DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3732--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 8, 2015, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The GMO bastards want to do the same thing to the whole country
that the Fracker bastards did to a town in Texas that banned
Fracking. These corporate biosphere math challenged bastards,
though producing completely different "products", share a
disdain for level playing fields, consumer protection laws and
competition.
[center][img width=640
height=330]
HTML http://quotes.lifehack.org/media/quotes/quote-John-D.-Rockefeller-competition-is-a-sin-42310.png[/img][/center]
[center]This Law Would Make It Illegal for Any State to Mandate
GMO Labeling
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
[/center]
Timothy Wise, Tufts University | September 8, 2015 2:57 pm
If recent history is any indication, Sheldon Krimsky should
expect to be slammed as a “science denier.”
The current vehemence is the product of a well-funded campaign
to “depolarize” the GMO debate through “improved agricultural
biotechnology communication,” in the words of the Gates
Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science. And it is
reaching a crescendo because of the march of the Orwellian “Safe
and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” (code-named “SAFE” for
easy and confusing reference) through the U.S. House of
Representatives on July 23 on its way to a Senate showdown in
the fall.
In an April New York Times op-ed, Alliance for Science affiliate
Mark Lynas follows the party line, accusing environmentalists of
“undermining public understanding of science,” even more than
climate deniers and vaccine opponents. Slate’s William Saletan
goes further in his July feature, calling those who want GMO
labeling “an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging
a leftist war on science.”
Who would have known that depolarization could feel so
polarizing—and so stifling of scientific inquiry.
Precaution and the Public’s Right to Know What We Eat
The SAFE law sounds like it promises what polls suggest 99
percent of Americans want, accurate labeling of foods with GMO
ingredients. It likely guarantees that no such thing will ever
happen.
Backed by biotech and food industry associations, SAFE would
make it illegal for states to enact mandatory GMO labeling laws.
It would instead establish a “voluntary” GMO labeling program
that pretty well eviscerates the demand for the right to know
what’s in our food. It would undercut the many state level
efforts.
Vermont now has a labeling law that survived industry
opposition, threats and a court challenge, which may explain why
the industry got busy in Congress. If you can’t beat democracy,
change it. The Senate is expected to take up the bill after its
August recess.
As written, SAFE is truly the labeling law to end all labeling
laws.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
The biotech industry is acting desperate for a reason. It’s seen
Europe and most of the world close its regulatory doors to GMO
crops, for now, insisting on the same “precautionary principle”
enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That principle calls for a
relatively high level of precaution before the introduction of a
new technology, to avoid the kinds of unintended consequences
that have caused such harm in the past: tobacco, thalidomide,
DDT, PCBs and other cases of industry-backed claims of safety
that, in retrospect, proved deadly.
[center]Not SAFE for Science[/center]
In a sane world that respects scientific inquiry, we would be
engaged in a debate about the appropriate levels of precaution
that we as a society want for a technology as novel as genetic
engineering. That would be constructive, not to mention
depolarizing.
Instead, we get pundits like Lynas and Saletan tarring anyone
who dares call for precaution with the stain of being another
science-denying zealot who ignores the scientific evidence that
no one has been harmed by all the GMO foods consumed in the U.S.
To reinforce how duped or dumb the American public is, they
point to a Pew Institute poll indicating that 88 percent of
scientists think GMO foods are safe, while just 37 percent of
the public thinks so. The gap is repeatedly cited as a measure
of how science-deniers are winning the public relations battle
and how ignorant the U.S. people are on the issue.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
Maybe not. Is it really a surprise that nearly nine in ten
scientists think a new invention is good for society? Not
really. As Joel Achenbach explained in his otherwise good piece
on science denial in National Geographic, we all suffer from
“confirmation bias,” the tendency to interpret information in
ways that confirm our existing beliefs. True enough and guess
what group scores high for confirmation bias in favor of new
technology? Scientists. Honestly, I’m shocked that 12 percent of
scientists
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
think GMO
food isn’t safe.
