Corporate Citizen Koch Buys "Climate Sceptic" Research - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 03-30-2010, 07:58 AM

read on, comrades:

Quote:

US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace

Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'

Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups. Photograph: David McNew/Getty images

A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.

The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.

Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.

"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.

"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says.

The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.

Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.

The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.

Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.

Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.

"The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.

A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group's track record on environmental issues. "Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products," said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: "Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy."

Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008

Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.

Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.

Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.

Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.

Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.

Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.

Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.

Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming

National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.

American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.

US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace | Environment | guardian.co.uk

here's a link to the greenpeace report itself:
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine | Greenpeace USA

just in case you were under the mistaken impression that information flows freely in the states and that corporate citizens like koch play no role in shaping the infotainment that you use to shape your understanding of the world...

and i would think that people who are inclined to accept conservative anti-clean energy positions based on acceptance of claims that global climate change is bunk may be given pause by this.

what do you make of this report?

and more broadly....but this is a matter of corporate citizen/persons exercising their free speech rights is it not?

what do you think of this sort of activity by corporate entities, the buying of research, the sponsoring of organizations that repeat it, the structuring of information in the image of corporate/private interests and/or gain?

knowing that this goes on, how do you access information? what inclines you to wonder whose interest is being served by it?

is this a question one should be having to ask in a "free" context?

if information is a commodity--which it clearly is---what happens to democratic process?

thanks to recent supreme court rulings, this sort of thing should get more pervasive, so should get worse. it's an interesting question to think about.

ASU2003 · 03-30-2010, 07:21 PM

This isn't very surprising. I wonder if this is the new payola. Companies give money to radio. newspaper, and TV reporters to get them to cover a story in the way they want publib opinion to go.

filtherton · 03-31-2010, 02:40 AM

I think that this type of thing is fairly common and that it frequently makes good short term business sense to spend a lot of money on shills. I'm a little shocked about all the think tanks involved, but perhaps that's just because I'm naive about think tanks.

The natural solution would be for organizations to provide complete funding disclosure, which could then be taken into account when evaluating the information on the merits. However, I suspect complete disclosure will never be forthcoming and the merits are often too complicated for the average person. We are put at a great disadvantage by the fact the the world is much more complex than our ability to understand it. And also to that there are giant money reservoirs who have decided that it is in their best interest to exploit our ignorance.

Perhaps in this context, where it should be assumed that a significant portion of the information on a topic is corrupt from the get-go, it makes sense to plug one's ears and scream lalalallalalalalalalala. But maybe not.

Isn't there some old saying "trust, but verify"?

GreyWolf · 03-31-2010, 05:29 AM

And the pro-AGW groups aren't funded by groups with their own agenda? Sorry, but this sounds to me like another attempt to paint anything that questions humans as the source of global warming. The "climate sceptic" label is certainly couched in a negative light, as if it were somehow unacceptable.

As for 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information', need we say anything more than the University of East Anglia/Hadley Climate Research Unit?

The odds of getting an unbiased, objective discussion of the issues are getting a LOT longer these days. From both sides.

roachboy · 03-31-2010, 05:49 AM

well there are two separate issues here, are there not? there's the actions of the koch brothers, the purchasing of influence through the funding of institutions that manufacture it in a context dominated by repetition, such that what is legitimate is what gets repeated...which opens onto question so of corporate sponsored/bundled junk science (in the context of this debate...this is obviously a phenomenon that operates in other areas as well...for example around tobacco) and the erasure of any meaningful line between branding and information.

the second one has to do with this specific debate, the one about climate change, that koch industries is acting on as a political (and brand protection) matter.

there are alot of issues that link the two, but a central one is the notion of corporate personhood and this in light of the supreme court ruling of a few weeks ago that allows for far greater action on the part of corporate "citizens" in political campaigns.

it seems to me that the problems that opening will create are signalled pretty well through this report, particular in the exposing of koch industries' tactics (how the money is spread).

keep in mind as well that these people are big in ultra-rightwing politics, coming out of the same kind of jurassic park that brought us the john birch society (which i think the paterfamilias co-founded). so the added bonus of this report is that it reveals the persistence of action on the part of a relatively small group of very wealthy reactionaries to shape fundamentally the information context in which they operate and by extension to shape the nature of the american pseudo-democratic system.

so the debate here can go two ways. i'm personally fine with either of them, but am inclined to consider the problem of ultra-rightwing money being used like this as a basic political problem.

