Slashdot Mirror

Really, please explain the mechanism of this enhanced risk.

There are many reasons I think GM is a problem, but a simple common sense argument against them is: (a snippet from another responsed I posted to another sub thread):

----
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous. See: This article for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
----

Plus, read the link from my previous post for many more reasons.

The reason that some GMO specific tests and controls are mostly voluntary is that environmental protection agencies recognize that there is no significant risk to the environment or food supply. You see, they rely on rational risk assessment rather than blatant propaganda and fear tactics.

You don't think the decisions that "there is no significant risk to the environment or food supply" has anything to do with monsanto and other companies stacking regulatory agencies with their own shills?

Lobbying againt the right wing republicans and ashcroft is a good thing

I don't think it's the republicans you have to worry about. The democrats have been the ones pushing this legislation. A couple recent examples including the p2p bill in question:

CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act) - Sponsored by Sen. Hollings (D-SC), co-sponsored by 4 other dems and one republican.

P2P Bill - Sponsered by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal)

Also take a look at how the Music/Movie industry spends their money. 17 of the top 20 recipients are Democrat.

TV/Movies/Music: Top 20 Recipients

Now who would you say is in the back pocket of the Movie/Music business?

As much as I would really truly love to say she is a tool for Bill Gates it honestly looks like she is NOT. According to Open Secrets she didn't get any money from Microsoft. Just to be sure I went ahead and went through all the pages of the Microsoft donations and I could not find her listed anywhere. Looks like the bulk of her money comes from labor unions. Also if you look at the source it was created with Frontpage 5.0.

So my guess is the whole "Use Microsoft Internet Explorer" bit is more of a lack of knowledge in creating web forms, so they used a tool that generated stuff for Internet Explorer only. My advice, pen a nice letter to her explaining and possibly offering to help, if will go a lot farther then hate and spit, especially since it looks like NONE of her money comes from Microsoft, hence this is NOT a conspiracy, I repeat NOT a conspiracy, simply a honest mistake made by someone who probably doesn't know better.

As much as I would really truly love to say she is a tool for Bill Gates it honestly looks like she is NOT. According to Open Secrets she didn't get any money from Microsoft. Just to be sure I went ahead and went through all the pages of the Microsoft donations and I could not find her listed anywhere. Looks like the bulk of her money comes from labor unions. Also if you look at the source it was created with Frontpage 5.0.

So my guess is the whole "Use Microsoft Internet Explorer" bit is more of a lack of knowledge in creating web forms, so they used a tool that generated stuff for Internet Explorer only. My advice, pen a nice letter to her explaining and possibly offering to help, if will go a lot farther then hate and spit, especially since it looks like NONE of her money comes from Microsoft, hence this is NOT a conspiracy, I repeat NOT a conspiracy, simply a honest mistake made by someone who probably doesn't know better.

If you feel the need to learn who is buying your representatives, opensecrets.org is a useful site. I think this is where the article got it's data from.

Dump Connie, she's clueless and takes money
from these clowns. From opensecrets.org ...

Microsoft Corp $2,000
EDS Corp $3,000
Global Crossing $500
AOL Time Warner $2,000
Walt Disney Co $1,000
Republican Main Street Partnership $5,000
etc.

Time to dump the incumbent.

I consider myself more in line with Republicans than the Dems, but I find myself p*ssed as hell with the Republican party lately.

According to Open Secrects Microsoft was the third largest contributor to the Republican party in 2002. They were the fourth largest contributor in 2000 -- right before the Justice department coincidentally bent over and let Microsoft continue their monopolistic ways.

On the flip side, Microsoft doesn't even rank in contributions to the Democratic party in 2000 or 2002.

Bush is an intellectual lightweight who has a Saddam fetish carried over from his father ... all at a time when the average american is more concerned about their jobs and now paltry retirement accounts.

I'm a Republican, but my party has lost its way. Even though I'm a very highly compensated high tech professional - I don't believe this party is currently in line with my goals, values and beliefs.

