Posts Tagged ‘lobby’

Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW


The reasoning involved in the nature of the evil of an “ex-chemical company” like Monsanto is not rocket science.  We only have to consider a few basic principles.  Once they are accepted as true, the rest follows.  The first principle is that life processes and systems are complex. They are the most complex systems known.  This makes all developing life sciences, especially those involved with the dysfunction and repair of life processes, as much an art as a science.  Those that would  create a product must also be able to maintain and repair it, not only the product, but also any consequence of its use. So the practice of  ’making’  or modifying of  life must equate to the healing of life in its methods in order for it to be a moral enterprise. Those that would improve life must be able to heal it when things go awry. To confuse a practicing art with an applied science is to engage in fraud and quackery of the most unethical and dangerous sort.

via Ishtarmuz’s: Why Monsanto, An Ex-Chemical Company, Now A BioTech Company, Is Evil #FYW.

BP Oil Leak Vs. Aus Rotten


BP Oil Leak Vs. Aus Rotten

Vodpod videos no longer available.

In my email: Between now and November, millions of dollars will be spent on ads trying to influence your vote.


Public Citizen

Dale,

Between now and November, millions of dollars will be spent on ads trying to influence your vote.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=HxTvTX0OqX6GYBTgvGV0hLCVxI2nq5pn
Stand up to corporate front groups!


Corporate front groups that run political ads are growing in size and influence, but their secret funders remain in the shadows.

Tell your representative to pass the DISCLOSE Act (H.R. 5175) in the U.S. House. The American people should know who is trying to influence their vote.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision rewrote the nation’s campaign finance laws to allow unlimited corporate spending in elections. When it comes to corporate front groups running deceptive political ads, this election season is likely to be the worst ever.

Most corporations would prefer to funnel their millions in political spending through front groups with innocuous-sounding names. But the DISCLOSE Act would require an ad’s top donors to appear in the ad so the people know exactly who is funding the political message.

Take action for the DISCLOSE Act today. Let the people see who is spending money to influence their votes and how much they’re spending.

This legislation also places new restrictions on political ads by government contractors. Companies who do  business with the government who are trying to influence elections have a huge conflict of interest. Taxpayer money should not be wasted on political ads.

It also would close the loophole opened by the Citizens United decision that allows foreign entities to influence U.S. elections. Multinational corporations have no place in U.S. electoral politics.

Send an email to your members of Congress using the simple form on our Web site. Tell them that political spending by corporate front groups should come out of the shadows.

Thanks for all you do.

Rick
Public Citizen’s Online Action Team
action@citizen.org

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cI1UJhV22VXKene2EK7g4LCVxI2nq5pn

P.S. Despite the special-interest lobbying that created loopholes for some large membership organizations like the NRA and Sierra Club, the DISCLOSE Act still contains the most thorough disclosure requirements ever. Learn more in a recent blog post by Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s government affairs lobbyist.

Visit our Government Reform page to learn more about Public Citizen’s work to rein in the influence of money in politics. To get regular e-alerts about opportunities for activism and other ways to help with Public Citizen’s work, sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network. If you do not want to receive future emails from Public Citizen, go to http://action.citizen.org/unsubscribe.jsp.

Contribute | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action

 

Uncivil Service?


Uncivil Service?

When you wonder how is it that we don’t have a minor revolution every time the voters elect a new party into office, don’t just think that the parties are all the same (though that often appears to be the case).  There is another, much more important reason.  The reason that there is no revolution is because of the army of front line civil servants that administer the laws at the federal, state and local level.  These front line civil servants are paid and trained to impartially administer the laws, independent of the current party in power, and to insure that things don’t change without a concomitant change in the law and interpretation under due deliberation.  These civil servants are not really the employees of either the current taxpayers or the current party in power in the same way that some private employees work at the whim of their private employers. Rather, as government employees, they are there to ensure that laws are administered fairly.  And they are, in general, protected in so doing.

These government employees are paid out of the common fund.  This means that if they work for a department that administers money, the law has already set aside that money for a particular purpose (let’s say your social security check or your unemployment check), and then the employees are paid out of that fund to make sure you receive what you are entitled to receive.  So when you hear someone say they want smaller government, the first question you might ask is, “What part of government do you mean?”  If they start cutting civil service positions, then you need to ask who was paying for that position, and who is now going to determine whether money is going to be fairly allocated?  It all sounds good on paper when it comes to cuts, but when it comes down to actually cutting government positions, and the public gets wind of the real ramifications of what is meant by smaller government, then government officials can throw up their hands and claim they tried.  As soon as you spend less money administering government services, then you are entitled to receive less money into the government coffers, but you are still mandated by law to deliver the same services until there is a change in the laws.  Sometimes this change must be effected at a constitutional level.  Even when you change the laws without addressing the root causes, then what happens is the money ends up moving from one department  to another deemed more worthy.  In which case either the same set of civil servants or another set decrease in number  in one area while increasing in another area with a net cost in in tax dollars momentarily touted as a savings.

Check out the history of civil service and the spoils system, and then tell me you really want smaller government a la 1900 or so.  If you think that it is just about racism, sexism or any other form of bigotry (which may be part of it given the way things look on their face), then you really need to look into political patronage.  If you think it no longer exists, then you need look no farther than how corporate lobbyists’ contributions match up with who is appointed to head these “independent” civil service departments and what they have accomplished (undone) in the last thirty years.  Clearly, for some, if they can’t make government smaller, then the next best thing is make it impotent.

%d bloggers like this: