Google's Science Fellows Challenge the Company's Fund-Raising For Senator Inhofe 140
Lasrick writes "At the Dot Earth blog in the NY Times, 'Big companies have many, and sometimes conflicting, interests, as a spokesperson for Google tried to explain to the environmental blogger Brian Merchant this way: “[W]hile we disagree on climate change policy, we share an interest with Senator Inhofe in the employees and data center we have in Oklahoma.” Now the Web giant is facing fresh criticism, this time in an open letter from 17 scientists and policy researchers who were invited to Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters back in 2011 to explore ways to improve climate science communication....'"
What about Gay Marriage? (Score:2, Insightful)
So when Google/MS/etc. etc. all were heaping money on for the pro-gay marriage debate why was protest by company employees not allowed while this is seen as being a "moral' thing to do?
I'm not taking a position either way on either topic, I'm just pointing out that lots of people on this site and in general have very blinkered views where paying money to support the "correct" politicians is perfectly fine while paying money to support the "incorrect" politicians should somehow be illegal.
Re:Wha if (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations and their funds should not be allowed to give or fundraise for politicians period. Only private citizens should be allowed to do either. It should not be a tax deduction either. It would fix a lot of problems.
Re:Wha if (Score:3, Insightful)
One American Senator is completely meaningless and will continue to be meaningless with regards to "Climate Change," however one American Senator can be quite meaningful with regards to our business operations in his district.
Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.
Re:What about Gay Marriage? (Score:2, Insightful)
Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."
Basically, stop lying. We understand that the phrase "equal rights" has powerful connotations that automatically get a large group of drones to stand with you, but its still a fucking lie.
Re:good grief, give it a rest (Score:5, Insightful)
1, Science is a matter of evidence, not a matter of belief.
2. To have an opposing view, one must first agree there is such a thing as 'reality'.
Zealotry and the balkanization of our culture (Score:2, Insightful)
In real, grownup life (ie not "ivory tower academia") we all spend time working every day with people who may or may not PRECISELY agree with everything we believe.
The fact is that Senator Inhofe can be useful to Google in a number of contexts unrelated to either of their positions on climate change.
I have friends that are both Christians and Atheists, am I too supposed to refuse to associate with one group or the other based on which side of that fence I personally stand on?
The sort of zealotry that informs 'public posturing' like this is corrosive, and indicative of a sort of Manichean worldview that is never constructive.
Google would be best advised just to simply ignore with no comment. If those "scientists and policy researchers " no longer want to be associated with Google, they can simply refrain from participating then.
Re:Wha if (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe he said "Corporations and their funds". Certain a CEO is a private citizen and can do what he/she will with their own money. Perhaps the point is that it is not right for a CEO to use the power and profit of a Corporation to influence votes. If they can pull millions of dollars out of their own (deep) pockets then fine, though they do run up against campaign finance laws. Corporations can now contribute with no caps and thus play a huge part in how a campaign plays out.
Re:Wha if (Score:5, Insightful)
"Corporations are voluntary grouping of people"
This is a lie on so many levels it's heard to know where to begin.
You make it sound like they're all of one mind WRT politics. They're a "voluntary grouping" , right? But they're not. They're just there to work and pay the bills; they haven't "voluntarily grouped " for political reasons at all.
Yet you force them to accept what the corporation does and use their presence in the corporation are a a kind of justification, hey,. they're there as a voluntary group! They can leave if they don't like it!
Of course they could leave their job. As if. I love it when this argument finally gets down to "if you don't like it , you are free to leave your job / state / nation" part . It's a joke and factually as untrue as "if you don't like it, you can leave your job, lose your house, wreck your credit and live on the street" . Only in an adolescent fantasy world does this kind of logic exist.
What's more, it puts unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people merely because they're rich. That's the real world effect. It's no different than 18th century England with a king and the various barons. They wield the real power. But this is what democracy was invented to prevent. You seem to overlook that basic fact. Democracy is a means to an end- the opportunity for citizens to participated as equals in government. You turn it into a circus of perverts, gleefully shaking their packages at the whole POINT of democracy through some fucking "voluntary group" horseshit.
People should be limited in how much they can give candidates. Candidates elections should be publicly funded. Elections should be of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations. and the tiny sliver of people who run them.
Nothing could be simpler to understand.