What about that skeptical public? Are they really just ignorant
and brainwashed?
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>Or is their confirmation bias perhaps informed by their repeat
ed
experiences with big corporations telling them something is safe
or good for them and finding out it’s deadly. Who in the U.S.
has not lost a family member or friend to smoking-related
disease? Given the negligence of U.S. regulatory authorities in
accepting industry claims of safety, is the public really so
foolish to be skeptical, of both industry and government?
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif
Washington University’s Glenn Stone drove the scientific point
home nicely about how long the process of scientific discovery
of hazards can be. He documents how DDT was suspected as a cause
of breast cancer but studies kept failing to find a link. This
is, until 2007, when an intrepid researcher thought to ask if
girls exposed to DDT during puberty had a higher risk of breast
cancer. More than half a century after they were exposed, she
found what no one else had: a five times greater risk in such
girls and a significant additional risk in their female
children.
On GMOs and labeling, Stone asks if all the evidence is really
in just 20 years into this experiment. Are there comparable
studies of GMO effects on pregnant or lactating women and
developing infants and children? No, there are not.
[center]No Consensus on Food Safety[/center]
For those still willing to look past the campaign slogans and
slurs, science is still happening. My colleague at Tufts
University, Sheldon Krimsky, examined peer-reviewed journal
articles from 2008-2014. Contrary to the claims of consensus, he
found 26 studies that showed significant cause for concern in
animal studies, among many studies that showed no harm.
He identified clear evidence that proteins transferred into the
genome of another plant species can generate allergic reactions
even when the original transgene did not, a scientific finding
that undermines industry claims that the transgenic process
creates no instability in the genome. (Scientists even have a
name for such a gene: an “intrinsically disordered protein).”
Krimsky found eight reviews of the literature and they showed
anything but consensus. Three cited cause for concern from
existing animal studies. Two found inadequate evidence of harm
that could affect humans, justifying the U.S. government’s
principle that if GMO crops are “substantially equivalent” to
their non-GMO counterparts, this is adequate to guarantee
safety. Three reviews suggested that the evidence base is
limited, the types of studies that have been done are inadequate
to guarantee safety even if they show no harm and further study
and improved testing is warranted.
What about the much-cited consensus among medical and scientific
associations? Krimsky found no such agreement, just the same
kind of wide variation in opinion, which he usefully ascribes to
differing standards, methods and goals, not ignorance or
brainwashing.
Krimsky goes out of his way, however, to document the
industry-backed campaigns to discredit two scientific studies
that found cause for concern and he warns of the anti-science
impact such campaigns can have. “When there is a controversy
about the risk of a consumer product, instead of denying the
existence of certain studies, the negative results should be
replicated to see if they hold up to rigorous testing.”
That would have been a refreshing and depolarizing, industry
response to the recent World Health Organization finding that
Roundup Ready herbicides are a “probable human carcinogen.”
Instead of calling for further study to determine safe exposure
levels, the industry called out its attack dogs to discredit the
study.
Who here is really anti-science?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/08/safe-gmo-labeling/
Agelbert comment: The "SAFE" law is duplicity in the Orwellian
tradition of Empathy Deficit Disordered idiots that continue to
corrupt our government and the media with double talk and
dissembling.
Don't let them get away with it. Do your part to BANKRUPT the
GMO corporations.
And don't forget to do your part to BANKRUPT Coca Cola. They
have a very similar modus operandi.
"... Coca Cola is blatantly ignoring the well-documented
evidence that sugary drinks are a major contributor to obesity,
heart disease, and diabetes."
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corporate-mendacity-and-duplicity/msg3706/#msg3706
#Post#: 3738--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 9, 2015, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Huge corporations like Monsanto that have suspect agendas
- such as selling poisons worldwide and screwing with the very
fabric of Nature - have learned long ago how to implement a
number of dirty tricks designed to fool authorities and the
public into believing that their methods and products are safe.
