall not be an offense under District of Columbia law, for any person twenty-one (21) years of age or older to :

“(A) Possess, use, purchase or transport marijuana weighing two ounces or less;

“(B) Transfer to another person twenty-one years of age or older, without remuneration, marijuana weighing one ounce or less;

“(C) Possess, grow, harvest or process, within the interior of a house or rental unit that constitutes such person’s principal residence, no more than six cannabis plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants, provided that all persons residing within a single house or single rental unit may not possess, grow, harvest or process, in the aggregate, more than twelve cannabis plants, with six or fewer being mature, flowering plants;

“(D) possess within such house or rental unit the marijuana produced by such plants;
Provided that, nothing in this subsection shall make it lawful to sell, offer for sale or make available for sale any marijuana or cannabis plants.”

The following new paragraphs are added to subsection (a) after paragraph (1), and the remaining paragraphs are renumbered accordingly:

“(2) The terms ‘controlled substance’ and ‘controlled substances,’ as used in this Code, shall not include:

“(A) Marijuana that is or was in the personal possession of a person twenty-one years of age or older at any specific time if the total amount of marijuana that is or was in the possession of that person at that time weighs or weighed two ounces or less;

“(B) Cannabis plants that are or were grown, possessed, harvested, or processed by a person twenty one years of age or older within the interior of a house or rental unit that constitutes or at the time constituted, such person’s principal residence, if such person at that time was growing no more than six cannabis plants with three or fewer being mature flowering plants and if all persons residing within that single house or single rental unit at that time did not possess, grow, harvest or process, in the aggregate, more than twelve cannabis plants, with six or fewer being mature, flowering plants; or

“(C) The marijuana produced by the plants which were grown, possessed, harvested or processed by a person who was, pursuant to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, permitted to grow, possess, harvest and process such plants, if such marijuana is or was in the personal possession of that person who is growing or grew such plants, within the house or rental unit in which the plants are or were grown.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the terms ‘controlled substance’ and ‘controlled substances’ as used in this Code shall include any marijuana or cannabis plant sold or offered for sale or made available for sale.

“(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, no district government agency or office shall limit or refuse to provide any facility service, program or benefit to any person based upon or by reason of conduct that is made lawful by this subsection.

“(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any district government agency or office, or any employer, to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growing of marijuana in the workplace or to affect the ability of any such agency, office or employer to establish and enforce policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees.

“(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by use or ingestion of marijuana or to modify or affect the construction or application of any provision of this Code related to driving under the influence of marijuana or driving while impaired by marijuana.

“(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit any person, business, corporation, organization or other entity, or district government agency or office, who or which occupies, owns or controls any real property, from prohibiting or regulating the possession, consumption, use, display, transfer, distribution, sale, transportation or growing of marijuana on or in that property.

“(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to make unlawful any conduct permitted by the District of Columbia Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Amendment Act of 2010 (D.C. Law 18-210; D.C. Official Code §§7-1671.01 et seq.).”

Sec. 3. Section 4 of the Drug Paraphernalia Act of 1982, effective September 17, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-149; D.C. Official Code §48-1103), is amended as follows:

(a) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:

“(a) Except as authorized by Chapter 16B of Title 7, it is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inhale, ingest, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance; except that it shall be lawful for any person twenty-one years of age or older to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to possess or use marijuana if such possession or use is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1), or to use, or possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to grow, possess, harvest or process cannabis plants, the growth, possession, harvesting or processing of which is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1). Whoever violates this subsection shall be imprisoned for not more than 30 days or fined for not more than $100, or both.”

Subsection (b) is amended to read as follows:

“(b) Except as authorized by Chapter 16B of Title 7, it is unlawful for any person to deliver or sell, possess with intent to deliver or sell, or manufacture with intent to deliver or sell drug paraphernalia, knowingly, or under circumstances where one reasonably should know, that it will be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance; except that it shall be lawful for any person to deliver or sell, possess with intent to deliver or sell, or manufacture with intent to deliver or sell, drug paraphernalia under circumstances in which one knows or has reason to know that such drug paraphernalia will be used solely for use of marijuana that is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1) or that such drug paraphernalia will be used solely for growing, possession, harvesting, or processing of cannabis plants that is lawful under section 48-904.01(a)(1). Whoever violates this subsection shall be imprisoned for not more than 6 months or fined for not more than $1,000, or both, unless the violation occurs after the person has been convicted in the District of Columbia of a violation of this subchapter, in which case the person shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or fined not more than $5,000, or both.”

Sec. 4. The amounts of the fines set forth in District of Columbia Code sections 22-3571.01 and 48-1103 shall be adjusted through implementing or amending legislation enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia to the extent necessary to ensure that this Act does not negate or limit any act of the Council of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Code §1-204.46.

Sec. 5. This act shall take effect after a 30-day period of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization Act (Home Rule Act), approved December 24, 2971 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code §1-206.02(c)(1)).


