Slashdot Mirror
Dow vs. Parody
tres3 writes "I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's Internet access after seven years of service. It seems that The Yes Men have upset DOW Chemical with their parody press release concerning a poison gas leak at the Union Carbide plant (now owned by Dow) in Bhopal, India, in 1984, that killed thousands. It was posted by RTMark.com, one of hundreds of customers (mostly artists and political activists) of The Thing, but has gone missing following the DMCA claims by DOW. Some European sites are now hosting the site here and here (slightly different). What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response to all of this. While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies! :-) The story is still valid but the only thing I could find that really came from DOW was the DMCA complaint (pdf) to Verio. To add insult to injury (and death (pun intended)) Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess. Greenpeace has set up a site for you to protest this action." We did an earlier story on this.
I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's
Did anybody else read this as "Verio cutting off their Thing"?
...had foreseen what corporations have become if they wouldn't have put a few special clauses in especially for them.
That was the most incomprehensible story summary I've ever read.
There was the group, and we'll give them some forgettable name, and they did some stuff, and DMCA, and ow what hit me, the end.
This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT one of the most important benefits of the internet. The ability to ridicule a company or government for things it has done to cause real harm to others is quite possibly one of the most important types of freedom of expression.
;p
It is absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a favorable light.
There is, however, a place where the line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home addresses, and other personal information against their will, then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting actual people and their families at risk. When you create a parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to utilize the personal information in order to cause real physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's family.
Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to "thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks, so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.
The reason I even bring up this issue is because of this part of the article:
> "We even put down James Parker's real home
> address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!"
> the Yes Men said in a statement.
Actually no, that is not funny. The only funny part about that was that James Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in question.
> "But on Dec. 4, James Parker himself, with the
> help of a team of Dow lawyers, sent a Xerox of
> his driver's license and a letter by FedEx to
> Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This domain
> belongs to me. See, that's my home address,
> too. Give it to me!"
>
> According to rules established by the Internet
> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers --
> an organization responsible for, among other
> chores, Internet address disputes -- Parker was
> correct and Gandi.net had no legal choice but
> to hand over Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.
That part I find absolutely hilarious =).
So while it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such sites be prevented from distributing personal information about individuals.
The dangers inherent in the former put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the latter put lives at risk.
-Michael
Threshold RPG
I think for once, the parody artists have gone too far and I have to line up on the side of the big business.
/. poster admits that he got fooled into thinking the "response" from Dow was really from The Yes Men. That's over the line. It's one thing to be critical of Dow's actions, but it's another thing all together to confuse people into thinking you are Dow while making statements that Dow doesn't want make.
Even the
Yeah, Dow was a little underhanded to make the phone call after business hours, but The Thing could have blocked that trick simply by having a 24/7 answering service and an admin with a beeper. It's hard for them to try to claim that they aren't responsible for striking a website when they are told that what the site owners are doing is against the law, and I don't see why doing exactly what they were doing should be legal.
Yet according to Dow's press release, Corporate Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms.
Obviously it's one of those freedoms that nobody except Dow talks about. (In fact, many of the google links are about Dow.)
Of course, the troubling part is that obviously it's more important than `generic' Freedom of Speech. At least according to Dow.
Their press release alone reads like a parody. I really hope it is. And if it's not, I hope they get spanked hard for it.
I've noticed that lately all you need to do is read back-issues of Wired magazine, and in particular, PopSci magazine.
And then hope that either Timothy or ChrisD is on duty.
But, of course, I'm wrong and this is just trollish flamebait. And so in an effort not to get modded down let me add: I found this article to be insightful and informative. I particularly found the Greenpeace link inspiring and have made a mental note to someday, possibly, visit that link...if nothing else, just to see what a bunch of Zodiac owners are up to now.
What gets me here is that, get this, from Dow's own web site: Yep, that's right, sports fans. If you serve no commercial purpose, you have no right to exist. Such corporate arrogance is horrid. In true W-esque fashion, unless you consume, you're worthless. What do these guys want? Web sites for companies only? What a yawn that would be. Remember the article a while back, noting that the web has been growing in capabilities and innovation not by big corporate bozo's but by, yep, web porn. We may not like it, but those sleazy guys are the ones Dow can sell fiber in the first place!
Lastly, I am so pleased to have Dow no inform me as to the unproductive analysis and critique that Thing.net was providing. Before, I considered it merely satire or commentary. Now I see what it truly was . . . a communist plot to keep Dow from cleaning our water and preserving our precious bodily fluids. Thanks Dow!
...tizzyd
I happen to think that for the most part you have the right to put anything you want on your website. If you want to run a parody of Dow, the Pope or John Lennon, go for it.
However, with that being said. Your ISP doesn't necessarily have to put up with that. They also have a right to decide what content they will host on their servers. If they take offense at your postings or bow to pressure from a corporation or the government, that's well within their right.
They run a business. Just because you want to take a risk with something you choose to write. Doesn't meant they have to take the risk with you.
In the case of the "Yes Men" the attempt seems to be using parody and satire to effect social activism. This, in itself, is not a bad or uncommon thing. However, if one is going to do this, one has to make sure the creation is actually satire.
