General Right-Wing Fuckery.

[DJ FC]

It's certainly not perfect. Not even close so.


But it's a better estimation than pretty much anything else we have.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Good, they are fighting for the betterment of mankind.

By what, protecting business interests? I find it unsurprising whatsoever that 3 people on the board who's careers, and if we believe the stereotype (see: DJ FC) entire lives, social or otherwise depend solely on corporate supremacy (FC, you, and DF) seem to think that business and corporate success is directly related to the "betterment of mankind". Did you read the article? On top of the points mentioned in that one example, corporations are constantly outed in regard to shady and unethical (if not outright criminal) business practices -- which as i've stated, happen's in every branch of humanity, but I just don't see how you guys can claim business and banking as fundamentally philanthropic and benevolent -- It's not. It does, however, have its roots in selfishness, greed, and hoarding.

Just in case you didn't read the article, and missed how they are "bettering mankind", here are some highlights:

In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus.

Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan watchdog group, said, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times."

Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at the University of California, San Diego, is the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a new book that chronicles various attempts by American industry to manipulate public opinion on science. She noted that the Kochs, as the heads of “a company with refineries and pipelines,” have “a lot at stake.” She added, “If the answer is to phase out fossil fuels, a different group of people are going to be making money, so we shouldn’t be surprised that they’re fighting tooth and nail.”

Around this time, the brothers faced a political crisis. In 1989, the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs investigated their business and released a scathing report accusing Koch Oil of “a widespread and sophisticated scheme to steal crude oil from Indians and others through fraudulent mismeasuring.” The Kochs admitted that they had improperly taken thirty-one million dollars’ worth of crude oil, but said that it had been accidental. Charles Koch told committee investigators that oil measurement is “a very uncertain art.”

During the Clinton Administration, the energy industry faced increased scrutiny and regulation. In the mid-nineties, the Justice Department filed two lawsuits against Koch Industries, claiming that it was responsible for more than three hundred oil spills, which had released an estimated three million gallons of oil into lakes and rivers. The penalty was potentially as high as two hundred and fourteen million dollars. In a settlement, Koch Industries paid a record thirty-million-dollar civil fine, and agreed to spend five million dollars on environmental projects.

In 1999, a jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in the deaths of two Texas teen-agers in an explosion that resulted from a leaky underground butane pipeline. (In 2001, the company paid an undisclosed settlement.) And in the final months of the Clinton Presidency the Justice Department levelled a ninety-seven-count indictment against the company, for covering up the discharge of ninety-one tons of benzene, a carcinogen, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. The company was liable for three hundred and fifty million dollars in fines, and four Koch employees faced up to thirty-five years in prison. The Koch Petroleum Group eventually pleaded guilty to one criminal charge of covering up environmental violations, including the falsification of documents, and paid a twenty-million-dollar fine. David Uhlmann, a career prosecutor who, at the time, headed the environmental-crimes section at the Justice Department, described the suit as “one of the most significant cases ever brought under the Clean Air Act.” He added, “Environmental crimes are almost always motivated by economics and arrogance, and in the Koch case there was a healthy dose of both.”

Koch’s corporate and political roles, however, may pose conflicts of interest. For example, at the same time that David Koch has been casting himself as a champion in the fight against cancer, Koch Industries has been lobbying to prevent the E.P.A. from classifying formaldehyde, which the company produces in great quantities, as a “known carcinogen” in humans.

There's more in there, but that's all i'm going to pick up. I really don't think these guys quite fulfill the role of Ozymandias. One of the most interesting things I found in the article was all the tenets that the brothers seem to want their Tea Party (should it be successful) to put into place:

Many of the ideas propounded in the 1980 campaign presaged the Tea Party movement. Ed Clark told The Nation that libertarians were getting ready to stage “a very big tea party,” because people were “sick to death” of taxes. The Libertarian Party platform called for the abolition of the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., as well as of federal regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Energy. The Party wanted to end Social Security, minimum-wage laws, gun control, and all personal and corporate income taxes; it proposed the legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. Government should be reduced to only one function: the protection of individual rights. William F. Buckley, Jr., a more traditional conservative, called the movement “Anarcho-Totalitarianism.”