One of the ways this is accomplished is through enlisting the
services of "independent experts" who publicly back the claims
of a company, assuring everyone that the products and practices
of such a company have been proven to be safe or harmless
through their own impartial scientific research.
The problem is that far too often, these so-called experts are
anything but independent. In many cases, they are nothing more
than paid shills who are hired to stack the deck in the
company's favor.
[center]
Independent expert or corporate shill?[/center]
A recent case involving Monsanto and one of these allegedly
objective scientific researchers is a perfect illustration of
just how far from being independent many of these "experts"
really are.
An August 6 article published by Nature.com details some of the
results of an ongoing investigation by activist group US Right
to Know, which aims to reveal "collusion between the
agricultural biotechnology industry and academics who study
science, economics and communication."
Part of the focus of the investigation is on a website called
GMO Answers, which is financed by GMO industry giants including
Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Bayer and Syngenta.
One of the frequent contributors to the site is a University of
Florida plant scientist named Kevin Folta, who labels himself as
an "independent expert" in the field of GMOs.
Through the use of freedom of information laws, US Right to Know
has been able to obtain the contents of thousands of emails
exchanged between scientists such as Folta and GMO Answers,
whose site the activist group considers a "straight-up marketing
tool to spin GMOs in a positive light".
Folta's email correspondence revealed that he accepted a $25,000
grant from Monsanto last year and was told that the money "may
be used at your discretion in support of your research and
outreach projects."
He maintains he has no ties to Monsanto. As recently as two
months ago - well after receiving the grant, the existence of
which Folta has never personally disclosed - he said: "I have
nothing to do with Monsanto." Earlier this year (also after
receiving the money), he was quoted as saying that he has
received "no research money from Monsanto, never any personal
compensation for any talks."
He has avoided direct questions about the grant and has gone to
lengths to deny any compensation, ridiculing allegations to the
contrary.
It also appears that Folta was being prompted about what to say
regarding their agenda by Monsanto's PR firm, Ketchum, which
operates the GMO Answers site. In some cases, Ketchum even
scripted his "responses" on the website.
From Nature.com:
...Folta's e-mails show him to be frequent contributor to GMO
Answers. Ketchum employees repeatedly asked him to respond to
common questions posed by biotechnology critics. In some cases,
they even drafted answers for him. 'We want your responses to be
authentically yours,' one Ketchum representative wrote in a
message on 5 July 2013. 'Please feel free to edit or draft
all-new responses.'
Part of Folta's response to this allegation was "I don't know if
I used them, modified them or what."
It's abundantly clear that in this case, a private-sector
scientist has completely compromised his credibility by denying
that he was a paid propagandist for Monsanto. If it weren't for
the efforts of US Right to Know, we would probably have never
learned the truth.
[center]Tip of the iceberg[/center]
What's important to understand is that Folta is just one of many
sellouts who receive compensation from companies like Monsanto.
Of course, the industry and the recipients of such compensation
do their best to conceal their ties, but often legislators and
regulation agencies depend on the the testimony of these
scientific prostitutes when determining which policies to
implement.
Pushing for transparency in these matters is an important part
of the fight against Frankenfood companies like Monsanto.
Organizations such as US Right to Know deserve the public's
wholehearted appreciation and support.
Sources include:
Nature.com
[b]GMWatch.org
HTML http://gmwatch.org/
[/quote]
#Post#: 3742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 11, 2015, 6:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This is posted here because Corporations are littered with
psychopaths.
[center][img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.spring.org.uk/images/psychopaths.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]Which Professions Have The Most Psychopaths?[/center]
Are there ‘successful psychopaths’ amongst us?