The main tool that they use on the web appears to be 'Reamweaver', a tool to copy a website and modify in small ways. From the Reamweaver website we have .
Reamweaver has everything you need to instantly "funhouse-mirror" anyone's website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you change any words, images, etc. that you choose.
and
Use Reamweaver for fun, or, if you like, for lots of fun... by obtaining speaking opportunities on behalf of your adopted organization. Here's how to that:
1. (Optional) Register a domain not too different from your target's domain - e.g. we-forum.org, world-economic-forum.com, wtoo.org, rncommittee.org
2. Put Reamweaver on your domain.
3. Tell search engines about your domain.
4. When invitations arrive, accept them!
This does not seem to a tool conducive to satire. This appears to be a tool that is to be used to misrepresent, decieve, and ultimately allow an individual to go into the community as the perceived representative of the company under attack.
Social activism is good. Trying to create a better world is good. However, when you invite a person from Dow Chemical to your office, one would expect that the person is actually from dow chemical. Furthermore, I am not sure I would equate the Reamweaver technique to a person who registers a slightly misspelled domain name and then puts up tons of pop ups and installs viruses when some unsuspecting visitors accidently hits the site.
I understand that the intention of the Yes Men are probably just. I understand that they are probably good people,. However, copying someone else's website and representing it as your own is not good. It is one thing to rip other artists CDs for personal use. It is another thing to rip those CDs and then sell the copies. It is yet another thing to rip those CDs change a few seconds, and then represent the tracks as your own. What they are doing might be peaceful disobendience. It does not seem to be satire
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The news that Dow is suing the Bopahl survivors to try to silence their protests over Dows failure to clean up is news to me.
The Union Carbide disaster at Bopahl was due to sheer negligence and greed. Dow still refuses to clean up the site of the disaster and has yet to pay compensation to most of the victims.
Perhaps if students stopped and considered the wisdom of joining a company that could kill 800 people with its negligence and not care a damn Dow might have a lot more difficulty recruiting on campus.
If you are choosing an employer in the chemical business their safety record should be your first concern. If you work for a company like Dow that is saying that they can kill 800 people, create pollution that will kill even more and they just don't care you are quite litteraly putting your own life on the line for their corporate profits.
The same goes for communities that have Dow installations near them, or planned to be built near them. Make sure that your representatives are aware that Dow cannoit be trusted.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
...that bit about DOW suing the families that were destroyed/hurt by their Bhopal disaster?
A bunch of women marched on DOW HQ in India, delivering some of the contanimated soil and water from Bhopal. The protest lasted two peaceful hours. A single DOW employee greeted them.
DOW is now suing them for the equivalent of US$10K -- a helluva lot of money, particularly in India -- for "lost wages" because of the "work disruption."
Disgusting. First they slaughter hundreds and thousands of employees and families through cost-cutting, undertraining, and poor plant maintenance; then they refuse to clean up the mess; then they sue the very people who were hurt by the accident.
Sometimes it would be e'er so nice to be able to punish CEOs as if they'd committed the crimes themselves.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
... of 200 women survivors from Bhopal delivered toxic waste from the abandoned Carbide factory back to Dow's Indian headquarters in Bombay...
From reading between the lines of the article, it appears that they are suing the protesters, and not all the survivors, for what sounds like an irresponsible protest rather than a peaceful one. If someone showed up at my company's door with deadly chemicals, we'd have to shut the place down for security reasons, at a cost to the business.
Dow may be wrong or negligent in compensating the survivors, but protesters causing a business to loose money to gain their attention or try and get them to change their action is about as effective as spanking a child when they don't eat their peas. They're just going to grow up hating those that spank them.
_______
2B1ASK1
Dow chemical suing people who have a yearly income of $1000 for $10000 after the tragedy in Bhopal (which still hasn't been cleaned up) is so low and disgusting that one wonders what kind of snarling inhuman lunatics run that company.
It is this kind of thing that breeds terrorists and whips up frenzy amongst people who have no recourse to medical care, much less fat corporate lawyers.
I can't carry on because I am absolutely speechless with disgust at those fucking bastards.
First off there seems to have been a genreal uproar over dows "response" link, notice even the author raelised it was a parody and not in any way from dow, so you can't really fault dow for that peice (though the author says " While writing this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their parodies! :-) The story is still valid " - umm, dow didn't write it but lets hate them for it anyway? plenty of reason to hate dow but using a parody to hate them really weakens your position.)
I don't really know why the copyright violations in this are DMCA, it seems that normal copyright and trademarks cover thier violations, and yes they are violations. They were before DMCA and still will be if the DMCA is repealed. Though this should not have forced the whole site down, just the removeal of the copyrighted/trademarked images (hey, make some parody version of them - that's legal, but you can't just copy thier images and pretend to be them). Plus they quote cybersquatting statutes, they don't really seem to be cybersquatting (though using dow-chemical is iffy on copyright, had they used something like dow-chemical-sucks they would have easily been in the parody/protest stuff, but they seemed to have intentionally tried to fool someone into thinking they were dow to get them there).