Do you really believe in all of this? Is this really what you want? An entirely corporate-controlled state?

[DJ FC]

Blonde you can be so thick sometimes.

Nobody is saying corporations should be allowed to ruin mutually shared resources (the environment) or break laws. And we don't want corporations to have power over individuals AT ALL.

[Mr. Blonde]

DJ FC YOU CAN BE SO <INSERT AD HOMINEM> SOMETIMES.

I just drew a direct correlation between Beebs apparently supporting people who are definitely ruining mutually shared resources (the environment) and breaking laws in order to seemingly continue this process once the people preventing them from getting away with whatever they want once they gain power. So yes, it does seem like he is saying that.

Conservatives have a very long and rich (no pun intended) history with opposing legislation and regulation devised to help or at the very least stop hurting the environment, mostly on grounds that it infringes in their personal liberty to do whatever they want to make money regardless of who or what they harm along their way.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

This is such an idealist viewpoint. I used to hold the same belief. Then I started opening my eyes to things like con-artists and government spending. You're too smart to regurgitate standard rightists points, Beebs.

Well government spending is obviously not what I am talking about in free exchange.

I'm not too smart to believe in basic elements of human nature like rational self interest.

People don't buy unless they believe they are increasing their self interest.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

By what, protecting business interests? I find it unsurprising whatsoever that 3 people on the board who's careers, and if we believe the stereotype (see: DJ FC) entire lives, social or otherwise depend solely on corporate supremacy (FC, you, and DF) seem to think that business and corporate success is directly related to the "betterment of mankind". Did you read the article? On top of the points mentioned in that one example, corporations are constantly outed in regard to shady and unethical (if not outright criminal) business practices -- which as i've stated, happen's in every branch of humanity, but I just don't see how you guys can claim business and banking as fundamentally philanthropic and benevolent -- It's not. It does, however, have its roots in selfishness, greed, and hoarding.

Just in case you didn't read the article, and missed how they are "bettering mankind", here are some highlights:




There's more in there, but that's all i'm going to pick up. I really don't think these guys quite fulfill the role of Ozymandias. One of the most interesting things I found in the article was all the tenets that the brothers seem to want their Tea Party (should it be successful) to put into place:



Do you really believe in all of this? Is this really what you want? An entirely corporate-controlled state?

Corporations are generally well behaved in regards to the law, certainly more so than individuals. Nobody is saying all corporations are always perfect, but there is no reason to through out what has been the driving force of the entire modern world.

My point is they are fighting for a more free world, which is inherently a betterment over a less free world.

Whatever you think of banking and finance, without them world would have none of the modern luxuries it does; it is the driving force in pretty much all advances in the world.

Without the investment capital, be it direct or in the form of them carrying the vast majority of the tax burden for the government.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Corporations are generally well behaved in regards to the law, certainly more so than individuals. Nobody is saying all corporations are always perfect, but there is no reason to throw out what has been the driving force of the entire modern world.

Individuals usually do not possess the capital to influence the laws that apply to them like corporations.

My point is they are fighting for a more free world, which is inherently a betterment over a less free world.

They are fighting for a free world or are they fighting for freedom to do what they will? There is a clear distinction between individuals having inalienable rights and corporations having the right to do whatever they want.

Whatever you think of banking and finance, without them world would have none of the modern luxuries it does; it is the driving force in pretty much all advances in the world.

The results always justify the means then? At what point do we stop? The palpable power of banks is only in the infancy of its growth, organizations with this much size can incrementally undermine anything they so choose. Give it a couple of decades of "freedom" to do whatever they like and you will be making payments on the lease for your own flesh and blood.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by DDTempest

The results always justify the means then? At what point do we stop? The palpable power of banks is only in the infancy of its growth, organizations with this much size can incrementally undermine anything they so choose. Give it a couple of decades of "freedom" to do whatever they like and you will be making payments on the lease for your own flesh and blood.