Cimarron29414 · 03-31-2010, 08:30 AM

George Soros.

filtherton · 03-31-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

George Soros.

Ooooooh. I hope someone pulls out an organizational diagram with bubbles and lines!

Cimarron29414 · 03-31-2010, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Ooooooh. I hope someone pulls out an organizational diagram with bubbles and lines!

If you feel so inclined, you could derive one from the OP article.

Pot/Kettle

roachboy · 03-31-2010, 10:38 AM

so wait....based on nothing, cimmaron indulges first a drive-by post and then establishes a false equivalence and in the process intimates something Untoward about the article in the op.

how about you produce some actual information?

Cimarron29414 · 03-31-2010, 10:52 AM

In short, both sides have rich people who have ideologies and who use their money to influence public opinion in order to push their ideologies and the return on their financial investments. If you only want to talk about one political side of this (surprise, surprise) - you guys knock yourselves out. If you want to talk about the system as a whole and ways for us to demand accurate information - devoid of agenda...well then, I would love to have that conversation with you.

filtherton · 03-31-2010, 10:55 AM

Nazis and American soldiers both used guns to shoot their enemies. Therefore they are both equal in all respects and focusing on the methods, intricacies or problematic aspects of either one of these groups without mentioning the other makes you a partisan hack.

I am Captain False Equivalence.

Cimarron29414 · 03-31-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Nazis and American soldiers both used guns to shoot their enemies. Therefore they are both equal in all respects and focusing on the methods, intricacies or problematic aspects of either one of these groups without mentioning the other makes you a partisan hack.

I am Captain False Equivalence.

No, what makes you a partisan hack is ALWAYS focusing on one of those groups. Thank God you godwinned the thread. You guys have fun, now, ya' hear?

filtherton · 03-31-2010, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Nice to meet you Captain. Thank God you godwinned the thread. You guys have fun, now, ya' hear?

Godwin is such a cop out. I'm sorry I resorted to a rhetorical device which gave you a weak-kneed reason for ignoring my point.

I guess apples = oranges because they're both fruit, eh?

The_Dunedan · 03-31-2010, 11:40 AM

Pardon me, but I fail to see how the equivalency is false. Both sides have wealthy, powerful people (and Corporations, officially recognised as "Persons" under the law, in a display of collectivism that makes my teeth burn) moving behind the scenes.

True.

Both sets of those people/Persons use their frequently vast fortunes in order to purchase research, influence journalism and debate, and attempt to shape public perceptions of themselves and their opponents.

True.

Please point out the falsity in equivalence here. When both sides of an argument are doing essentially the same things (buying research), for the same reasons (to influence public opinion) towards the same ends (to maintain and increase their power, wealth, and influence) how can you say the equivalency is false? Your guns/Americans/Nazis comparison above is weak at best because while the two Combatant powers might have shared certain tactical or materiel techniques, the reasons and ends motivating these tactics were totally different.

Oh, right. One bunch buys research for the right, good, and noble causes...the other side are evil meanies who worship greed. Arsey-varsey, one side buys research for the right, good, and noble causes...the other side are evil meanies who worship Barack Obama. My mistake.

roachboy · 03-31-2010, 11:53 AM

soros typically advances his own positions in his own voice.
the open society foundation is relatively transparent about its activities.
there is no quid pro quo such that the recipients of that money have to repeat the infotainment provided them by their donors as there appears to be with koch industries. soros does not limit what he talks about to areas that directly affect his business interests.

but hey, all i really asked for earlier was some data. you know, something that demonstrates soros does undertake activities that are symmetrical with those of koch. a simple search lands one in all kinds of such information from such paragons of intellectual integrity conservative-style as david horowitz. so i can see where getting actual data might be a problem.

but here, the issue is different: here apparently a request for actual information is too much an imposition.

which is surprising because you'd think that the commodification of information would affect everyone who's even a little concerned about rational action--not to mention such vaporous notions as democracy----and that all sides would view it as a problem.
but apparently that's not the case.

apparently it is far more important that libertarian assertions, no matter how arbitrary, are admitted at the level of premise before they will deign to participate in a conversation.

this bodes well.

btw it'd be easy to demonstrate that the right operates differently than does any other political sector when it comes to funding think tanks etc. it's an important innovation. that innovation in funding explains how it is possible that contemporary conservative ideology exists as a mass phenomenon. but who really cares about such petty sociological matters?

filtherton · 03-31-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Pardon me, but I fail to see how the equivalency is false. Both sides have wealthy, powerful people (and Corporations, officially recognised as "Persons" under the law, in a display of collectivism that makes my teeth burn) moving behind the scenes.