And lastly "Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's failure to clean up the mess." No, even according to the greenpeace article the survivors carried contamited material to thier site - that's not legal. While I greatly sympathise with them (and definatly think they got screwed royally) that doesn't give you the right to do that. As neither does being rich give someone the right to pollute with impunity. Much like in the US many protestors seem to think that the first amendment gives them the right to trasspass and destroy property, it doesn't - gather on public land all you want, don't block traffic and not only are you legal but you garner much more sympathy.
In sum, they have a very legitimate complaint, dow chemical did some VERY bad stuff and deserve to be raped in court, and never have and probably never will. But that doesn't give you the right (in the US, or apparently india either) to do whatever you feel (eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth isn't in the constitution). Plus my final complaint is that we have only heard one side, greenpeace isn't really know for being exactly unbiased and giving complete stories. There are much more effective ways to try and get something, they failed, now all they do is make people much less sympathetic overall to their cause (maybe it makes them feel better though).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Far be it from me to think walking away from an ecological disaster is a good thing, but from what I can see, according to both the US and Indian courts, Dow has done everything they said they'd do relating to this, and everything the lawsuits against them said they had to do.
The paid ~$500 million to the Indian Government for ongoing cleanup, to create a medical program for anyone who lives in the affected area, and to cover things like ongoing monitoring of the chemical creep. They also paid out an additional ~$20 million to build and maintain a new hospital specifically in the area to handle any related medical claims. They also added an additional ~$55 million dollars to the hospital support funds when they bought out UCI.
They actually have paid out far more than the lawsuits against them in US courts originally stated (where the Indian government received a ruling for ~$350 million). I think all told that Dow has produced over $600 million for cleanup and ongoing support and healthcare.
All in all, most of the cleanup, treatment and monitoring of chemical contamination in the area is supposed to be handled by the Indian Government, not by Dow directly. If those hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent somewhere else, are people asking the government (or whoever they've appointed to handle the situation) where it's going?
This is especially apt as many of the court cases have focused on Dow's liability, and the majority still uphold the 'reasonable doubt' that Dow was criminally liable (which is why they still haven't tried very hard to get Warren Anderson shipped their for homicide charges), and even some went so far as to support the findings of 3rd party teams that the chemical release was a result of a deliberate act by a disgruntled worker.
Now, it's been 18 years, and I don't personally have any knowledge of anything to do with Bhopal beyond what I can read. However, based on that information, I think a lot of this is the result of PR by Greenpeace and others who conveniently ignore the things that Dow *has* done.
As an aside, I don't work for Dow, have any relatives who work for Dow, or own stock in Dow (unless one of those pathetic 401k funds that are basically WORTHLESS right now has shares, in which case I don't give a damn). I just see a lot of knee-jerk reactions and wonder if a lot of people who 'know about bhopal' have ever done more than read 1 website or less? Could Dow be a tool of Satan designed to make life on Earth a living hell, run completely by unfeeling demons who want to kill and maim innocent people? Sure. Is it probably that black-and-white? I really doubt it. It's only fair to research both sides.
A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be outraged.
No. Suddenly, Dow chemicals was no longer a global company - it was an American company, run by American citizens who are bound only by American laws! The Indians had to struggle very hard to bring these people to court - it is still not over, 18 years after the 'accident'.
Globalization is a wonderful thing, but only if all such aspects are dealt with. People tend to forget that free markets in countries like the USA work well only when the companies are governed by law and regulated by watchdog organizations. While the West aggressively pushes for global free markets, they don't seem to realize that there is no global law and no global watchdog or regulatory body.
What Dow chemicals did is an extremity, but there are many other simpler violations. Think about it - Coke sells cans in USA, among hundreds of other countries. That is great. But, how many of these countries have proper recycling facilities? Many third world countries are being pressurized by the world bank to open up to MNCs and are they are all becoming dumping grounds for these multi national companies. Heck, most of these countries don't even have proper drinking water for its population, but Coke and Pepsi are available everywhere!
All your favorite sites in one place!
Shouldn't it work both ways? Shouldn't parodies be allowed? Not allowing parodies is a violation of invidual Free Speech, surely?
Not According to G.W. Bush, he himself said "There ought to be limits to freedom" when he was talking about Parodies of his campaign website.
Look over this site; I've seen easily half a dozen people who were taken *and posted the dowethics site as an actuial dow release*. I cannot claim innocence here; I was fooled as well. Now, I found it incredible that anyone--even Dow--would come up with that release seriously, but until someone replied saying it was the parody site, that didn't even cross my mind.
...are going to use the Greenpeace letter generator to send a complain to the Dow CEO? It'd be interesting to get a gauge on how much mail he'll be getting...
"we firmly believe that those who violate the right to Corporate Free Speech have no place on a commercial network like the internet.
It's another example of our committment to Living. Improved Daily. With an internet shaped by Corporate Free Speech.
Just another example of some PR manager having his head too far up his ass.
| - | - |
the Virgina Colony. The Hudson Bay Trading Company. The East Indian Trading Company. Etc.
The framers of the Constitution knew damn well what corporations "would become." They had *already* become them.
Provisions were made in the Constitution and legislative law to deal with this issue. Great essays were written on the subject by learned minds such as Thomas Jefferson. 50 years later such matters were still uppermost in the minds of America's great social philosopher's, such as Thoreau.