According to a survey conducted by psychologist Kevin
Dutton—called the Great British Psychopath Survey—here are the
top 10 professions with the most psychopaths:
1.CEO
2.Lawyer
3.Media (TV/Radio)
4.Salesperson
5.Surgeon
6.Journalist
7.Police Officer
8.Clergyperson
9.Chef ( Agelbert NOTE: This is the only one that surprised
me. Bon appetit! :P )
10.Civil Servant
And here are the professions with the least psychopaths:
1.Care Aide
2.Nurse
3.Therapist
4.Craftsperson
5.Beautician/Stylist
6.Charity Worker
7.Teacher
8.Creative Artist
9.Doctor
10.Accountant
Although people tend to think of psychopaths as killers—indeed
about 15-25% of people in prison are psychopaths—in fact many
people with psychopathic tendencies are not criminals.
Here are some of the traits of psychopaths:
◾Self-confident
◾Cold-hearted
◾Manipulative
◾Fearless
◾Charming
◾Cool under pressure
◾Egocentric
◾Carefree
If you look through the list of professions, then you can see
how a few of these traits might be useful.
None of this means that every CEO or lawyer is a psychopath, nor
should the suggestion be that having psychopathic tendencies is
helpful in any of these jobs (although it may be!).
Rather, there is an overlap between psychopathic personality
traits and the types of people who go into those professions.
Successful psychopath? :
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp<br
/>
A few people try to talk up the benefits of psychopathic
personality traits, saying that there are such things as
‘successful psychopaths’: people who benefit from being that
way.
But many psychologists have questioned whether there really is
such a thing as a ‘successful psychopath’.
That’s because research has found that psychopaths generally do
worse at the things that are often associated with success:
their relationships are worse, they earn less money and do not
generally attain high status (research described in Stevens et
al., 2012).
Maybe the standard for a ‘successful psychopath’ should be
lower. We should simply be amazed that someone with little or no
fear response, unlimited confidence and without fellow-feeling
can live outside of an institution, let alone become a respected
professional.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
HTML http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/07/which-professions-have-the-most-psychopaths.php
#Post#: 3817--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 17, 2015, 10:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
10 Largest Companies ‘Obstructing’ Climate Policy
Cole Mellino | September 17, 2015 12:24 pm
New research reveals that nearly half (45 percent) of the
world’s 100 largest companies are “obstructing climate change
legislation.” And those that aren’t actively obstructing climate
policy are members of trade associations that do. A full 95
percent of these companies are members of trade associations
“demonstrating the same obstructionist behavior.”
With help from the Union of Concerned Scientists, UK-based
nonprofit InfluenceMap has released a report identifying the
best and worst of the world’s major companies when it comes to
climate policy.
“More and more, we’re seeing companies rely on their trade
groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive
climate policies,” said Gretchen Goldman, lead analyst at Union
of concerned
Scientists. “Companies get the delay in policy they want, while
preventing nations from acting to fight climate change. It is
unacceptable that companies can obstruct climate action in this
way without any accountability.”
The researchers found that corporate influence over climate
policies extended “beyond the activities normally associated
with lobbying, including intervention in the public discourse on
climate change science and policy via advertising, PR, social
media, and access to decision makers, as well as the use of
influencers, such as trade associations and advocacy groups.”
The companies were graded on an A to F scale. None of the
companies received an A. The top three companies, which all
received a B, were Google, Unilever and Cisco Systems.
GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Telekom, National Grid, Vodafone
Group, Nestle, Apple and Anheuser Busch InBev rounded out the
top 10. But even Apple, which has been praised in recent months
for its sustainability efforts received a paltry C+. It should
also be noted that of those top 13 companies, only three are
headquartered in the U.S.: Google, Apple and Cisco Systems. The
rest are headquartered in Europe.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170915195147.jpeg[/img]
“There is a lack of detailed analysis available in this area and
sadly great companies sometimes do bad things by lobbying
against government action to avoid dangerous climate change,”
said Paul Dickinson, executive chairman of CDP.
As mentioned early, nearly all of the companies (95 percent) are
members of trade associations that are fighting against climate
action. Those associations include BusinessEurope (recently
under attack in the UK for their obstructionist stance towards
climate legislation) and the secretive U.S. industry group,
NEDA/CAP, “who have been suing the U.S. EPA to prevent them
using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,”
according to InfluenceMap.
Other trade associations include the European Chemical Industry
Council (CEFIC), European Automobile Manufacturers Association,
American Petroleum Institute, National Association of
Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Council of
Australia and Japan 2 Business Federation.
InfluenceMap’s research found that “despite their public
communications, few corporations have actually supported the
progressive climate policies being proposed by governments
globally. There also remains a lack of transparency around their
relationships with trade associations, with very few companies
willing to publicly challenge them despite clear misalignment
between their climate positions and the actions of the
associations.”
The companies receiving the lowest grades come as no surprise.
Among them are major fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, BP,
Duke Energy and Phillips 66. And at the bottom of the list is
climate denying extraordinaire Koch Industries. Interestingly,
two media companies even make the list: 21st Century Fox and
Comcast.
Here are the 10 worst companies on InfluenceMap’s list:
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-170915195410.jpeg[/img]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/17/obstruct-climate-policy/
Agelbert Comment: Also obstructing the massive and drastic
government action required to reduce the present high
probability of N.T.H.E. (Near Term Human Extinction). due to the
failure of incremental measures to prevent deleterious positive
feedback loops ([I]that will produce catastrophic climate
change[/I]) are the irresponsible and criminally negligent
people that continue to defend incremental measures.
The responsibility to care for and preserve the biosphere on
behalf of future generations,[I] including returning it to the
healthy state it was in over a century ago when we began to
severely pollute it, is not optional[/I] (unless you are an
Empathy Deficit Disordered Evolutionary Dead End).
Distinguished Professor Emeritus Richard Somerville, a
world-renowned climate scientist and author of "The Forgiving
Air: Understanding Environmental Change," discusses the
scientific case for urgent action to limit climate change.
The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo
#Post#: 3834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2015, 9:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]France + Russia Ban GMOs ;D[/center]
Lorraine Chow | September 18, 2015 11:40 am
According to RT, Russia is stamping out any GMOs in its entire
food production.
“As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have
made decision not to use any GMO in food productions,” Russia’s
Deputy PM Arkady Dvorkovich announced at an international
conference on biotechnology in the city of Kirov.
Dvorkovich added that there is a clear difference between the
use of GMO-products for food versus scientific or medicinal
purposes, RT reported.
“This is not a simple issue, we must do very thorough work on
division on these spheres and form a legal base on this
foundation,” he said.
Russia already has hardline policies against GMOs. In 2012,
Russia banned imports [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
<br
/>of Monsanto’s corn after a French study linked the company’s
GMO-product to tumors in lab rats (the study was later
retracted). Last year, the country banned imports of GMO
products, with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying the
nation already has the resources to produce its own non-GMO
fare. [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]
“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it
then. We don’t need to do that; [img width=25
height=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png[/img]<br
/>we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food
,”
said Medvedev. (And in case you’re wondering, Russian president
Vladimir Putin is also anti-GMO). ;D
The percentage of GMOs currently present in the Russian food
industry is at a mere 0.01 percent, RT observed.
Russia’s latest move comes after similar news pouring in from
Western Europe in recent weeks.
On Thursday, France followed in the footsteps of other European
Union countries—Scotland, Germany, Latvia and Greece—and has
chosen the “opt-out” clause of a EU rule passed in March that
allows its 28-member bloc to abstain from growing GMO crops,
even if they are already authorized to be grown within the
union.
Specifically, the country wants to shut out the cultivation of
nine GMO maize strains within its borders, according to
yesterday’s joint statement from Ségolène Royal, France’s
Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development, and Stéphane Le
Foll, the Minister of Agriculture and Energy.
“It is part of the very important progress made ​​by
the new European framework on the implementation of GMO
cultivation in which France played a leading role,” the
statement reads (via translation from Sustainable Pulse). “This
directive makes it possible for Member States to request the
exclusion of their territorial scope of existing authorizations
or of those under consideration.”