True.

Both sets of those people/Persons use their frequently vast fortunes in order to purchase research, influence journalism and debate, and attempt to shape public perceptions of themselves and their opponents.

True.

Please point out the falsity in equivalence here. When both sides of an argument are doing essentially the same things (buying research), for the same reasons (to influence public opinion) towards the same ends (to maintain and increase their power, wealth, and influence) how can you say the equivalency is false?

Oh, right. One bunch buys research for the right, good, and noble causes...the other side are evil meanies who worship greed. Arsey-varsey, one side buys research for the right, good, and noble causes...the other side are evil meanies who worship Barack Obama. My mistake.

Let's talk about apples and oranges.

They're the same, right?

Both grow on trees.

True.

Both are sold in juice form.

True.

Both are roughly fist-sized.

True.

Both are grown in the United States.

True.

So clearly, apples and oranges are equivalent. Because clearly situations and scenarios which have things in common are automatically equivalent. Please tell me you don't actually think this way.

Given the reaction to this thread, one might expect that if roachboy were to post a thread mildly critical of apples, some apple fanboys (or more accurately, people who associate themselves with the noble apple) would stumble in and complain about how oranges are just as bad as apples (because of course if roachboy is criticising apples, there's no way that he could ever be critical of anything associated with oranges), and that roachboy's criticisms of apples are invalid or not worthy of discussion because oranges are gross too and he neglected to point out that oranges are gross in his original post. Nevermind that we're talking about apples here, and not the rambling pewls of apple fanboys.

Are you lost? Because I'm lost too. I'm in a thread ostensibly about how a large oil and chemical company spent money in novel ways to manipulate public opinion in order to increase their profits, but what we seem to be talking about is how, since other organizations may or may not engage in similar nefarious acts, the original premise of the thread should be abandoned.

The_Dunedan · 03-31-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

what we seem to be talking about is how, since other organizations may or may not engage in similar nefarious acts, the original premise of the thread should be abandoned.

Not my position at all. My position is that since, from my perspective, both "sides" do similar things to advance identical ends, -both- cheeks need spanking, not just one. I do not suggest that Rightist malfeasance and maleficence should be ignored because equally noxious fumes emerge from the Left, or contrariwise. I suggest that the corrupt and corrupting elements of -both- sides (if I can be persuaded that they actually -are- "sides") be dealt with equally, since I see little if any difference (on a moral, intellectual, or strategic level) between Rightist coercive collectivism and Leftist coercive collectivism.

filtherton · 03-31-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Not my position at all. My position is that since, from my perspective, both "sides" do similar things to advance identical ends, -both- cheeks need spanking, not just one.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss this type of manipulation of public opinion in the context of conservatism. I'm guessing that it wasn't intended to be an equal opportunity spank-a-thon.

If certain interested parties would like to start a thread about how George Soros is a big mean jerkface, they might-could go right ahead.

roachboy · 03-31-2010, 12:21 PM

i started the thread because i happened to find an article that referenced the greenpeace report, which i then read and found to be interesting. so i made the thread as a way to start a conversation, figuring that the article was a kind of plot summary and the report itself the actual data. and there is actual data in it. it's not a real important thing to me whether conservative x or y does or does not like greenpeace as an organization--in this particular case, look at the report; if you've a problem, take apart the report.

what interested me in particular about the information was the extent to which it conformed to pretty established patterns of funding and information manipulation based on funding inside the conservative ideological machine. which is an effective and very well-funded machine, even today when its traction outside the ultra-right has largely been snapped.

if you want to understand contemporary conservative politics as a social movement--and it is one like it or not--you have to understand how its ideas are produced, circulated, reinforced. it's an interesting system.

that's why i made the thread.

