America's a democracy?
- Thread starter gore0bsessed
- Start date
in a thread about, wait for it... wait for it... wait for it... "America's democracy", ya, you should! Oh my, don't you know what thread you're in here, hey taxi? :mrgreen: You appear to be following the discussion with all your insightful drive-by commentary!
It seems that you have no answers on this one I guess.... You could have just indicated that you don't know (yet again).
Like the organic farmers lobbyists? Spreading BS far and wide and calling it green?
CORNUCOPIA: The Organic Trade Association (OTA) is seeking to suppress the
release of a new report rating the nation's organic dairy brands and
products. The report will soon by issued by The Cornucopia Institute, an
agricultural policy research group that supports family-scale farmers.
The OTA's "campaign of intimidation" comes less than six months after the
organic business group was widely condemned for orchestrating a secret,
back-door deal in Congress that was viewed by many in the organic community
as weakening federal organic regulations to the benefit of large
corporations. Now OTA has once again exposed themselves to widespread
criticism by attacking one of the nation's preeminent corporate and
governmental watchdogs that is protecting organic food and farming.
The report, according to The Cornucopia Institute, is designed to "empower
consumers and wholesale buyers in the marketplace" by rating organic dairy
brands based on their adherence to accepted ethical practices and conduct.
Last week the OTA sent a special letter to members of The Cornucopia
Institute's Board of Directors attempting to convince them to not release the
dairy products rating report. The letter suggested that the report--which
the OTA has not seen--will sow a seed of "distrust in organic farming and
organic products" and noted that OTA is "opposed to tactics that cast doubt on
the work of certified organic farms." After the OTA sent their letter to the
Cornucopia Board, they then released the letter to the public and strategic
calls have been placed to the news media in an effort to discredit the
Institute's work.
"This report is a by-product of a five-year controversy that has been
smoldering within the organic industry," according to Mark A. Kastel, Senior
Farm Policy Analyst for the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute. Since the
late 1990s a handful of large industrial-scale dairy operations, with
2000-6000 animals in factory-farm conditions, have started producing milk
sold as "organic." Among other serious breaches these dairies are accused of
is confining their animals rather than grazing on pasture.
"Even though there have been numerous meetings and thousands of letters and
e-mails from organic farmers and consumers requesting that the United States
Department of Agriculture clamp down on these factory farms, as well as
surveys indicating overwhelming support from organic dairy farmers for
enforcement actions against those who are scoffing at federal organic law,
the USDA have done nothing to date," said Helen Keyes, a Cornucopia board
member and certified organic livestock producer. "This puts ethical organic
farmers at a competitive disadvantage."
The Cornucopia Institute has said that although they will continue to work
with the USDA, they are "appealing to a higher authority"-the organic
consumer. According to Kastel, "One way that many organic consumers justify
the higher prices for organic food is their support for a more ecological
farming model, more humane animal husbandry practices, and a social/economic
justice movement that supports family-scale farmers. We hope this report,
and our Web-based rating tool, will help organic consumers to 'vote in the
marketplace' for brands that truly represent organic ethics, not just
marketing hype."
The Organic Trade Association started as an industry umbrella group that
originally included farmer and consumer members in addition to manufacturers.
However, since hiring high-powered lobbyists in Washington and raising their
lowest dues levels to $300 (larger corporations contribute tens of thousands
of dollars), many of their smaller long-time members have been forced out,
and the association is now dominated by major agribusiness corporations that
have purchased familiar organic name brands in their bid to capture a piece
of the rapidly growing organic food market.
"Since their backroom dealings in Washington became public last fall, a
number of OTA's former business members have joined The Cornucopia
Institute," said Meg Hannah, the Cornucopia's President. "Our new business
members join with over 500 individual members, mostly farmers, who understand
that the economic health of the organic marketplace depends on maintaining
high organic integrity," Hannah added. "Don't these large corporations and
their lobbyists understand that playing "fast and loose" with the organic
standards has the potential to kill the golden goose"?
At least two powerful OTA members, Dean Foods and the Aurora Organic Dairy,
have been the subject of a series of legal complaints concerning livestock
management practices on the huge factory farms they operate. Dean Foods now
owns the Horizon brand of organic milk, and Aurora packages private label
milk for chains such as Costco, Safeway, and Wild Oats.