LOL WUT

[Der Fuhrer]

Corporations are owned by people, just like me and you. Many of you so carelessly use the term corporation as if all corporations are giant multi-billion dollar conglomerates that are trying to take over the world through some malevolent scheme. You watch too many fucking movies. I would say 90% of the corporations are small- to mid-sized firms just trying to maximize profit and shareholders' (people like you and me) wealth. If a corporation is not maximizing profit (by say, plotting against the world) they will fail and be replaced by a company that uses its resources effectively (unless of course some shitty government steps in a prevents a firm from failing...).

There are statiscal data that shows consumers are willing to pay a premium for companies' products that are environmentally and socially responsible, and those consumers will discount a company's products that are not. See: externalities.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

LOL WUT

Clearly I was exaggerating the outcome to make a point, the point being that if things were left to a 100% free market system that eventually things could devolve to the point of being born into indentured servitude.

Is this what I believe will happen? No, I'm not a global conspiracy nut. Could it happen eventually? Why not?

I am generally going to side with a well-run business over a person. The point some of us are trying to make is that business and government are currently two sides of the same coin and neither have your best interests at heart. While strong businesses are the backbone of a strong economy, which lifts us all up in its wake, but there is a point when things cross an ethical line and that's where some of us are pointing out a problem and an acknowledging that a free market can't sort out EVERY problem that might arise. Sometimes, the government will need to step in and say "knock that shit out" or even pick up the pieces.

To use a metaphor: the government is a parent, and corporations are kids playing with their toys. A parent doesn't need to step in and tell a kid how to play with their toy, they will quickly figure out the way to get the most enjoyment out of it. If they break their toy, they can even learn a valuable lesson from it ... or find more enjoyment in the pieces themselves. But when a kid starts jamming a firetruck into his brother's asshole, or bashing holes in the wall with a baseball bat ... then its probably in the best interest of everyone that the parent steps in.

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

Corporations are owned by people, just like me and you. Many of you so carelessly use the term corporation as if all corporations are giant multi-billion dollar conglomerates that are trying to take over the world through some malevolent scheme. You watch too many fucking movies. I would say 90% of the corporations are small- to mid-sized firms just trying to maximize profit and shareholders' (people like you and me) wealth. If a corporation is not maximizing profit (by say, plotting against the world) they will fail and be replaced by a company that uses its resources effectively (unless of course some shitty government steps in a prevents a firm from failing...).

Splitting hairs on the meaning of the word corporation does not distill the intent of what some people are posting. Yes, we know that most corporations are not diabolical machines with endless reach, just as most governmental bodies are not very influential one way or the other in the lives of those they serve.

Lets say for the sake of argument from here on that we use corporations to mean LARGE corporations or groups of corporations like: oil, banking, energy, tobacco, etc ... and that for government we assume that we are referring to the federal government.

[Ugly Bastard]

DDT, I really like what you're trying to get at in this thread, but some of your statements and analogies are doing your greater point a disservice.

[Der Fuhrer]

Yes I agree DDT, we should only hate the largest and most successful corporations because they generate the most wealth and have the most influence.

A government is more like a pimp that takes the hard earned money from the slut when he really did none of the work to earn it. Everyone knows that a whore would be better off without the pimp, but the pimp provides some necessary services that the whore needs.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by DDTempest

The point some of us are trying to make is that business and government are currently two sides of the same coin

You will never convince me of this.

In my oppinion government and free enterprise are not even on the same coin.

With one you have the virtues of the human being. With the other you have shortsightedness, greed, ignorance, and malevolence. The only thing we agree on is that some people attribute one set of qualities one way and others the opposite.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

Yes I agree DDT, we should only hate the largest and most successful corporations because they generate the most wealth and have the most influence.

I'm saying that no corporation should be able to shape the rules of the game.