France’s latest GMO-sweep also singles out Monsanto’s MON 810
maize, the only GMO crop grown in Europe, and is currently under
review at the European level, Reuters reported.
France, which is the EU’s largest grain grower and exporter, is
further cementing its anti-GMO sentiments with this latest move.
The country already prohibits the cultivation of any variety of
genetically modified maize due to environmental concerns.
Monsanto, which maintains the safety of their products ;), has
said it will abide by the requests from the growing wave of
European countries turning their backs on these controversial
crops. The agribusiness giant, however, recently accused Latvia
and Greece of ignoring science and refusing GMOs out of
“arbitrary political grounds.”
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif
In a statement, Monsanto said that the move from the two
countries “contradicts and undermines the scientific consensus
on the safety of MON810.”
[center]
[img width=400
height=280]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-111214174727.png[/img][/center]
Meanwhile, much-maligned company didn’t have a total loss this
week. According to Politico EU, the Committee on the
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety—a key committee in
the European Parliament—”rejected a proposal Tuesday to halt an
extension in the use of the world’s most popular weedkiller,”
aka Roundup, Monsanto’s flagship herbicide. >:(
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/18/france-russia-ban-gmos/
#Post#: 3835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: September 18, 2015, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
County in Oregon Sued for Banning GMO Crops
Michelle Schoffro Cook
September 17, 2015 5:30 pm
89 comments
Just one day before Josephine County, Oregon made history by
enforcing a ban on genetically-modified foods, two farmers filed
a lawsuit against the county for its GMO-Free regulations. The
lawsuit was filed on September 4 by Robert A. White Jr. and
Shelley White, two farmers who grew genetically-engineered sugar
beets, just one day before the county became completely
GMO-free. In addition to getting the regulators to overturn the
“Genetically-Engineered Plant Ordinance”, the lawsuit requires
that Josephine County suspend their GMO-free regulations until
the lawsuit has been decided.
In their lawsuit documents the farmers state: “The Ordinance
conflicts with Oregon State law, and, among other things,
requires farmers to destroy valuable crops they have planted,
cultivated, and plan to sell. The Ordinance also, among other
things, prohibits the growing of GE plants in the future and
thereby interferes with the livelihood of many farmers.”
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-030815183114.gif<br
/> However, the ordinance was passed on May 20, 2014, giving the
farmers two seasons to grow and harvest their
genetically-modified sugar beets and switch to a different crop
or a non-genetically-modified beet crop.
The “Oregon State law” cited in the legal documents likely
refers to Oregon’s new legislation which bans local bans on
genetically-modified crops which came into place after Josephine
County passed its law banning genetically-modified crops from
its county. However, there are allegations that the state
legislation may have been illegally backdated in an effort to
stop Josephine County from becoming a GMO-free zone.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
This isn’t the first lawsuit the county has faced after passing
the anti-GMO legislation. Syngenta, one of the world’s largest
genetically-modified seeds manufacturers and crop chemical
producers, spent $800,000 in an effort to force Josephine
County, a county of approximately 83,000 citizens, to overturn
the legislation. Syngenta moved its genetically-modified sugar
beet crops out of Josephine County and moved its warehouse and
offices out of the region.
The lawsuit documents state that the Ordinance “prohibits (the
Whites) from engaging in a livelihood which, but for the
Ordinance, (they) have a right to engage.” Only sentences later,
the same documents indicate that they are continuing their work
as farmers, having “now planted with a much less lucrative
crop.”
Additionally, the lawsuit documents insists that the court force
Josephine County to declare their Ordinance “invalid and
unenforceable” which if decided in their favor would force the
county and its residents to be further subjected to
genetically-modified crops and any possible health or
environmental damage that may ensue. That requirement would
allow the growing of crops like Bt corn (short for Bacillus
thuringiensis corn), a form of genetically-modified corn which,
according to reports, actually “produces insecticidal toxins
from inside every cell of the plant.”