I consider myself more in line with Republicans than the Dems, but I find myself p*ssed as hell with the Republican party lately.

According to Open Secrects Microsoft was the third largest contributor to the Republican party in 2002. They were the fourth largest contributor in 2000 -- right before the Justice department coincidentally bent over and let Microsoft continue their monopolistic ways.

On the flip side, Microsoft doesn't even rank in contributions to the Democratic party in 2000 or 2002.

Bush is an intellectual lightweight who has a Saddam fetish carried over from his father ... all at a time when the average american is more concerned about their jobs and now paltry retirement accounts.

I'm a Republican, but my party has lost its way. Even though I'm a very highly compensated high tech professional - I don't believe this party is currently in line with my goals, values and beliefs.

However, I have to take issue this comment in the assumption that these bills are partisan and party driven. Not so. Since, in the eyes of washington, these are minor issues that registered voters don't care enough about to swing their vote, these bills and actions are up to the highest bidder. True, you will find certain types of people, committees and companies tend to have a favorite flavor of congress critter, but that doesn't really make this partisan.

What I'm really saying is, don't vote with your party; vote with your mind. Do your research about what you care about. Look up who their legislative advisor is - get to know him/her. Drop a $1,000 donation to the ones you like, and I your voice with DEFINATELY get heard, and you WILL get to actually talk to the congressman or any memeber of their staff. Ya, I know it's all corrupt and wrong, but politicial donations can be a good insurance policy sometimes.

Well, I think the problem is in the political system, since big business will always be trying to bribe officials anyway.

In the US, busy voters with short attention spans can be influenced by political ads. Sure, political ideology decides also, but the two major parties drown out third parties with the ads. And members of both parties accept legal bribes.

Even with resources like OpenSecrets.org, people don't seem to have the time to look into campaign contributions, and even when one candidate decides to brand an opposing candidate as corrupt, it doesn't always make that big of a difference.

I'm guessing that some people wouldn't even know what the incumbents did in office without watching ads. At least our government makes the info available.

I'm hoping that things like Campaign Finance reform will help, although I suspect new loopholes will be found. In my opinion, the government should pay for political campaigns and not allow outside money. This would probably lead to an separate orgization calling itself something like "Big Business coalition to elect Greed E. Prez." I'm not sure what to predict after that. Anyway, third parties would benefit from uniform federal funding, and hopefully they have a more humble non-politico agenda.

Remember the AT&T antitrust suit? They did the same thing again. Democrats start antitrust suit. Starts looking bad for defendant. Defendant hems and haws and delays till next election while buying votes left, right and center to get Republicans in. (MS triples "campaign contributions" clicky). Republicans pressure DOJ to whimp out on breakup. End result, what started out in the interests of the people ends up being in the interests of the corporation, in short, screwed again. Glad I left the land of the fee and home of the paid.

Signed,
Happy In New Zealand

• Under the group "Communications/Electronics" MS doesnt show up in the top 20 until 1998. They gave $1,365,296, 2/3rds of that going to republicans.
• Year 2000, election year, MS was the second largest contributor, giving $4,671,353. Remember that year was a close race, so MS devided it about evenly, giving 47% to the democrats and 53% to the republicans.
• MS drops to #4 in the list, giving $2,955,028, 2/3rds to the republicans.

• Under the group "Communications/Electronics" MS doesnt show up in the top 20 until 1998. They gave $1,365,296, 2/3rds of that going to republicans.
• Year 2000, election year, MS was the second largest contributor, giving $4,671,353. Remember that year was a close race, so MS devided it about evenly, giving 47% to the democrats and 53% to the republicans.
• MS drops to #4 in the list, giving $2,955,028, 2/3rds to the republicans.

Anyone interested in MS's Political Contributions? Or how they've fluctuated over the years? Check out This Page to get started.