Our forefather's weren't idiots, weren't ignorant and weren't "cavemen." Their world was, in many respects, "more like our own than our own."
Stock markets, insurance companies, leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers, all done on a global scale, were already a century or more of old news before the first shot of the revolution was fired on the green at Lexington.
For God's sake man, Jefferson and Adams were *lawyers* and had actually participated in such actions. They learned their loathing of them first hand.
So what went wrong?
Well, let me put it to you this way. Do *you* still do business with these large corporations, giving them the money and power to buy law? Traded a little freedom for luxury items and security maybe?
I forget who it was, but an ancient historian, commenting on the aculturation of the Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along these lines:
"And so, the gullible natives, eventually came to call their slavery "culture.""
Ring any bells close to home?
That's the problem with republicanism, don't you see. The problems start at the top, more often than not, but *responsibiltiy* always, always, alway, falls to the bottom.
People don't want responsibility. They want a Big Mac while bopping to the latest Brittney Spears "tune."
KFG
A lot of people don't understand the concept, so I'll explain. Everyone in America can think of at least 10 good laws about speech that would improve society. I know I can. Ban hate speech, ban those psychic ball-gazing frauds, ban tobacco advertisements, and so on. And those would be good laws. In my opinion.
Unfortunately, everyone else has a different set of good laws for restricting speech. And I probably don't agree with most of them. The only way to come to agreement on how we restrict speech will therefore be through our elected officials.
The founders understood that. And they also understood that the government bodies they were setting up simply wouldn't be perfect enough to be trusted with making these kind of laws. For that reason they put up a fence around that area of the law. The First Ammendment establishes that the government can't make laws regarding speech, and that it can't make laws regarding religion. Sure, some good might be accomplished if the fence wasn't there, but eventually the damage would outweigh the good.
So everytime you see some piece of speech that you think shouldn't be allowed, restrain yourself. Don't call for it to be banned. The government isn't smart enough to be messing around in there. Protecting that speech protects your speech.
I sent a message to RTMark's ISP (The Thing), complaining about the message, and that it violated their Terms of Service. This isn't the first time that I have received spam from RTMark, or is it the first time that I have complained about it, and yet it had not stopped. If The Thing refused to do anything about it, or if they condoned it, then they are no better than a bunch of worthless spammers, and I'm glad that Verio cut them off.
Don't ya just love the web? Here's the link to instantly write a letter to Dow.
And here's what I just sent them:
As the new CEO and President of Dow Chemical Company, I am stunned at your actions against the survivors of the Bhopal, India industrial tragedy. Dow has been a respected name in corporate America for so many years. But this incomprehensible treatment of the poor and sick, when you should be doing everything in your power to make things right, to offer aid and rebuilding, health care and clean up, changes my vision of Dow and its executives and my family and I have lost all respect.
Once again the almighty dollar rules a corporation rather than the fundamental care of the people who once supported it. It matters not that this incident occurred under Union Carbide, you knew this when you bought them.
You know quite well that if this had happened in the U.S., this would have been fixed by now. To attack a poor and innocent people, those that have lost many family and still struggle to survive, shows your true bully side. To think that you would do this because they dared to perform a peaceful protest is nothing more than shocking to me. Dow was always such a respected name.
When you add to that your treatment of the parody site Dow-chemical and the whole YesMen fiasco, to use such an ill-gotten law as the DMCA to silence the web and force the take down of not only a web site, but also an entire ISP is unfathomable. It shows that your new stance is to merely silence those who would dare stand up to you, and this is nothing more than a cartelish, mob mentality than can no longer have respect.
I implore you to correct this. To drop your charges against the poor and suffering of India, and to drop your charges against a parody web site, which under the US copyright law, it is perfectly legal to parody just about anything.
I have begun my march to inform those in my family and my place of work of your actions. Others are doing the same. Will you sue me too just to silence me?
I grew up with the name of Dow and have always believed it be an important and respected company. Unless these serious issues are corrected, I can no longer ignore the truth, nor can I think of Dow with any high regard.
Take note that I am writing this to you via the convience of the web. Yes, the Internet is a wonderful and rich thing which allows us to recieve such information and respond accordingly, even on New Year's Day. The DMCA does nothing but silence this information. But I include my own salutation, because I do not agree with the one built into this online form.
With utmost sincerity,
A very aware U.S. citizen-
(name here)
Not that Dow is squeaky clean ... but that's beside the point. You don't get a free pass to break whatever law no matter how good your cause, even for civil disobedience. Worst of all, it is so unnecessary.
The "parody" site is deliberately misleading, and downright offensive. When I looked for at least a disclaimer, I find instead "Copyright © The Dow Company." The entire site appears to be structured similarly. This insults our intelligence. What, the critics' argument aren't good enough to stand alone? We won't appreciate it unless fooled?
The only reason I was studying the site for hints was the warning I received in advance. Their domain name dowethics adds nicely to the fakery -- certainly it is a plausible name for a corporation to operate.
Parody can be protected speech, but not automatically. Impersonation and falsehood are not protected -- else it would be impossible to prosecute con men. Here, it doesn't even matter if they're telling the truth -- they can't pretend to be Dow. No brainer.