Genetically-modified crops may also subject the residents of the
area to pesticides like glyphosate, which goes by the brand
names Roundup (manufactured by Monsanto), Accord (manufactured
by Dow Agrosciences LLC), Touchdown (manufactured by Syngenta)
and Rodeo (manufactured by Dow Agrosciences LLC). Earlier this
year glyphosate was declared a probable carcinogen to humans by
the World Health Organization’s International Agency for
Research on Cancer.
HTML http://www.care2.com/greenliving/county-in-oregon-sued-for-banning-gmo-crops.html#ixzz3m9CzJaTu
[center][img width=320
height=265]
HTML http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2.jpg[/img][/center]
[center] [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 4123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: November 21, 2015, 6:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Posted on Nov 20, 2015
VIDEO: Bernie Sanders Champions Democratic Socialism in Major
Speech at Georgetown
[center]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slkQohGDQCI&feature=player_embedded[/center]
Agelbert COMMENT: Ever since Bernays got the cigarette companies
to pay women models to march with "libery torches" in the early
1930's, Americans have been continually convinced to act against
their health and their democracy for the profits of the elite
predators.
In a sane world the average person would OBVIOUSLY favor
Socialism. But Bernays Propaganda, through Madison Avenue, and
FUNDED by all the elite enemies of democracy (fossil fuel,
mining, chemical, tobacco, cancer -see useless nuclear medicine
and nerve gas derived chemotherapy - industries, etc. [I]et
al[/I]) have succeeded in making Americans believe that GREED IS
GOOD and GREED IS GOD.
So, of course, Americans continue to shoot themselves in the
foot. The ethics free predators have succeeded in colonizing
American brains with fecal coliforms. IOW, most Americans,
especially those who would benefit most from socialism, have
been brainwashed with bullshit.
The elite predators laugh all the way to the fossil fuel
government fascist bank.
[b]The Exxon Valdez PITTANCE of a settlement: PROOF we have a
Fascist Fossil Fuel Government AND the irreparably DYSFUNCTIONAL
Court System is its HANDMAIDEN[/b]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2122/#msg2122
Learned ethics free counselor tell us how Exxon did what they
did, as if that's just fine and dandy: JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW Vol. 18:151 The purpose of this comment is to describe the
history of the Exxon Valdez litigation and analyze whether the
courts and corresponding laws are equipped to effectively handle
mass environmental litigation.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/fossil-fuels-degraded-democracy-and-profit-over-planet-pollution/msg2123/#msg2123
The USA has a Selected, not elected, Representative Government
representing the WILL of the elite Oligarchy
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corruption-in-government/msg2365/#msg2365
#Post#: 4198--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: December 17, 2015, 8:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Business-Managed Democracy: The Transnational Class
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif
[/center]
[quote]It would be a mistake to assume that today’s global elite
is defined by solely by its wealth. Rather it is a transnational
corporate class made up of top corporate executives wielding
power founded in the giant institutions they command together
with individuals and families who have derived great wealth from
business enterprises.
This transnational corporate class organises and runs the
business coalitions where common goals and strategies are worked
out; coordinates the public relations specialists, think tanks
and media outlets that manipulate public opinion; sets the
agendas for policy groups; guides their policy recommendations
onto government agendas; fills executive positions in successive
government administrations and as government advisors; and
thereby ensures public policy outcomes that are conducive to the
business interests they favour. In this way governments are
intimately connected with this business power elite. [1]
Since the 1970s corporate executives have begun to act as a
class with a shared ideology rather than a collection of
competing companies with some common business interests. In his
book The Inner Circle, written in the 1980s, Michael Useem
claimed that whilst “a sense of class affinity based on company
stewardship can hardly be said to be new, the strength of the
bond has increased and a select circle of those in corporate
power are now far more willing to work towards goals that serve
all large companies.” His study of the US and UK found that even
at that time large corporations were becoming more and more
interrelated through shared directors and common institutional
investors. [2]
The inner circle are powerful within the corporate community
because of their top level management positions within large
corporations, their board membership of other large
corporations, and their leadership positions in business
associations. Because of these multiple positions they are able
to network with others in similar positions and mobilize
resources and express support for political goals shared by
others in the circle. Their views tend to “reflect the broader
thinking of the business community” rather than the concerns of
an individual company. [3]
Susan George has referred to this inner circle as the Davos
Class (referring to the annual meeting of the World Economic
Forum (WEF) at Davos). She describes them as “interchangeable,
international, individually wealthy, nomadic, with common
attributes, speaking a common language and sharing a common
ideology”.