The_Dunedan · 03-31-2010, 12:25 PM

Point. I would like, however, to point out before ending my participation in the threadjack that a comparison between apples and oranges is meaningless if both are poisoned. [/threadjack]

As for the problem outlined in the OP, this is going to continue to be an issue for as long as Corporate Personhood is recognised as a legal concept. Until individual rights (free speech, free assembly, bearing arms, entering contracts, etc) are fully and totally and -only- retained by individual human beings (not groups of individuals), those groups are going to use their greater clout (than most individuals) and reach (than most individuals) to advance their interests. The difficulty is that dismantling Corporate Personhood would also mean doing away with the way many advocacy groups and unions do business, and would require a fundamental paradigm shift within American (even world) political life and structure. -My- way out of this would be to dismantle Corporate Personhood root and branch, but since the Democrats would lose their vote/money-plantations within organised labour and the racial lobbies, and Republicans would lose their vote/money-plantations within the defense and petrochemical industries, I don't see it happening.

Willravel · 03-31-2010, 06:44 PM

Oh Dunedan, you're so close... come over to the liberal side. We've got pot brownies and iPhones and organic t-shirts with hip and ironic phrases on them.

We've even got beer...

The_Dunedan · 03-31-2010, 06:55 PM

Gave up pot brownies when I returned to the States, don't want an iPhone 'cause I hate touch-screens, got plenty of organic T-shirts (with and without ironic slogans; one's even from Smith & Wesson!), and plenty of beer. Be happy to share with y'all iff'n ye ask nice. Think I've even got a couple of "Bash This!" shirts left over from the one Pink Pistols event I attended.

Seriously, I identify myself much more strongly as a liberal than a conservative in many regards. I'm pro-legalization, pro-immigration, pro-Civil Rights, even (here's a real shocker) pro-Union in many cases. My problem with American "liberalism" is the same as my problem with American "conservatism," and most "isms" in general: it/they demand that one subsume one's own interests and rights to the interests of others, and reserve for themselves the "right" to compel such subsumation with force. I reject the use of force except in concrete cases of self-defense or defense of others from violent assault. I therefore reject the "right" of any person, or group of persons, to use force in order to compel obedience. Violence in defense of life and liberty is one thing, violence to advance a goal or promulgate a doctrine or engineer a society is entirely different and wholly abhorrent, IMO. It's the difference between defending yourself from a drunk, and walking up to somebody and starting a fight. One will get you laid, the other will get you arrested, and with good reason.

Poppinjay · 04-02-2010, 08:53 PM

Koch is also the maker of Purina. I believe David Koch would grind up kittens and babies if the law allowed him. Koch's building in Wichita actually looks like the Legion of Doom, no kidding. Last time I saw it it was on fire. Probably the gates of hell are there.

Bill and David Koch are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Bill Koch finally stepped down from the business because of his brother. They also sued each other about ten years ago. Bill just enters America's Cup races now. One of his yachts is on the banks of the Arkansas in Wichita. He's the guy who put together and all female teams a few years back.

David... he just continues to be evil.

03-31-2010, 05:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
GreyWolf Sober Location: Eastern Canada	And the pro-AGW groups aren't funded by groups with their own agenda? Sorry, but this sounds to me like another attempt to paint anything that questions humans as the source of global warming. The "climate sceptic" label is certainly couched in a negative light, as if it were somehow unacceptable. As for 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information', need we say anything more than the University of East Anglia/Hadley Climate Research Unit? The odds of getting an unbiased, objective discussion of the issues are getting a LOT longer these days. From both sides. __________________ *The secret to great marksmanship is deciding what the target was AFTER you've shot.*