A government is more like a pimp that takes the hard earned money from the slut when he really did none of the work to earn it. Everyone knows that a whore would be better off without the pimp, but the pimp provides some necessary services that the whore needs.

I agree, the pimp is only necessary when things go wrong which they inevitably do.

[zebrazebrazebraSHAFT]

Corporations -> lobbyists -> lawmakers-> the IRS
thats our government in a nutshell.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I think this is a good place for a conversation I just had over facebook. Kind of long, but some might enjoy it.


Me
Finally some good news!
I did and she said she remembers you as an able columnist.
We could give you a shot at a news or feature story and see how it goes from there. No promises on whether we’ll publish it – it depends on how aggressive you are at getting sources, how well your story is organized, whether there are any errors or inaccuracies. Got any ideas to pitch to me? (Make sure we haven’t done them before – you can do a search on the Tidings website.)
The door is slightly ajar, Joel. If I can impress her..who knows.
1:19pmJoel
awesome
hope you can 'wow' her
1:19pmMe
Yeah. Man, now I'm all nervous. Whew.
This could be huge for me. Getting published in the Tidings would give me some much needed credibility.
1:24pmJoel
yeah, i always wonder about newpapers nowadays
even online, it seems like it would be so hard to make it in jounalism
1:25pmMe
It is, man. It's a low paying, thankless job. Everyone fucking reads the news, but they all bitch about it.
1:26pmJoel
well i'm more looking at it like, information is traded so much faster now
getting something in print out on a site, it's like there's 15 other sites doing the same thing
just using my wrestling websites as example you have to pay for 'exclusive' content which is usually interviews, the highlights of which are reported on other sites anyway
1:28pmMe
That's why news is becoming more commentary based - opinion - and it's getting louder and louder to try and attract the most attention
1:31pmJoel
well the news is being run like a business
not like an informational system
1:32pmMe
Everything has to be run as a business.
1:32pmJoel
what? no it doesn't
you think education and law should be run like businesses?
1:32pmMe
Without subsidies you have to be profitable. Period.
1:33pmJoel
i would argue that just like education, transportation, etc. news should be funded on a goverment level
1:34pmMe
That's dangerous, though. Ideally you want the governments hands as far away from the news as you can get it. The media is there to hold things like government accountable. There's an obvious conflict of interst.
1:36pmJoel
Ideally you would want the government to fund the media because ideally the government would be a perfect representation of what the majority of people want
1:36pmMe
News shouldn't be about giving people what they want.
1:36pmJoel
as it stands you can still have the government fund the media you simply do it the same way you do it to fund other things that would be a conflict of interest by funding multiple of the same thing
im saying that ideally you wouldn't fear that the government would abuse it's control of the media
1:38pmMe
Maybe. But if we're talking ideals then this has become theoretical.
1:39pmJoel
well, you brought up ideals i still think equally government funded multiple news sources is plausible and would be of greater benefit than private companies that work to back the government anyway
1:41pmJoel
if the government was paying for fox news people would go "fuck that shit" and get it canceled because of the lies and misinformation that comes from it because every other news staiton would report the opposite and shut them down
1:41pmMe
We still get back to the need for it to be profitable.
1:41pmJoel
no, because it's governemnt funded
it's like a library
1:42pmMe
But ultimately governments have to be sustainable. Not even government can afford deficit spending indefinitely...as we see in the US
1:43pmJoel
yes, well that's because we cut taxes a shit ton from how we used to be
if you're not taxing people the government doesn't make any money
1:44pmMe
Well I'd argue that taxing people for news is unnecessary - I'd rather people keep their own money to invest and let the private sector handle news.
1:44pmJoel
well you're an idiot lol
clearly that doesn't work
1:45pmMe
What are you even talking about? I don't think you know what's what.
1:45pmJoel
you think the current system of news is really effective?
where we have a bunch of stations trying to make the news better so people watch them, rather then actually just pass on the information about what's happening?
1:46pmMe
I'm not saying there aren't problems. But to tax people for something like news is too extensive. You don't want to over tax your population. It stifles the private sector, which is the engine behind the economy.
1:46pmJoel
you said it yourself that the news if more about opinions now
our economy worked pretty darn well when the rich were being taxed 90%
1:48pmMe
When the hell was that? And no. When you over-tax the rich you know what happens? They say fuck you and they leave to places that allow them to keep more of their money. And once the rich people leave then who the fuck do you tax?
Might as well shoot yourself in the foot.
1:49pmJoel
the rich people stay because that's where their job is
do you want to be the president of a company in the rich country and make 10% of 1 million or do you want to want to be the president of some company in a poor company and make 100% of 100,000?
1:50pmMe
Businesses often relocate to friendlier environments.
1:50pmMe
If you're rich enough, you'll leave. At a certain point you can do well just off investments and interest.
1:50pmJoel
and yes, companies will move because poor import and export laws allow them to move and same money
true, but then guess what, if you leave that spot opens up for someone else to take
1:52pmMe
I think my point though is that while taxes are good, they can be excessive.
1:53pmJoel
well maybe one day if you're a self made millionaire like Ronnie you can enjoy that lack of taxation
for now you get to enjoy the thought of maybe being rich like 99% of america
1:55pmMe
I just don't think you understand economics, friend. American history shows that capitalism + low taxes = economic prosperity for the country.
1:55pmJoel
and wishing that those people coughed up a little more of their cash so we could have things like, oh let's say unbias media
1:55pmMe
I mean look at the drastic turn around in the economy from the Carter administration to the Reagan administration.
1:56pmJoel
economic prosperity sure, what about prosperity in other aspects?
1:57pmJoel
alright, I gotta end this conversation
1:57pmMe
We still had safety nets - social security, medicare - taxes for schools, police stations, roads, etc. Sounds like you want a nanny/welfare state.
1:58pmJoel
the girl is giving me the it's 5am and I have to work at 9am so stop talking and turn off the computer and go to sleep look
1:58pmMe
lol, okay
Well have a good sleep.
1:58pmJoel
ttyl