Interlocking Directorates - See more at:
HTML http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=7593#sthash.Bcm2mt19.dpuf
HTML http://www.stateofnature.org/?p=7593#sthash.Bcm2mt19.dpuf[/quote]
#Post#: 4874--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: April 11, 2016, 11:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Below please find, PROOF that those fine folks
who control the University of Texas investment strategy are
biosphere math challenged fossil fuelers.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
[center]University of Texas hopes to cash in on falling shale
production costs [img
width=30]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp[/img]<br
/>[/center]
Staff Writers April 8, 2016
The University of Texas is hoping to leverage falling upstream
costs to boost the value of its oil and gas assets.
In an interview with Bloomberg, University Lands executive
vice-chancellor for business affairs said UT is looking to take
advantage of falling shale production costs to adjust its lease
model, a move the university hopes will boost the value of the
2.1 million acres it currently holds.
“In the new scheme of things, not only do we have 2 million
acres of land, but if there are two to four plays based on
various depths in the shale formations, we might have the
equivalent of 6 to 8 million acres of land,” Kelley said.
University Lands is under the direction of the Office of
Business Affairs of the University of Texas System and is
responsible for managing the Permanent University Fund lands and
the Trust Minerals.
Oil revenues earned by UT are placed into the Permanent
University Fund.
There are currently about 9,000 wells operating on university
land and [b]consultants for University Lands have identified an
additional 21,000 potential sites[/b], Bloomberg said.
According to data compiled by Bloomberg, UT and Texas A&M earned
about $800,000 in oil and gas royalty revenue per day in 2015,
down from a peak of just over $1.1 million in 2014.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif
University Lands CEO Mark Houser told the news agency that he is
also focused on renegotiating leases for sites that have not
been drilled yet.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
“We’ve got to know our assets better. We need to understand what
the potential is,” Houser
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
said.
HTML http://petroglobalnews.com/2016/04/university-texas-hopes-cash-falling-shale-production-costs/
[center] [img
width=200]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210316151047.png[/img][/center]
[move]University Lands CEO Mark Houser has his morning Joe.
[/move]
[center] [img
width=440]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240216231558.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 4981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity
By: AGelbert Date: April 26, 2016, 9:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Puerto Rico: Where Wall Street Perfected the Neoliberal
Asset Stripping [i]Mens Rea Modus Operandi [/i][/center]
[center] [img
width=240]
HTML http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Screen-Shot-2015-09-11-at-10.03.46-AM.jpg[/img]
[/center]
[center]John Oliver: We Have to Start Treating Puerto Rico Like
an Island of American Citizens (Video) [/center]
Posted on Apr 25, 2016
The “Last Week Tonight” host outlines the Puerto Rico debt
crisis and calls on Lin-Manuel Miranda, Pulitzer Prize-winning
playwright and star of the Broadway hit “Hamilton,” to explain
just how dire the situation in the U.S. territory is.
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Tt-mpuR_QHQ[/center]
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_we_have_to_start_treating_puerto_rico_like_an_island_20160425
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/john_oliver_we_have_to_start_treating_puerto_rico_like_an_island_20160425
[b] How Puerto Rico became a Corporate Goldmine - while
Simultaneously the Corporate Media peddled the LIE that it is an
economic basket case
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/corruption-in-government/msg4135/#msg4135
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page