So, just for a moment, be naïve and consider what really happened in that vote: the people’s representatives who happen to have taken the bulk of the money from those energy companies promptly voted on behalf of their interests.
They weren’t weighing science or the national interest; they weren’t balancing present benefits against future costs. Instead of doing the work of legislators, that is, they were acting like employees. Forget the idea that they’re public servants; the truth is that, in every way that matters, they work for Exxon and its kin. They should, by rights, wear logos on their lapels like NASCAR drivers.
He's right though: no-one is surprised at the oil industry's humungous subsidies - but very few try to do, actually and physically, anything about them.
Edit: a reply to an e-mail to a friend over another issue:
I couldn't agree more…. you probably shouldn't read it!
If you die of high blood pressure then there will be one less compost-toilet-expert in the world, and that is one less too many. Better to enjoy what can be done and to do it with good humour than to stress over the bits that aren't yet being done…
I like the "one less too many"!
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Raise your hand if you personaly donate to a Politician or Party?
**raises hand, almost certainly alone**
There you go then.
Political donations in the UK are typicaly £1 per year per vote in a general election. Even iof you assume all of that money is "dirty" money, it still means if everyone who voted, donated £1 per year to a politician they agreed with, it would be equaled by "clean money".
But that would require you to do something, much easier to whine and demand a law is passed.
Do you include Labour Unions in this cast of evil "corporates" buying the UK?
Because if you do, only the Tories have enough member donations to pay the interest on their debts....
I contribute and also refused to join a union when I was "employed" in local government many years ago as I did not want to lend support to the Labour Party. When I became unhappy with my remuneration in Local Government I withdrew my labour by leaving and becoming self employed.
Dom, same olde point here: I do donate to a political party but I am poor so my donation isn't very much in the Grand Scheme of Things. Sadly, because of the difference between rich and poor, the poor person who genuinely believes they have a point weilds a lot less clout (in this situation and many others) than the rich person who also believes he has a point.
In general, you seem to assume that if a given person states an opinion and for some reason they are unable to back it up with their own money (including, they spend all their own money on simply getting-by) then their opinion's worth nowt. Is this what you genuinely believe?
There are millions more poor people than rich and was it not the case that Obama was funded by the millions of poor people in the US plus some rich ones. He did quite well with funding.
kenneal - lagger wrote:There are millions more poor people than rich and was it not the case that Obama was funded by the millions of poor people in the US plus some rich ones. He did quite well with funding.
And the vast majority of his funding came from those few rich people.
"We're just waiting, looking skyward as the days go down / Someone promised there'd be answers if we stayed around."
kenneal - lagger wrote:There are millions more poor people than rich and was it not the case that Obama was funded by the millions of poor people in the US plus some rich ones. He did quite well with funding.
And the vast majority of his funding came from those few rich people.
Yep mainly the banks (goldman sachs was the biggest contributor)