+ MORE



My First Shareholder Resolution
|| 12/9/2013 || 2:57 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

In the summer of 2013 I drafted my first shareholder resolution:


Proxy Item No. 4: Shareowner Proposal One

This proposal was submitted by Adam Eidinger, Washington, D.C. As of July 30, 2013, Mr. Eidinger indicated that he held 75 shares of Monsanto common stock. The proposal has been carefully considered by the board of directors, which has concluded that its adoption would not be in the best interests of the company or its shareowners. For the reasons stated after the proposal, the board recommends a vote “Against” the shareowner proposal.

The proposal and supporting statement are presented as received from the shareowner proponent in accordance with the rules of the SEC, and the board of directors and the company disclaim any responsibility for its content. We will furnish, orally or in writing as requested, the address of the proponent of this shareowner proposal promptly upon written or oral request directed to the company’s Secretary.

Information regarding the inclusion of proposals in Monsanto’s proxy statement can be found on page 82 under Shareowner Proposals for 2015 Annual Meeting.


Shareowner Statement
WHEREAS:

  • Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using biotechnology.
  • For thousands of years, mankind has modified plants through grafting, artificial selection, and without the use of genetic engineering.
  • Transgenic DNA produced through modern genetic engineering is not found in natural foods and was not in the food supply of previous generations of mankind.
  • Americans have the right to know what they are eating.
  • U.S. law does not require the labeling of patented biotechnology in foods sold in grocery stores.
  • Company stands by its products and believes they are safe.
  • Due to the uncertainty regarding the potential negative side effects of genetic engineering on humans, animals, and the environment, it is imperative that the Company be transparent with customers concerning our labeling efforts.
  • The Company’s Pledge [1] says that we will ensure that “information is available, accessible, and understandable.”
  • Transparency provides consumers the power to decide what kind of foods are grown on farms and served on dinner tables.
  • Over 60 countries around the world have regulations concerning the labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering.
  • In 2002, the Company said “Food Labeling. It has Monsanto’s Full Backing” in regards to the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United Kingdom.
  • In 2013, there was legislation introduced in over two dozen U.S. state legislatures concerning the labeling of foods created using genetic engineering.
  • The state legislatures of Connecticut and Maine have passed legislation requiring foods sold in those states to be labeled if they were produced using genetic engineering, but only 4 or more other New England states pass similar legislation.
  • The Company spent $8,112,866.55 in 2012 to prevent California residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.
  • As of July 2013, the Company has spent $242,156.25 to prevent Washington state residents from voting to increase transparency in their state’s food labels.
  • The money spent by the Company to prevent legislation that discloses whether food produced using genetic engineering dilutes shareowners earnings per share.
  • The Company believes that nationwide regulations are needed to prevent 56 different state & territory food labeling laws.

RESOLVED: The Monsanto Board shall prepare a report, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, assessing any material financial risks or operational potential impacts on the Company in order to:

  • Work with the FDA to develop food labeling guidelines for American consumers that discloses whether genetic engineering was used to produce the food;
  • Work with the FDA to develop standard threshold of 0.9% or higher for foods created with genetic engineering
  • Analyze the inclusion of U.S. patent numbers on American food labels where patented biotechnology was used to produce the food;

The report shall be available by July 1, 2014 and be posted online on our Company’s website. In order to ensure that our Company upholds its pledge of transparency, we urge a vote FOR this resolution.
[1] “Our Pledge” – Transparency: http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/monsanto-pledge.aspx



SOURCE: Page 76, Monsanto Company Proxy Statement, Securities and Exchange Commission





The Daily Render By
A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and Future.

©2004-2017 Nikolas R. Schiller - Colonist of the District of Columbia - Privacy Policy - Fair Use - RSS - Contact



2 / 192123SOUTH

::SUBSCRIBE::


+ Facebook
+ Twitter
+ YouTube
+ MySpace
+ Google
+ Vimeo

::LAST 51 POSTS::

Fair Use


15 queries. 0.698 seconds.
Powered by WordPress

Photo by Charlie McCormick
Nikolas Schiller is a second-class American citizen living in America's last colony, Washington, DC. This blog is my on-line repository of what I have created or found on-line since May of 2004. If you have any questions or comments, please contact:

If you would like to use content found here, please consult my Fair Use page.

::LOCATIONS & CATEGORIES::





thank you,
come again!

::THE QUILT PROJECTION::

Square
Square

Diamond
diamond

Hexagon
hexagon

Octagon
octagon

Dodecagon
Dodecagon

Beyond
beyond

::OTHER PROJECTIONS::

The Lenz Project
Lenz

Mandala Project
Mandala

The Star Series


Abstract Series
abstract

Memory Series
Memory

Mother Earth Series
Mother Earth

Misc Renderings
Misc

::RENDERS BY YEAR::

+ 95 in 2008
+ 305 in 2007
+ 213 in 2006
+ 122 in 2005
+ 106 in 2004

::POPULAR MAPS::

- The Los Angeles Interchanges Series
- The Lost Series
- Terra Fermi
- Antique Map Mashups
- Google StreetView I.E.D.
- LOLmaps
- The Inaugural Map
- The Shanghai Map
- Ball of Destruction
- The Lenz Project - Maps at the Library of Congress
- Winner of the Everywhere Man Award

::ARCHIVES BY YEAR::

+ 2011
+ 2010
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007
+ 2006
+ 2005
+ 2004


::MONTHLY ARCHIVES::

:: LAST VISITORS ::