Hi Rog T

> did you notice I'd found those NIWA legal action pdf's for you?

I looked on page 76 but there were no links there. Help?

Cheers

"We do not have a democracy, it is a republic."

And how are our leaders chosen, both in the executive and legislative branches?

"Perhaps you can help me here, Nick?"


"Federal Election Laws:

Individual Contribution Limits:
- $2,400 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

- $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC."

You're taking that question out of context, Nick. It immediately followed a question that had to do with: when is the last time you saw a board of directors fire a CEO because they disagreed with the recipients of the corporation's campaign contributions?

One day shortly after the Second World War ended, Winston Churchill and Labour Party Prime Minister Clement Attlee encountered one another at the urinal trough in the House of Common’s men’s washroom. Attlee arrived first. When Churchill arrived, he stood as far away from him as possible. Attlee said, “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” Churchill said: “That’s right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it.”

Female MP to Winston Churchill:

"If I were your wife I would poison your tea."

Churchill's reply:

"If you were my wife, I would drink it."

"Churchill said: “That’s right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it.”"

Hilarious, George. Ya gotta love the Brits.

Another Winnie-ism, paraphrased:

Indignant woman at a party responding to one of Winnie's infamous lewd remarks: "You, Sir, are an obnoxious drunk!"

Winnie's reply: "Yes, Madam, and you are ugly. The difference is that, in the morning, I shall be sober and you shall still be ugly."

"We do not have a democracy, it is a republic."

And how are our leaders chosen, both in the executive and legislative branches?
------------------------------------------------------------

The following won the majority of votes, but lost the presidential election:
Andrew Jackson (1824)
Sam Tilden (1876)
Grover Cleveland (1888)
Al Gore (2000)

You're taking that question out of context, Nick. It immediately followed a question that had to do with: when is the last time you saw a board of directors fire a CEO because they disagreed with the recipients of the corporation's campaign contributions?

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

Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

But I have Board of Directors fire plenty of CEOs.

"The following won the majority of votes, but lost the presidential election:
Andrew Jackson (1824)
Sam Tilden (1876)
Grover Cleveland (1888)
Al Gore (2000)"

Brings to mind something about the exception proving the rule. Not to mention the legislative branch, where the Electoral College does not apply, not to mention state and local governments. The word for the selection process is, I believe, democracy?

"Corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns."

Call it as you will; the money ends up where it's intended, and you know it as well as I. You're starting to remind me of Slick Willy and his soliloquy on the meaning of "is".

"But I have Board of Directors fire plenty of CEOs."

For where they allocated corporate election contributions? Specific examples?

edited by ouzel 11/19

Edited by ouzel on 11/19/2010 20:20:18 MST.

Tom,

I do not know why you are so combative. Corporations are not allowed to contribute to campaigns. So of course no CEO has been fired for this. Or do you have a list of corporations that have contributed to campaigns?

And why are you not upset that Joe Biden received $857,000 in taxpayer money on his campaign? And if you are, wouldn't it make sense to discuss something that is a fact?

Maybe we should take a look at corporations that contribute to charity instead? You might like that aspect of corporations (I do not). Here are the top charitble corporations in 2009:

Roger C says:
I looked on page 76

They are there:


http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_defence.pdf

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_claim.pdf

Edited by tallbloke on 11/20/2010 05:22:15 MST.

Nice list Nick. Makes an excellent point. I'm sure it shocks some.

Here is more shock and awe...


$600 BILLION to charity challenge


http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/16/gates-buffett-600-billion-dollar-philanthropy-challenge/

and...


China visit


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012826952_gatesbuffettchina07.html

Greater than 90% of the S&P top 100 companies have their own PACs to ensure their money ends up exactly where they want it to go.

I'm sure these aren't really campaign donations, or direct enough for people playing the no true scotsman game. But, the October 2010 report from Si2 and IRRC says "Companies are most likely to give directly to candidates via the company PAC" according to a survey of the S&P500.