"After some delay we are pleased that the USDA is now investigating, in
earnest, at least two of the four complaints we have filed against these
large industrial dairies that are 'gaming the system,' said Kastel.
"Although we are still considering taking legal action forcing the USDA to
investigate all complaints against these suspect organic farms, our
forthcoming report will help consumers reward the true heroes of organic
farming, in the marketplace, with its information detailing the ethical
practices of all organic dairy marketers."
The good news contained in Cornucopia's report is that the group's research
indicates that the vast majority of organic dairy brands contain milk from
family-sized farms that share the consumer's conviction that organic
agriculture is about more than marketing hype.
"The organic marketplace wasn't built by lobbyists and trade groups, it was
built through a loving collaboration between organic farmers and consumers
who truly respect their hard work," Kastel stated. "I'm happy to confirm
that the majority of organic products are of high integrity, and working
together, the organic community will succeed in maintaining more than just
the business value of organically produced food."
https://www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/SOS/watchdog060207.php
The cost of goods and services provided by most corporations is determined by Material, Labor, overhead and profit. In a competitive market the labor and profit is mostly determined by whatever the market will bear. Profit is where corporations get their money and that is determined by what the consumer is willing to pay for their services. The only thing corporations exploit is the consumers appetite. If CEO's are raking in enormous salaries and companies are making huge profits it is because we as a society have chosen to make what they provide a necessity ,,regardless of the cost.
At least the Judges won't be allowed to receive private funding........
Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences
On Wednesday, a 5-4 Supreme Court held in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar that states may “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns.” It was a small but symbolically important victory for supporters of campaign finance laws, as it showed that there was actually some limit on the Roberts Court’s willingness to strike down laws limiting the influence of money in politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents:
This view of lawmakers obedient to a narrow segment of the nation is not new. To the contrary, it drove much of the Court’s widely maligned campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United does not simply argue that “[f]avoritism and influence” are unavoidable in a representative democracy, it appears to suggest that they are a positive good. “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors,” Kennedy wrote in Citizens United. “Democracy,” he added “is premised on responsiveness.”
Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences | ThinkProgress
Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences
On Wednesday, a 5-4 Supreme Court held in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar that states may “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns.” It was a small but symbolically important victory for supporters of campaign finance laws, as it showed that there was actually some limit on the Roberts Court’s willingness to strike down laws limiting the influence of money in politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents:
States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such “responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.” The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. A judge instead must “observe the utmost fairness,” striving to be “perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or controul [sic] him but God and his conscience.” As in White, therefore, our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.
Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors.
This view of lawmakers obedient to a narrow segment of the nation is not new. To the contrary, it drove much of the Court’s widely maligned campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United does not simply argue that “[f]avoritism and influence” are unavoidable in a representative democracy, it appears to suggest that they are a positive good. “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors,” Kennedy wrote in Citizens United. “Democracy,” he added “is premised on responsiveness.”
Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences | ThinkProgress
they wish
those are all determined by how cheap they can make their labourers. it's generally better to have your factories overseas as the labour comes cheaper and you don't have to worry about costly things like workers safety.
what you say about ceo's is also nonsense as it's the labour that makes him/her the wealth yet his/her labourers get only a tiny fraction of what they earned as the ceos pocket the majority. we decided as a society that fast food is a great thing we need, yet fast food workers are making poverty wages and get crapped on when they have the audacity to demand a wage they can live on.
I ask again, where do the corporations get their money? It appears that they pay out a lot.... to government, lobbyists, cheap workers, and I see someone else mentioned material and products. Where do they get the money to spend on all of this?
quite honestly I think your vision is just a tad bit short sighted although I know you have sympathy for the working folks. The thing is ,,,,very few people are going to spend twenty dollars for a greasy burger. You can figure out the rest.
for what it's worth, more often than not the crumbs that fall off the table are appreciated more than the main course.
being the dullard you are, you fail to grasp the answer provided to you! You thought you were "clever" in mentioning environmental advocacy organizations... and I asked you if the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision was a 'left-right' one. For some strange reason you managed to ignore that question - go figure!