Up ontil the antitrust investigation began, MS didn't give diddly squat to political campaigns. Even before then, they gave their cash to whoever had control. It's not that hard to figure out from the graph that whichever party had the top position (ie The President) got the most moolah from Bill and Company. After Dubya was "elected", the donations got wildly lopsided in favor of the Republicans, since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings, It's not hard to guess why they started getting the short end of the MS tit to suck on.

Just thought that might interest you all, seeing as how this particular "ruling" is about to be handed down. And just in case you want to see what kinds of contributions are being made by tech companies these days, check out Open Secrets.org. Handy little refference page for the coming Nov. 5 (my birthday, of all days) Elections...

Anyone interested in MS's Political Contributions? Or how they've fluctuated over the years? Check out This Page to get started.

Up ontil the antitrust investigation began, MS didn't give diddly squat to political campaigns. Even before then, they gave their cash to whoever had control. It's not that hard to figure out from the graph that whichever party had the top position (ie The President) got the most moolah from Bill and Company. After Dubya was "elected", the donations got wildly lopsided in favor of the Republicans, since it was the Democratic Government, under Speedy Willie Clinton, that started the antitrust hearings, It's not hard to guess why they started getting the short end of the MS tit to suck on.

Just thought that might interest you all, seeing as how this particular "ruling" is about to be handed down. And just in case you want to see what kinds of contributions are being made by tech companies these days, check out Open Secrets.org. Handy little refference page for the coming Nov. 5 (my birthday, of all days) Elections...

Walt Disney Company was the biggest corporate backer of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (both the EU and the USA versions) and one of the biggest voices in favor of the DMCA, next to Time Warner. See also Influence Inc.

Disney steals from the public domain and gives to its shareholders. Does this make Disney some sort of perverted Robin Hood?

Calling pure capitalism short-sighted isn't a bad assesment IMO.

If capitalism is so great, why do all our technological advances come from government spending?

If capitalism provides the fairest return for our dollars and our labor, then how do you explain this? Am I somehow implicitly giving my OK for $BIG_CORP to spend millions of dollars on PACs?

Nope, the parent poster is right. Capitalism is deeply flawed, luckily we have a system in the U.S. that allows government to correct these flaws, and if more people would get out and vote we could have better control over these corrections.

I place my trust in democracy far more so than capitalism. For instance the PAC's. On a democratic level we can tell our government to stop playing favorites to rich contributors. But can we, through our "spending power" tell the corporations to stop spending money on PACs? Not a chance.

Also, looking at the 'Top Donations by Industry', you may notice that Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet.'

That's funny - it seems to me I always hear about how we need campaign finance reform to stop evil corporate interests from electing evil Republicans to pass evil laws that favor *gasp* business.

The numbers here show 60% of all money reported on the website for this election cycle went to Democrats. This is odd, as the author of the page seems to favor Democrats (this is not 100% factual - I'm basing that on the fact that most big Democrat contributions are explained by some sort of "fear" of what the Bush administration will do to hard working Americans while most big Republican contributors are written off as "corporate interests")

It would seem that the idea of this page was to encourage campaign finance reform. For a look at what "reform" really means check this out (same source) This is the effect of "reform." The disproportional amount of money going to the Democrat party can be explained by finance reform focusing mostly on corporate donors while ignoring the big labor unions which, as you can see, donate as much money as any corporation.

This supports the idea that Congress should NOT try to regulate the amount of money spent on getting a message out about a particular candidate, as this is directly limiting how "free" a person's speech really is. (ie. Say what you want about whatever candidate you like - until you spend more than X amount saying it, then you'd better shut up or we'll throw you in jail)

For a good article on campaign finance reform, check here.

Yes, but Big Labor has magnitudes more people then Big Oil.

For example, AFCME has
1.3 million members, and contributed $30,671,426 between 1990 - 2002. That's a whole stinking $5 per year per member. Mostly to Democrats. Big wow.

The oil industry, on the otherhand, gave $147,101,710 between 1990 - 2002, $108,198,576 of which went to Republicans.