How Companies Influence Elections- Political Campaign Spending Patterns and Oversight at America's Largest Companies
Heidi Welsh and Robin Young
October 2010

"I do not know why you are so combative. Corporations are not allowed to contribute to campaigns. So of course no CEO has been fired for this. Or do you have a list of corporations that have contributed to campaigns?"

First off, Nick, if you were offended by my comments, I sincerely apologize. They were born out of frustration with your perceived evasiveness, but that is no excuse. I shall endeavor to be less "combative" in future. It is true that corporations are still not allowed to contribute directly at the federal level, but they are at the state level. However, they have ample other indirect means of funneling money to favored candidates' election efforts, among them are The US Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. Both of these organizations, 501(c)(6) are dedicated to returning the Republican Party to power and overturning the legislation enacted by the Democrats since the 2008 election. These organizations offer their donors complete anonymity, as they are not required to report the source of their funding. Corporate PACs are another convenient means to funnel money to favored candidates. My guess is that the two organizations I just mentioned, as well as others of like structure, will be increasingly favored due to their lack of transparency. Then there are PAC's, still the favored mechanism. Just about every corporation has one, and if you want a list, a simple search
on the net will return all the information you could possibly desire. Directly or indirectly, corporations funnel corporate money to political campaigns, and I have yet to hear of a CEO being terminated for making the decision to do so.

Below is a URL for an article by opensecrets.org that refers to an American Crossroads Report of contributions that includes 2 corporations, American Financial Group and Daniels Manufacturing. I presume the report was voluntary, and represents but the tip of the iceberg. You asked for a list and here it is. It's is all I have the time/inclination for right now, but I think it illustrates my point.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/american-crossroads-shadow-rnc.html

"And why are you not upset that Joe Biden received $857,000 in taxpayer money on his campaign? And if you are, wouldn't it make sense to discuss something that is a fact?"

How do you know that I'm not upset. You seem to assume that I am a true blue Democrat. That said, I am in fact not upset. If I had my way, every candidate would be financed with taxpayer dollars, period, with private money out of the picture entirely, thus ensuring a level playing field.

"Maybe we should take a look at corporations that contribute to charity instead? You might like that aspect of corporations (I do not). Here are the top charitble corporations in 2009:"

To the extent that the figures you provide are acccurate, and I have no immediate inclination to question them, it is admirable. However, I do not see the connection to the issue at hand. Why did you include it here, if I might ask?

Edited by ouzel on 11/24/2010 16:59:52 MST.

This government was bought a long time ago and here we are quibbling over the semantics and legal definitions of corporate campaign contributions.

To be blunt: Anyone in this day and age that honestly thinks corporations don't influence (if not outright control) politics, policy making, and political campaigning needs to, as a roughly translated saying from my Armenian family goes, "go bang your head against a rock".

At the heart, this a culture of smoke screens, marketing spin, legalized corruption, and lies. Spectacle has replaced knowledge. Because of this, I'm not even sure how to have an honest discussion with anyone...especially not on the internet. Thank you for mentioning doublespeak Tom, as well as the reference to Clinton's discourse on "is". Very pertinent; I truly believe things are becoming so warped that it's hard to know what's real...

...Images of "McRib is Back!" billboards juxtaposed against oceans of pigs sitting in cages in factories float through my head. We're not even allowed to see half of reality, therefore, it does not exist. Has anybody seen any images of dead US soldiers or Afghans on the nightly news lately (or in the last 10 years)? We're at war, aren't we? It's easy to forget when Black Friday is just around the corner.

Every time we discuss a corporation, the definition of what a "real" corporation is shifts. Every time we critique capitalism, the capitalism we critique isn't the "real" capitalism. Criticize a Democrat, Republican, or anyone else and you'll likely be met with the defense of "Well, he or she isn't a REAL...". Nobody has the "real" science anymore...well, in this case, I suppose someone does, but in this culture of illusion and marketing spin, I'm not sure we'll ever know who.

