If it acts like a crook and talks like a crook....

This is what politicians would look like if they had to wear campaign donor logos the way NASCAR drivers do.

Money drives politics, fact.  My giving $5 or $50 or even $1,000 isn't a problem.  The problem comes when someone, or some special interest, gives $1,000,000.  If I call the office of the POTUS and say "Lowandslow here, a $100 campaign contributor, and I need to speak to the President", do you think they would put my call through?   

Now if someone representing Goldman Sachs or Monsanto or Exxon Mobil called and asked for the President's ear, what do you think their chances of getting connected might be?

Popular wisdom is that big business supports Republicans, and trial lawyers and labor unions support Democrats.  That is mostly, but not entirely, true.  Most special interests wisely (?) contribute to BOTH political parties, just in case their preferred candidate/party loses.  It's called hedging your bets.

There is another problem with how our current political process is funded:  We don't know who is giving or how much they are giving.  Individual contributors to candidates are listed and the amount they can contribute is limited and must be made public.  But contributions to groups who advertise for a candidate (by 527 tax-exempt organizations....that means you and I are subsidizing their political views), are kept secret from the public.  We don't know who they are or how much they are giving.  The process is about as clear as mud, by design.  

Likewise for money donated to either PARTY.  The party does not have to divulge who they received donations from or how much they gave, yet the party can forward funds to any candidate they want, in whatever amount they want, and it is completely NON-transparent.  Do you see where there might be some room for abuse?

I've been watching the Clinton/Sanders debate I recorded last night and I heard Hillary Clinton say something that made my jaw drop.  She said she has never been swayed by campaign contributions she has received from special interests.  (In fairness, probably all candidates from both parties will say the same, except maybe Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who don't rely on big special interest donations.)

Wha...wha...WHAT?

Really?  You can call Goldman Sachs or Monsanto or Exxon Mobil or any of the rest of them a lot of things, but STUPID is not one of them!  No special interest is going to give millions of dollars to a candidate without having a reasonable expectation of getting something in return.  

Do politicians think we're really dumb enough to believe that? 

S

Monsanto's smoking gun

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

The Governor of Vermont recently signed into law a bill that requires foods sold there and made from Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO's, to be labeled as such.  In retaliation, Monsanto, one of the world's largest agrichemical (read: GMO) businesses, has threatened to sue them, saying such a law "is a violation of their (Monsanto's) right to free speech."

Huh?  How would this law prevent them from saying whatever they want?

I've never thought much about GMO's, or preservatives, or food colors, or much of anything else in my food.  If there's something wrong with it I think my system has already adapted to it.  But now after reading this.....

Not being a scientist myself I'm just guessing that GMO's exist because they enable farmers to achieve more crop yield per acre, or they're more disease resistant, or they're better able to withstand drought....something like that.  Right?

Hold on there, Kemosabe.  If their stuff is all that benign, why not just say so and go on about your business?

Here's "the rest of the story":  Apparently there's some really nasty stuff that goes into GMO's.  Twenty-five states are considering mandatory labeling just like Vermont, but they're all scared of the agribusiness legal backlash.  They say they will put forth a bill only AFTER another state goes first.  Vermont is now that state.

For their part, Monsanto has partnered with DuPont and Kraft and maybe others to try and squash such labeling requirements.  They are said to be ready to throw unlimited financial resources into fighting it, while itty-bitty Vermont keeps their legal defense fund in a mayo jar in the bottom drawer of their AG's desk.  This is turning out to be a huge David vs Goliath re-match.

I'm thinking Monsanto has already lost, at least in the public's mind.  Whenever you're caught trying to suppress transparency, well....it's like pleading the 5th Amendment.  Whenever you hear that, don't you just assume the party is guilty?  Legally of course they aren't, but in the court of popular opinion, it's "off with their head".  Smooth move Monsanto.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Out with the old....

Have you ever taken a carriage ride around a quaint old town?  Aren't they fun?  Especially in the winter.  There's you and your honey all cuddled up under a warm blanket in the back, sipping hot chocolate, while the driver narrates all the historic sites his/her city has to offer, always mindful to never turn around and look to see what's going on back there.  ;)

At least that's the way it's supposed to be.  In reality my experience has been I'm sitting 8' behind a horse that had a super-sized feedbag full of broccoli for dinner and is single-handedly doing irreparable damage to the Earth's ozone layer.

But I digress.

Now animal right's groups are saying the horses aren't treated well and the practice should be stopped.  Their movement (pardon the pun) seems to be gaining traction.

In with the new

Now a Florida-based company has introduced the "Horseless eCarriage".  It's an electric vehicle that evokes at least some of the nostalgia of traditional carriage rides, but without the "exhaust".  It can go up to 30 mph (try that, horse!) and has a range of 100 miles.

I wonder if they could synthesize that "clippity-clop" sound a horse makes?  But not that other sound.  :)

I'd try it.  Would you?

S