Yes, but Big Labor has magnitudes more people then Big Oil.

For example, AFCME has
1.3 million members, and contributed $30,671,426 between 1990 - 2002. That's a whole stinking $5 per year per member. Mostly to Democrats. Big wow.

The oil industry, on the otherhand, gave $147,101,710 between 1990 - 2002, $108,198,576 of which went to Republicans.

Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet

Hold on to those conclusions cowboy, just because they are the only entry does NOT mean that they are the only technology contributor.

Opensecrets is a GREAT site, and I really appreciate their efforts[1], but their database is far from complete. I've been browsing the site over the last few days, and I notice that Opensecrets has information for many of the Democratic congressional candidates, but not for many Republican candidates.

Check out the race in my District. We have information for Barbara Lee, for the other two candidates, it says "No reports on record for this candidate. ". Not a good measure, yet.

Does this mean that Democrat$ receive more money then Republican$? NO!

It simply means that, for whatever reason, Opensecrets has the data for the Democrats, but has less information for the Republicans.

[1]: So valuable that I donated money to them, even through I just got laid off. YOU SHOULD DONATE TOO).

Microsoft is, conspicuously, the only entry under 'Computers/Internet

Hold on to those conclusions cowboy, just because they are the only entry does NOT mean that they are the only technology contributor.

Opensecrets is a GREAT site, and I really appreciate their efforts[1], but their database is far from complete. I've been browsing the site over the last few days, and I notice that Opensecrets has information for many of the Democratic congressional candidates, but not for many Republican candidates.

Check out the race in my District. We have information for Barbara Lee, for the other two candidates, it says "No reports on record for this candidate. ". Not a good measure, yet.

Does this mean that Democrat$ receive more money then Republican$? NO!

It simply means that, for whatever reason, Opensecrets has the data for the Democrats, but has less information for the Republicans.

[1]: So valuable that I donated money to them, even through I just got laid off. YOU SHOULD DONATE TOO).

...to the grotesque and lopsided amount of influence big labor has. But wait, they're for the "little guy" just like the Democrats. Hah. Vote Libertarian.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/

Blue Chip Investors
Top Donor Dossiers

Here you'll find total contributions for the 100 biggest givers in American politics since 1989--information that exists nowhere else. Read the full report. Read about our methodology.

* View top organizational givers by rank
* View top organizational givers by alphabetical order
* View top individual contributors from these organizations

Search for an organization by name:

Top 10 donors:
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $30,671,426
National Education Assn $21,116,383
National Assn of Realtors $20,414,385
Assn of Trial Lawyers of America $19,931,717
Philip Morris $18,951,671
Teamsters Union $18,858,733
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $18,394,547
American Medical Assn $18,377,814
Service Employees International Union $17,647,346
Communications Workers of America $17,597,372

According the site Jay Inslee has got most from MSFT, total of $237,400 - nice money already. He is one of the persons behind the "Internet Radio Fairness Act" - "designed to make the copyright royalty arbitration process more fair for smaller entities." What else has he been involved with?

Did you know Dick Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton, a huge oil company?

Anyone shocked by the fact that Philip Morris, a tobacco company, is in the top 5 all time donors?

Did you know Dick Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton, a huge oil company?

Anyone shocked by the fact that Philip Morris, a tobacco company, is in the top 5 all time donors?

Open Secrets is a great place to find the kind of info you're looking for. Even just a peak here is very revealing.

Open Secrets is a great place to find the kind of info you're looking for. Even just a peak here is very revealing.

What makes you think the Green party or the Libertarian party don't have Microsoft amongst their biggest supporters?

What makes you think the Green party or the Libertarian party don't have Microsoft amongst their biggest supporters?