Meanwhile, there's an elephant in the room: A big, monoxide-breathing, tree-eating, oil sucking, carcinogen-bleeding beast. It wants to sell us forests, cheap meat, diamonds, plastic, oil, water...

While we squeak and squawk over minor domestic issues, such as which is the better light bulb, which political party will fix our woes faster, whether or not tuna is more environmentally friendly than farmed salmon, this beast is on the march. I wonder if my grandchildren will inherit a world in which there are still wild salmon on the west coast.

I doubt it.

Edited by xnomanx on 11/21/2010 00:48:25 MST.

Good post Craig. Obviously you are a concerned citizen and passionate about the plight of both our society and environment.

Finding the "real" I agree is baffling whatever your position politically and/or scientifically. We need arguments like the ones going on here. Hopefully some of our newest generation of backpackers will read it and begin thinking about it. Old geezers like me are either set in their spots or skeptical about ALL of it. The latter for me.

I'm reading Ferguson's The Ascent of Money. I'm reading the chapter titled Chiamerica that gets into America and China and the history. It is chilling to read paragraphs pertaining to pre-WWI times. You could post those paragraphs on threads arguing current issues.

One of the things I've found is that cycles over generations tend to repeat. Not exactly but similarly. Without knowledge of such we move forward and get blindsided as happened recently.

This happens politically, economically and, I believe, scientifically. Newton's early career was in alchemy. Galileo and Copernicus led interesting lives. The US began with a revolution followed by a civil war and then morphed significantly after depression and world war.

My point is that is always seems bad. Whether this is "real" I do not know. Does anyone really know?

Which is right and which is an Illusion?...

http://www.army.mil/media/amp/?bcpid=6981683001&bcpid=41699797001&bclid=4488224001&bctid=680216221001

OR

http://www.medalofhonor.com/

Edited by gmatthews on 11/21/2010 06:32:56 MST.

"My point is that is always seems bad. Whether this is "real" I do not know. Does anyone really know?"

That's a good question. But let's not let the spin convince us the real is not real- I know that I can take certain things as fact because I can see them with my own eyes:

Like how dams wipe out salmon and mining destroys rivers.
Like the rate at which forests and species are disappearing.

I know we can expect world population and consumption patterns to continue increasing at an exponential rate (providing some force doesn't halt them).

I know Los Angeles, (my city) by almost every measure, has the worst air quality in the nation and it it's showing up in childhood asthma rates.

I know our world fisheries are in big trouble. I'm a fisherman; there's been a drastic change just within my life.

What does all this have to do with corporations? It's because we do it all for money and to keep this culture of consumption rolling.

And that's why I'm especially certain that we can expect Cargill, Monsanto ADM, ConAgra, General Mills, GE, Haliburton, Humana, Royal Dutch SHell, Total, Chevron, BP, Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, Sinopec, Weyerhauser, Kimberly Clark, Boise Cascade...

....that's why I'm absolutely certain we can count on them continuing to do anything they have to do to stay on top, continue consolidating the political and legal backing necessary to stay dominant, to keep their products flowing nonstop to control new markets, keep the public from understanding their true cost to taxpayers, people around the world, and the planet, and keep the destruction and madness they cause out of sight.

It's beyond politics at this point. Electing this party or that does not change what these companies do.

Yes, in many, many ways, my life "benefits" from this culture, from its cheap goods, abundant energy, and hollow calories. I'm no hypocrite here. Problem is, this culture is also destroying our political system, not to mention our planet. I suppose I'm fortunate that I don't have to see the worst of it.

If I'm wrong about this, please explain how what this culture is currently doing is sustainable by any measure.

But alas, maybe this whole discussion is in vain: I'm certain that someone will tell me that everything I mention in this post isn't really happening anyway.

Your links above are great George. Another great example of how our culture is completely warped.

Edited by xnomanx on 11/21/2010 10:26:13 MST.