I never find myself on this side of the argument, but the only thing I see here which is not steaming troll meat is the Dow DMCA complaint, which is actually pretty reasonable. The owner of the dow-chemical domain is not named George Dow-Chemical, images and text WERE taken from the dow web site without their permission, and all of this was used to deceive the public as to the intents and actions of Dow.
One could actually make a pretty good argument that those opposed to the DMCA wish only to plagarize and deceive, based on the actions of these parodists. For this reason, I cannot support their efforts. Freedom of information is too important to me.
Two slashdot stories in 18 years on the deaths of 800 people caused by corporate negligence does not appear unreasonable to me.
Unfortunately Slashdot is still stuck in a very limited niche despite the clear poitential to do more. I doubt that the majority of slashdot readers have such narrow interests as the editors.
OK I can take the slashcode and put up my own slashdot to discuss political issues, but slashdot is not the code base it is the community.
A way to address the repeated stories problem and the focus problem would be to create a kind of hybrid of slashdot and google news. Instead of the idiosyncratic and duplicative story selection by the slashcrew the stories could be choosen automatically in the same way as the google news stories are.
This would also reduce the number of tedious 'Microsoft is ssooooooo evil' rants where a story that has nothing to do with Microsoft is posted but the editor feels obliged to tell us what he thinks Microsoft would do in that situation. This type of behavior was more acceptable when slashdot was independent rather than run by a Microsoft competitor.
Another scheme which might be interesting would be to throw the editor queue open for inspection (but not comment) and moderation. Perhaps readers at karma cap or close could get moderation points for this purpose.
Slashdot talks a great line about decentralization etc. but really when it comes down to it the whole thing is a corporate dictatorship, one with a friendly face but not something that meets the game they talk.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I tried to send this to the story gods at slashdot as an amendment to my posting of this story. I guess that it didn't get there in time or they chose not to amend my submission (Although it was edited from the way I submitted it). Anyway here is a link to The Register's article.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
Please everyone, condemn the right party.
** Dow bought Union Carbide 2 years ago. **
Dow is 100% liable for Union Carbide obligations, that comes with the purchase, but did not "kill" anybody at Bhopal in 1984 -- nearly 20 years ago.
In truth, DOW did nothing wrong. They should, however, clean up the messes that Union Carbide left behind.
Frankly, I'd hardly call delivering TOXIC WASTE to a public place a "peaceful protest". I never really liked Greenpeace, and this reminds me why.
Per capita, Americans use more energy, more oil, more gas than any other nation in the world.
h
That sort of automatically follows from the fact that America has the highest GDP and GDP/capita, doesn't it?
Personally I agree with you that the US should be doing a lot more to control it's greenhouse gas emissions. But tirades that ignore the fact that there are other sources of pullution in this world, and in fact the US is not doing that badly in terms of pullution per GDP do little to address the overall problem.
If you look at statistics like pollution / GDP, which is a much more indicitive measure of how a society is handling pollution issues, America is not the highest in the world, and isn't even close. For example if you look at lb. of sulfur dioxide emissions per $1000 USD GDP we have the following as the top polluters.
Poland
Greece
Australia
Canada
Turkey
Czec
China
Russia
In fact the situation with pollution in China is so bad that 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China.
China, with a GDP equal to about 10% of the US GDP releases 13% of the world's CO2 vs. the US's 23%. That is a factor of more than 5 per GDP dollar greater than the US. At this rate, and China's rate of economic growth it is estimated that China will be the #1 CO2 emitter by the end of the decade. By 2020 China is expected to be emitting more CO2 than the US, Japan and Canada combined.
Yes, the US is the largest consumer of economic resources, and the largest polluter in the world. Be even if the US were to freeze it's CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, it would little to impact world CO2 levels or growth of those levels. That growth is coming from places outside the US. And even worse is the efficiency of that growth in terms of pollution per GDP dollar.
I'm no Clinton cheerleader, but I'm fairly sure every single one of your attributions to him is false. Also bear in mind that the President cannot single-handedly enact every policy.
* Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill Clinton).
Bush torpedoed Kyoto immediately after taking office.
* Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently at levels way above those that would be illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again, Bill).
* Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
President Bush deserves the blame for repudiating action on arsenic permanently, Clinton for leaving it until the 11th hour. At least Clinton put it on the table -- Bush never will because of the mining interests.
* Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
Age-old? CAFE has been essentially frozen since President Reagan. Clinton might have failed to raise it, but in face of a very hostile Congress.
* Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
No. The "exemption" (lower standard actually) was practically why SUV's and minivans were invented in the eighties, not the other way around. Notice how station wagons, subject to car standards, disappeared long ago? The lax standard was intended to favor pickups in rural areas and the like, not a fleet of urban vehicles. Cheap fuel prices and style perferences have accelerated adoption of SUV's.