I'm going to be voting for Hernandez only because I have met with him, he seems like a decent enough bloke, he's a "McCain Republican" who also cut his political teeth with Cesar Chavez, and he's also against the Berman Bill. But I do not hold much hope out for him to have any effect. Just look at the tale of the tape, courtesy of Opensecrets.Org. Hernandez has exactly zero in his war chest, Berman has almost $1 Million left. And guess where most of that comes from? Well take a wild flying guess, folks. Viacom and Walt Disney are his two biggest contributors.

No matter what we do at this late date, Berman will be back, just like the freakin' Terminator, next Congress. And after the election, he won't be as kindly bent to take outside input on his precious P2P hax0r bill.

I'm going to be voting for Hernandez only because I have met with him, he seems like a decent enough bloke, he's a "McCain Republican" who also cut his political teeth with Cesar Chavez, and he's also against the Berman Bill. But I do not hold much hope out for him to have any effect. Just look at the tale of the tape, courtesy of Opensecrets.Org. Hernandez has exactly zero in his war chest, Berman has almost $1 Million left. And guess where most of that comes from? Well take a wild flying guess, folks. Viacom and Walt Disney are his two biggest contributors.

No matter what we do at this late date, Berman will be back, just like the freakin' Terminator, next Congress. And after the election, he won't be as kindly bent to take outside input on his precious P2P hax0r bill.

Go here and search for "microsoft" to see why this bill is up. Also, the software industry as a whole has given almost $10,000,000 so far in this election cycle.

Oh yeah, and Microsoft is Smith's #1 contributor with $22,900, more than double the #2 contributor.

$22,900. Is that all it costs to buy a senator these days?

A little off-topic I know, but I couldnt resist looking at the entertainment/music section. All of our favorite supporters of the DMCA are there along with all of our favortie companies (Disney, RIAA, etc) Look at it from all different angles using the selections on the left. They donated only 5mil total in 1990, but jumped up to almost 40mil by 2000 (2002 isn't over yet).

Oxryly

"Lobbying and giving money to politicians is the best return on an investment in the entire -- in the entire free world."
-- Carl Mayer, committeeman in Princeton, New Jersey (60 Minutes, 5/12/1996)

"Lobbying and giving money to politicians is the best return on an investment in the entire -- in the entire free world."
-- Carl Mayer, committeeman in Princeton, New Jersey (60 Minutes, 5/12/1996)

Here's the main campain contributor for one of those 4 guys pushing for it.

I disagree- the US became a super power because of World War II; it was a watershed event for this country. While the rest of the world was taking turns blowing up each others factories, decimating their populations, and sowing the seeds of political strife we were ramping up capacity, production, and developing business. The US is a super power for one simple reason- economic power. Think about it- we don't have the largest population, the most educated population, or even the longest life expectancy. We just out spend (usually on R&D) every other country in the world on defense; we even subsidize other country's purchase of our arms, regardless of ethics, to protect our economic interests. Money is the master of (ORWELL=offense)"defense"(/ORWELL). Why are your tax dollars spent in this fashion? Corporate lobbyists own our government.

At the end of the day though, what matters to a country is manufacturing, products, such as software, cars, widgets, etc. It doesn't matter to a country how well your software streamlines production, how many widgets marketing & sales can distribute, or how efficient the line can be if you're not paying employees in your own country to then buy those widgets. Third world countries are smart to follow in Japans footsteps. I know that this is a complicated issue, but I sometimes feel that the relentless American profit machine is its' own worst enemy.

Try this.

OpenSecrets to the rescue!

According to Open Secrets.org Microsoft is the number on contributer to Mr. Smith's Campaign, with $22,900 racked up in bribe^H^H^H^H contributions. He is also the rep in the same district that MS is HQ'd in. You can repeat the exercise for the other signatories on the letter.

Whether you realize it or not, only the government can use force and violence on innocent people.

Ford or GM have never jailed anyone for buying a Toyota. If you aren't happy with the quality of Ford's automobiles or are put off by their business practices you have complete freedom to not purchase one.

If you aren't happy with how your State or Federal taxes are spent, try not paying them. Your ass will be in jail or your money will be taken from you (or both).

If you really believe corporations are so powerful, I'd think a strong central government would be the last thing you would want. It's a nexus of control run by easily bought off politicians. (Both Republicans and Democrats are easily bought, go read www.OpenSecrets.org if you don't believe me.)

Perhaps you can clarify what powers a corporation has (it can't vote), and how coroporations would go about limiting the freedoms Libertarians hold in principle?

I also find myself perplexed as to how private ownership of most everything can be equated to feudalism. Feudalism is a system of government whereby the government owns all the land, means of production, and the citizens are somehow indebted to the governor (or "King", lord, count, noble, or whatever). That sounds much more like primitive Communism/Stalinism to me than a free market with genuine private ownership.

Look who's ranked at #5 on the political contribution list. Not to mention look at their party majority in regards to those contributions. Aren't the Dems supposed to (historically) work for the little guy?

"I share the disappointment of Webcasters and many content providers that an anonymous hold prevented the Senate from passing this bill before the Oct. 20 deadline," Leahy said in a statement. I am sure we can figure out who Leahy supports.

Well, you can bet the RIAA won't make the mistake of overlooking his campaign funding again! ;)

1. If you think the democrats are Marxists then what comments do you have about the Bush administration - and especially John Ashcroft -- which is turning the USA into a Stalin-esque police state?
2. Lieberman is not representative of the Democrats, nor is he Liberal -- do you think the Democrats are pro-censorship?
3. George W. Bush's best friend was Ken Lay, Enron CEO. Many Enron executives work for the current administration -- most notably the Secretary of the Army was an Enron VP. So nothing that Lieberman could have supposedly done to "uncover" Enron can match the fact that Bush knew about this stuff all along. And have you seen what's up with Halliburton lately? Our administration is comprised of common thieves.
4. Bush is pushing for a war with Iraq, citing that they have nuclear weapons. Who else has nukes... N. Korea, provided by our "friends" in Pakistan, China, India, and probably a few more. Are we planning to attack those countries anytime soon? Strangely enough, the answer to that question is the same as "are those countries sitting atop large oil deposits?"

Also - donation data Gore Bush Looky here, Andersen and Enron are among Bush's top donors! As well as MBNA, who successfully bought a provision into the bankruptcy law that you cannot rid yourself of credit card debt via bankruptcy. Gee, do you think that's going to hurt Bush's millionaire buddies, or middle-lower class people?

Fact: Bush administration cares only about the rich. Specifically Texas Oil Barons.

1. If you think the democrats are Marxists then what comments do you have about the Bush administration - and especially John Ashcroft -- which is turning the USA into a Stalin-esque police state?
2. Lieberman is not representative of the Democrats, nor is he Liberal -- do you think the Democrats are pro-censorship?
3. George W. Bush's best friend was Ken Lay, Enron CEO. Many Enron executives work for the current administration -- most notably the Secretary of the Army was an Enron VP. So nothing that Lieberman could have supposedly done to "uncover" Enron can match the fact that Bush knew about this stuff all along. And have you seen what's up with Halliburton lately? Our administration is comprised of common thieves.
4. Bush is pushing for a war with Iraq, citing that they have nuclear weapons. Who else has nukes... N. Korea, provided by our "friends" in Pakistan, China, India, and probably a few more. Are we planning to attack those countries anytime soon? Strangely enough, the answer to that question is the same as "are those countries sitting atop large oil deposits?"

Also - donation data Gore Bush Looky here, Andersen and Enron are among Bush's top donors! As well as MBNA, who successfully bought a provision into the bankruptcy law that you cannot rid yourself of credit card debt via bankruptcy. Gee, do you think that's going to hurt Bush's millionaire buddies, or middle-lower class people?

Fact: Bush administration cares only about the rich. Specifically Texas Oil Barons.

Don't laugh. Having big corporate sponsors is becoming less and less important with new campaign finance laws.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp ?cycle=2002&CID=N00002171

HAHAHAHAHAHA!