03-31-2010, 05:49 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well there are two separate issues here, are there not? there's the actions of the koch brothers, the purchasing of influence through the funding of institutions that manufacture it in a context dominated by repetition, such that what is legitimate is what gets repeated...which opens onto question so of corporate sponsored/bundled junk science (in the context of this debate...this is obviously a phenomenon that operates in other areas as well...for example around tobacco) and the erasure of any meaningful line between branding and information. the second one has to do with this specific debate, the one about climate change, that koch industries is acting on as a political (and brand protection) matter. there are alot of issues that link the two, but a central one is the notion of corporate personhood and this in light of the supreme court ruling of a few weeks ago that allows for far greater action on the part of corporate "citizens" in political campaigns. it seems to me that the problems that opening will create are signalled pretty well through this report, particular in the exposing of koch industries' tactics (how the money is spread). keep in mind as well that these people are big in ultra-rightwing politics, coming out of the same kind of jurassic park that brought us the john birch society (which i think the paterfamilias co-founded). so the added bonus of this report is that it reveals the persistence of action on the part of a relatively small group of very wealthy reactionaries to shape fundamentally the information context in which they operate and by extension to shape the nature of the american pseudo-democratic system. so the debate here can go two ways. i'm personally fine with either of them, but am inclined to consider the problem of ultra-rightwing money being used like this as a basic political problem. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-31-2010, 08:30 AM	#6 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	George Soros. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-31-2010, 10:38 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait....based on nothing, cimmaron indulges first a drive-by post and then establishes a false equivalence and in the process intimates something Untoward about the article in the op. how about you produce some actual information? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-31-2010, 10:52 AM	#10 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	In short, both sides have rich people who have ideologies and who use their money to influence public opinion in order to push their ideologies and the return on their financial investments. If you only want to talk about one political side of this (surprise, surprise) - you guys knock yourselves out. If you want to talk about the system as a whole and ways for us to demand accurate information - devoid of agenda...well then, I would love to have that conversation with you. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

03-30-2010, 07:21 PM	#2 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	This isn't very surprising. I wonder if this is the new payola. Companies give money to radio. newspaper, and TV reporters to get them to cover a story in the way they want publib opinion to go.

03-31-2010, 02:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think that this type of thing is fairly common and that it frequently makes good short term business sense to spend a lot of money on shills. I'm a little shocked about all the think tanks involved, but perhaps that's just because I'm naive about think tanks. The natural solution would be for organizations to provide complete funding disclosure, which could then be taken into account when evaluating the information on the merits. However, I suspect complete disclosure will never be forthcoming and the merits are often too complicated for the average person. We are put at a great disadvantage by the fact the the world is much more complex than our ability to understand it. And also to that there are giant money reservoirs who have decided that it is in their best interest to exploit our ignorance. Perhaps in this context, where it should be assumed that a significant portion of the information on a topic is corrupt from the get-go, it makes sense to plug one's ears and scream lalalallalalalalalalala. But maybe not. Isn't there some old saying "trust, but verify"?

03-31-2010, 10:55 AM	#11 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Nazis and American soldiers both used guns to shoot their enemies. Therefore they are both equal in all respects and focusing on the methods, intricacies or problematic aspects of either one of these groups without mentioning the other makes you a partisan hack. I am Captain False Equivalence.

03-31-2010, 11:40 AM	#14 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Pardon me, but I fail to see how the equivalency is false. Both sides have wealthy, powerful people (and Corporations, officially recognised as "Persons" under the law, in a display of collectivism that makes my teeth burn) moving behind the scenes. True. Both sets of those people/Persons use their frequently vast fortunes in order to purchase research, influence journalism and debate, and attempt to shape public perceptions of themselves and their opponents. True. Please point out the falsity in equivalence here. When both sides of an argument are doing essentially the same things (buying research), for the same reasons (to influence public opinion) towards the same ends (to maintain and increase their power, wealth, and influence) how can you say the equivalency is false? Your guns/Americans/Nazis comparison above is weak at best because while the two Combatant powers might have shared certain tactical or materiel techniques, the reasons and ends motivating these tactics were totally different. Oh, right. One bunch buys research for the right, good, and noble causes...the other side are evil meanies who worship greed. Arsey-varsey, one side buys research for the right, good, and noble causes...the other side are evil meanies who worship Barack Obama. My mistake.

03-31-2010, 11:53 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	soros typically advances his own positions in his own voice. the open society foundation is relatively transparent about its activities. there is no quid pro quo such that the recipients of that money have to repeat the infotainment provided them by their donors as there appears to be with koch industries. soros does not limit what he talks about to areas that directly affect his business interests. but hey, all i really asked for earlier was some data. you know, something that demonstrates soros does undertake activities that are symmetrical with those of koch. a simple search lands one in all kinds of such information from such paragons of intellectual integrity conservative-style as david horowitz. so i can see where getting actual data might be a problem. but here, the issue is different: here apparently a request for actual information is too much an imposition. which is surprising because you'd think that the commodification of information would affect everyone who's even a little concerned about rational action--not to mention such vaporous notions as democracy----and that all sides would view it as a problem. but apparently that's not the case. apparently it is far more important that libertarian assertions, no matter how arbitrary, are admitted at the level of premise before they will deign to participate in a conversation. this bodes well. btw it'd be easy to demonstrate that the right operates differently than does any other political sector when it comes to funding think tanks etc. it's an important innovation. that innovation in funding explains how it is possible that contemporary conservative ideology exists as a mass phenomenon. but who really cares about such petty sociological matters? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-31-2010 at 11:57 AM..