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

LOL WUT

Who Owns You? 20% of the Genes in Your Body are Patented | Singularity Hub

Problem, DJ FC?

[Beebs]

I think the BBC is a great example of how a state funded news network can work, but there absolutely have to be alternatives and strict, unbreakable rules regarding neutrality, even then it is a large cost in terms of both money and freedom.

[Der Fuhrer]

The problem with media bias isn't so much that they're bias in how they report the news, moreso on what they choose to report. This is obviously impossible to prevent, which is why there will always be media bias.

[Mr. Blonde]

Are You Ready for Some Midterms? - MSNBC's Political Narrative - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 9/9/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

WOW

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Are You Ready for Some Midterms? - MSNBC's Political Narrative - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 9/9/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

WOW

Yeah, saw that last last night. The editing to take snippets out of context should be embarrassing. Looks to me like news journalism is pretty much dead in all areas.

[DJ FC]

Is there a youtube version of that clip? What is it? It's not available in the UK.

[Orgazmo]

Nope, but Cliffs:

Fox plays clip of Obama saying,

Originally Posted by Obama

Taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody.

They surround it with their own commentary saying things like

Originally Posted by Fox

The president did have rare moment of honesty in his speech. I hope voters around the country are watching this.

and

Originally Posted by Fox

That's right, and I know the anointed one will make sure that happens.

...then the Daily Show plays the full clip, in which he says

Originally Posted by Obama For Real

Under the tax plan passed by the last administration, taxes are scheduled to go up substantially next year. For everybody. By the way, this was by design.

[Der Fuhrer]

I would like to see the full segment of Sean Hannity's clip before I take any stance on this issue. John Stewart is just as much, if not more, of a scandalous bastard, and much less of a political commentator. Finally, his show is a comedy show, therefore it is subject to much less scrutiny about the validity of what he reports.

[Ugly Bastard]

They're all comedy shows. Some are just funnier than others.