"We are being portrayed as a heartless giant which doesn't care about the 20,000 lives lost due to Bhopal over the years," said Dow President and CEO Michael D. Parker. "But this just isn't true. Many individuals within Dow feel tremendous sorrow about the Bhopal disaster, and many individuals within Dow would like the corporation to admit its responsibility, so that the public can then decide on the best course of action, as is appropriate in any democracy. "Unfortunately, we have responsibilities to our shareholders and our industry colleagues that make action on Bhopal impossible. And being clear about this has been a very big step." This Parker guy is truly evil. He has no conflict whatsoever about what he's doing . He even admits it within his comments. "Many others" might be outraged that Dow is responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands and thousands of people, but not Mr. Parker! The fact then Dow is (then) able to use the DMCA to cut off discussion of their nightmarish deeds gives the perfect example of why this evil law needs to be overturned.... NOW!!!
Their own FAQ starts off with...
"The Onion is a satirical weekly publication published 47 times a year on Thursdays."
Also on the same page:
"The Onion uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases where public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental."
If anyone bothers to read the Dow complaint pdf, they'll note that Dow is suing for trademark infringement, and for sqatting on dow-chemical.com. I don't know what the law says about using a companies trademarks in a parody, but I can see where they'd have a case. Their website name claim is clearly valid as well. If you're going to make a parody site, you should do so within the law. I can see why their ISP dropped them.
Vote for Pedro
1 Dow contaminates the soil. 2 The women scoop up the souil that DOW HAS CONTAMINATED and brings it back to Dow. 3 Dow sues the women for returing the soil that THEY (Dow) contaminated. And you think that Dow's right here? Expect to get a call form ther president offering you a job, 'cause you're no better then him!
I was afraid the symbol might be trademarked and I'd get sued for using it in an unapproved fashion.
KFG
This kind of misrepresentation and use of Dow's trademarks in a way that makes people thing The Yes Men's site belonged to Dow has always been illegal under assorted trademark and copyright laws, and has nothing to do with the DMCA.
Where the DMCA kicks in is the takedown provisions. Dow called Verio and said "Get this off the Web now!" and Verio was required to honor that request. Verio tried calling The Thing, but they weren't available because they had shut down for the day and didn't leave anyway to contact anyone in control. Verio had no way to delete the site other than to pull their whole line, so they did.
Eventually The Thing pulled the illegal site, and Verio restored access. However, because The Thing caused this whole mess by not having somebody on call who could respond to the takedown demand, they downtime was theirs even though Verio is taking the blame. Verio has now decided they don't want to do business with The Thing anymore, because they don't like being blamed for their customer's inactions.
Sorry, what you say is true, but even people who are truely the first poster aren't allowed to say "First Post!" without being modded down.
Just think of all the middle men who are critical to you saying anything in print, but who are being left out of the veto chain.
Ink manufacturers, paper manufacturers, font foundries, phone companies, monitor manufacturers, disk manufacturers, etc.
I didn't click the EULA on the fscking first amendment, so I'd appreciate it if the government would stop writing laws that give corporations the right to decide whether my speech is reasonable or not. If it's a business they're running, they should stick to their business and stay out of mine.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
This owners of this web site, www.slaverready.com is also getting sued. Not for the content of the site but because the logo on the site supposedly infringes on Labor Ready's logo. What a bunch of BS.
You may not be able to fight city hall but you can't fight corporations without getting crushed.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
And that's not a parody at all...
The amazing thing to me is that no mainstream media seems to have picked up that astonishing, week-old "Dow sues protestors" story. It doesn't seem to exist outside of indie and activist sites. Guess that's not the sort of anniversary they want to allude to this time of year? Another reason to hate xmas, I suppose - it makes the media even more useless than it usually is.
But then it wouldnt be slashdot...
| - | - |
" leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers , all done on a global scale, were already a century or more of old news before the first shot of the revolution was fired on the green at Lexington."
This isn't entirely true. Large-scale corporations (the size of Hudson Bay or East Indian, which were exceptions) didn't really emerge until the late 1800's.
Another note is the fundamental disconnect in power between management and shareholder. Certainly businesses started with owners that "hired hands" to run the place. But eventually (WW2 and beyond) management rose as a distinct discipline and practice. Management held a tremendous amount of what could be almost called "illegitimate" power.. that is, until the backlash of hostile takeovers of the 1970's and 80's. Hostile takeovers before this time were quite rare... and it's really what started the whole "maximize shareholder value" fad we hear about today -- if you don't keep your stock price up, you'll get raided.
-Stu
According to the UN : China is doing all it can to reduce its emissions, the US is still increasing its pollution."
Like much of the world, China is doing something about C02, which is a good job, because the US's refusal to work with the Kyoto Protocol is embarrassing.
Source
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
The selected number here is 2^64, the decimal expansion of which is 18 446 744 073 709 551 616.
USA = eighteen pentillion, four hundred forty six quadrillion, seven hundred forty four trillion, seventy three billion, seven hundred nine million, five hundred fifty one thousand six hundred sixteen.
EUR = eighteen trillion, four hundred forty six billiard, seven hundred forty four billion, seventy three milliard, seven hundred nine million, five hundred fifty one thousand six hundred sixteen.
UK = eighteen trillion, four hundred and forty-six thousand, seven hundred and forty-four billion, seventy-three thousand, seven hundred and nine million, five hundred and fifty-one thousand six hundred and sixteen.
NEW = three hundred and sixtynine billion, one cention, fiftyseven thousand, thirtyone hundred and eleftynine million, fifty centions, seven thosand, ninety hundred and sixteen.
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
According to the UN...
A number of sources claim this data is phoney. In particular China is widely believed to be underreporting coal consumption. In fact, the combined reduction in CO2 emissions and increase in economic activity that China is claiming is without precedent in world history, and as such is extremely unlikely to be anything close to the truth.
Here is what the WWF says about China's greenhouse gas status:
Overview
The 1990s was the hottest decade in the past millennium. CO2 emissions worldwide are now around 12 times higher than they were in 1900 as the world burns increasing quantities of coal, oil and gas for energy. The global temperature build-up is seriously disrupting the natural balance of the world's climate, creating more extreme weather conditions and putting one-third of the world's forests at risk, as well as the species that depend on forests for their survival.
China currently accounts for 13% of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, ranking second after the US. Although China signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, commitments have yet to be made in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the past two decades, China has experienced massive economic development and social change. With an average economic growth rate of 9% per year, the energy system plays a central role in shaping development in industry, agriculture, and the service sectors.
China has achieved considerable progress in improving energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction. However, 70% of energy production is still dependent on coal, and demand for automobiles is growing fast. China¦s challenge will be to shift its energy mix into a cleaner path, particularly in the development and dissemination of new and renewable energy technologies, and promoting structural change for more efficient energy use.
Basic facts
* China is set to overtake the US (at 21%) as the biggest producer of greenhouse gases by 2025 unless current trends are modified.
* 7 of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in China
* economic losses and health costs due to pollution alone are equal to 8% of China's GDP (source: the World Bank)
* acid rain in China is widespread, causing severe damage to crops and forests
* more than 70% of China's energy production is from burning coal
Key threats
* Use of unsustainable energy sources, such as coal and oil, which leads to air and water pollution and global warming
* Non-sustainable consumption patterns and wasteful use of energy
Another interesting that seems to slip through the cracks is that the "former Soviet Union" countries emit more greehouse gases than the US does.
And here is another good one - while the US emissions grew 5% over the period of 1995-2001, The emissions per GDP went down 11%.
Also you might want to look at the other signatories of the Kyoto convention, and what their performance is. For example Japan has been recently averaging a 1.1% growth in greenhouse gas emissions per year - and that's for a country that is essentially economically stagnant.
(I hesitate to respond, as I suspect this is some sort of weird reverse-psychology troll, but WTF)
OK, so when you, as an American (I'm assuming), are assassinated for our actions overseas by a random terrorist, I certainly hope your relatives feel the same way. We certainly hope they won't go crying that you were just an innocent civilian/working stiff who just happened to belong to the organization/country with which the killers had a problem. After all, if you had problems with the conduct of the organization as a whole, you'd have moved/quit.
The simple fact is that corporations the size of DOW employ tens of thousands of people, the vast majority of which are not only innocent, but most likely completely unaware of any corporate misconduct. There are people here who deserve to have biological waste shoveled down their pants, but the chance of them being the same people who have to accept this crap when it's dropped on their workplace doorstep are very slim.
A more "fair" comaprison pollution/GDP Per Capita, as opposed to your comparison of pollution/gross GDP.
That is just not right. Per capita comparisons in greenhouse gas production do not reflect the real, important goal - sustainable economic development. Sure, China has a much lower per capita greenhouse gas consumption - but China as is still a developing country with a rapidly growing economy.
The real goal is minimization of energy consumption per dollar of GDP, not just stopping CO2 emissions. That we could do (at great human cost) by simply turning everything off. If we cut emissions per $ GDP, we can actually improve the human condition.
(1) You're saying that Dow employees are not representatives of Dow because they're "poor working stiffs"?
Yup. They had NOTHING to do with the decisions made by Union Carbide some 25-30 years ago when this Bhopal facility was being planned. Making some low level employee of one company accountable for the actions of another company acquired in a financial transaction is the most perverse, twisted notion I have ever encountered.
(2) What "assault"? Returning Dow property (spilled chemicals) to a Dow office?
Yup. Somebody dropping chemical waste into my immediate environment surely qualifies as an assault on me.
Do you as a person expect to be able to walk down the street, randomly shooting pedestrians
Nope. Now please explain to me how this has anything with a receptionist working for Dow in India.
So why should Dow have the manufactured freedom to kill thousands of people and escape any responsibility for their actions?
Dow didn't kill any of these people. A company that Dow acquired 2 years ago in a financial transaction made some mistakes - and Dow now inherits the liabilities associated with those mistakes.
That does not justify criminal acts against Dow in any way.
After all, if you had problems with the conduct of the organization as a whole, you'd have moved/quit.
So if some terrorist decides that my country has offended him in some gross way, and kills me because I happen to be a citizen of that country, it is my fault for not leaving that country?
Are you totally cracked? Insane? Nuts?
Sure, there are plenty of things I don't agree with in the way my country conducts itself. But does that mean I must leave the country? What a crock! Haven't you ever heard of the concept of trying to change things as a constructive member of society?
The fact of the matter is that there will ALWAYS be somebody that has an axe to grind against any large organization. There is no country on Earth that is satisfactory to every human on the face of the planet. So if you feel this action is ok, then we are consigned to random violence and anarchy forever.
The question is how are you going to resolve the problem. Is killing randown citizens (and yes children who have no say in where they live) the answer? If you think yes, then you have eschewed every civilized principle that seperates modern man from primitive.
Wrong order of events though, Dow never asked for The Thing to be shut down.
Dow simply asked Verio that it see to it that the site was removed from the web. Verio called The Thing, but they had gone home for the night. (Make a note... if you ever plan on running an ISP that hosts contraversial content, have somebody on your admin staff carry a beeper!.) Since The Thing couldn't/wouldn't help get the site down, Verio had to do it the only way they had to power to do, which was unplug the thing as a whole.
Verio didn't like having to do that, especially because it made them look like they wanted to take down hundreds of sites that had nothing to do with this situation. So, Verio decided they wanted to get out of this mess, so they used an out clause in their contract with The Thing.
Dow only wanted one site shut down... it's Verio who's walking out on The Thing as a whole.
If you want to get Dow's attention, tell people to stop buying their produ cts, and tell them why. At the end of Dow's 2001 financial report, they have a partial list of Dow and associated company trademarks.
I peeled out that data, paired it with the company name, and then sorted the result.. If you want to boycott Dow products, these names would probably be a good start.
I'll also place a copy of this list on my website ( http://www.bcgreen.com/dow/trademarks.html) where I can update it as necessary. (147 references so far).
damn lameness filters force reformatting.
Affinity :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Amerchol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Aspun :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Betabrace :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betafoam :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betamate :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. :: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | | Blox :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Carbowax :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Confirm :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Cyracure :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | D.E.N. :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Daxad :: Hampshire Chemical Corp. :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Derakane Momentum :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Dow :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowfax :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowlex :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dowtherm :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Dursban :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Emerge :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Ethafoam :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | FilmTec :: FilmTec Corporation :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Flexomer :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Fulcrum :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Gas/Spec :: INEOS plc :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Goal :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Great Stuff :: Flexible Products Company :: Hampshire Chemical Corp. | | Immotus :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Inspire :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Flexible Products Company | | Instill :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Integral :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Isonate :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | LP Oxo :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Lifespan :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Lontrel :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Magnum :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Maxistab :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Methocel :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Mustang :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Mycogen Corporation | | Neocar :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Optim :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Michelin North America, Inc. | | Papi :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Pellethane :: The Dow Chemical Company :: PhytoGen Seed Company | | Polyox :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Prevail :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Procite :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Quash :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Redi-Link :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: American Chemistry Council | | Retain :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Saran :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Sentricon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Si-Link :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Spectrim :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Starane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Strandfoam :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Styrofoam :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Styron A-Tech :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow Corning Corporation | | Synergy :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Tanklite :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Tergitol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Thermax :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Tordon :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: Dow AgroSciences LLC | | Treflan :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Triton :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Trymer :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Tyril :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | UCAT :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Ucartherm :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Unipol :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Unival :: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Vikane :: Dow AgroSciences LLC :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voralast :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voranate :: The Dow Chemical Company :: The Dow Chemical Company | | Voranol Voractiv :: The Dow Chemical Company :: Solutia Inc. | | Woodstalk :: Dow BioProducts Ltd. :: The Dow Chemical Company
Amplify
Attane
Betadamp
Betaguard
Betaseal
Calibre
Cellosize
Covelle
D.E.H.
D.E.R.
Derakane
Dithane
Dowex
Dowflake
Dowper
Drytech
Elite
Envision
Ethocel
FirstRate
Fortress
Garlon
Glyphomax
Grandstand
Hamposyl
Insite
Insta-stik
Intacta
Intrepid
Isoplast
Lamdex
Liquidow
Lorsban
Maxicheck
Meteor
Mimic
Mycogen
Opticite
PAX System
Peladow
PhytoGen
Polyphobe
Primacor
Pulse
Questra
Responsible Care
Safe- Tainer
Saranex
Shac
SiLK
Spider
Stinger
Strongarm
Styron
Syltherm
Syntegra
Telone
The Enhancer
Tone
Tracer Naturalyte
Trenchcoat
Trycite
Tuflin
UCAR
UCON
Unigard
Unipurge
Versene
Voracor
Voralux
Voranol
Vydyne
Zetabon
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Shouldn't parodies be allowed?
Parodies should be allowed, but the supposed parody web site did not look like a parody to me. It was trying to pass itself off as the real Dow site, which is not allowed. Fraud. Deception. etc...
To the dickhead mod who moded that as -1 flamebait, grow up. It's a well researched informative post, and most importantly it's true.
*Man* the danger of computers deciding who gets moderation is that sometimes assholes get the trigger.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I thought it was out of date, but sadly, it isn't.
Our House is Burnin' (2:57)
A fusion of African, Japanese and Classic Blues rhythms.
Lyrics. download mp3 (2.6MB).
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
the number has too many digits for even an international telephone number. So i suspect some humour.
The number is given as being a famous number, being 2^64.
On the other hand, if you're from the USA, then dialing short+short+short+short and ask the operators for connections is the way you call people (see "operator" song by Elvis).
OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.