03-31-2010, 12:21 PM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i started the thread because i happened to find an article that referenced the greenpeace report, which i then read and found to be interesting. so i made the thread as a way to start a conversation, figuring that the article was a kind of plot summary and the report itself the actual data. and there is actual data in it. it's not a real important thing to me whether conservative x or y does or does not like greenpeace as an organization--in this particular case, look at the report; if you've a problem, take apart the report. what interested me in particular about the information was the extent to which it conformed to pretty established patterns of funding and information manipulation based on funding inside the conservative ideological machine. which is an effective and very well-funded machine, even today when its traction outside the ultra-right has largely been snapped. if you want to understand contemporary conservative politics as a social movement--and it is one like it or not--you have to understand how its ideas are produced, circulated, reinforced. it's an interesting system. that's why i made the thread. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-31-2010, 12:25 PM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Point. I would like, however, to point out before ending my participation in the threadjack that a comparison between apples and oranges is meaningless if both are poisoned. [/threadjack] As for the problem outlined in the OP, this is going to continue to be an issue for as long as Corporate Personhood is recognised as a legal concept. Until individual rights (free speech, free assembly, bearing arms, entering contracts, etc) are fully and totally and -only- retained by individual human beings (not groups of individuals), those groups are going to use their greater clout (than most individuals) and reach (than most individuals) to advance their interests. The difficulty is that dismantling Corporate Personhood would also mean doing away with the way many advocacy groups and unions do business, and would require a fundamental paradigm shift within American (even world) political life and structure. -My- way out of this would be to dismantle Corporate Personhood root and branch, but since the Democrats would lose their vote/money-plantations within organised labour and the racial lobbies, and Republicans would lose their vote/money-plantations within the defense and petrochemical industries, I don't see it happening.

03-31-2010, 06:44 PM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Oh Dunedan, you're so close... come over to the liberal side. We've got pot brownies and iPhones and organic t-shirts with hip and ironic phrases on them. We've even got beer...

03-31-2010, 06:55 PM	#22 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Gave up pot brownies when I returned to the States, don't want an iPhone 'cause I hate touch-screens, got plenty of organic T-shirts (with and without ironic slogans; one's even from Smith & Wesson!), and plenty of beer. Be happy to share with y'all iff'n ye ask nice. Think I've even got a couple of "Bash This!" shirts left over from the one Pink Pistols event I attended. Seriously, I identify myself much more strongly as a liberal than a conservative in many regards. I'm pro-legalization, pro-immigration, pro-Civil Rights, even (here's a real shocker) pro-Union in many cases. My problem with American "liberalism" is the same as my problem with American "conservatism," and most "isms" in general: it/they demand that one subsume one's own interests and rights to the interests of others, and reserve for themselves the "right" to compel such subsumation with force. I reject the use of force except in concrete cases of self-defense or defense of others from violent assault. I therefore reject the "right" of any person, or group of persons, to use force in order to compel obedience. Violence in defense of life and liberty is one thing, violence to advance a goal or promulgate a doctrine or engineer a society is entirely different and wholly abhorrent, IMO. It's the difference between defending yourself from a drunk, and walking up to somebody and starting a fight. One will get you laid, the other will get you arrested, and with good reason.

04-02-2010, 08:53 PM	#23 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Koch is also the maker of Purina. I believe David Koch would grind up kittens and babies if the law allowed him. Koch's building in Wichita actually looks like the Legion of Doom, no kidding. Last time I saw it it was on fire. Probably the gates of hell are there. Bill and David Koch are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Bill Koch finally stepped down from the business because of his brother. They also sued each other about ten years ago. Bill just enters America's Cup races now. One of his yachts is on the banks of the Arkansas in Wichita. He's the guy who put together and all female teams a few years back. David... he just continues to be evil. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet