Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 197 posts

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#131

Post by supportlocal4h »

serf wrote: post #31
Nanana909 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Let’s say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and discusses reasons for (lobbies) him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery? Because it is lobbying. But under your definition of lobbying and bribing being equiv…

>Lets say a lobbyist for a nonprofit cancer research group has dinner with a representative and lobbies him to vote for increased cancer research at this dinner. Is this bribery? most people would tend to agree that if it required something it was at the very least an exchange, perhaps a bribe. one could ask why the request for support couldn't be done over the phone; the answer is "because of the dinner." -- well, t…

The dinner is not necessarily buying support. It is buying access. The lobbyist can drown out my voice because I don't get the same access to my supposed representative. Welcome to a republic.

Do you have an idea to improve on this? Perhaps there could be 100 designated dinners per rep per year and up to four competing voices could be at the table. We could vote for the candidate who has a 100 dinner topics list that we like the best.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#132

Post by mistrial9 »

seanf wrote: post #77
mistrial9 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer Inc. is your example of harmless influence ?!? you embarrass yourself here, perhaps unwittingly. Source: US citizen

Can you provide a better source? I know about the waste in large nonprofits, but am also personally benefiting from grant-supported research that if it otherwise didn't happen would leave me and a lot of others dead.

yikes! your healthcare is more important than the politics of funding; let's be very clear that my comment is about overall funding, not specific people and cases. Good wishes to you and yours

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#133

Post by klipt »

Nanana909 wrote: post #35
groffee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it's still bribery. The definition doesn't change just because you happen to agree with what they're getting bribed for.

Okay, if you think having dinner while talking about cancer research is bribery, let me find you an even more bare bones example. Your representative has a town hall and afterwards you get a few minutes to speak with him. You argue that the number of stop signs in your neighborhood isn’t enough and causes danger. In other words, you lobby him to pursue increased stop signs in your area. He hears you out, you guys sha…

> You argue that the number of stop signs in your neighborhood isn’t enough and causes danger.

It's fine for normal people to lobby their representative. But if you're a billionaire telling your representative to close the roads near your house because you don't like normal people driving by, and anyway you travel by helicopter, and you donate millions every year to your representative's campaign so they'd better listen to you - then you're using money to increase your influence beyond "one man, one vote" and that's basically bribery.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#134

Post by kreeben »

boomskats wrote: post #3

SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. I, for one, was not surprised.

>> the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government

Sure, it's legal, but how is it democratic?

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#135

Post by HPsquared »

dekhn wrote: post #101
HPsquared wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of a mechanism for GM crops causing allergies. How would this work?

THere's a classic paper where somebody cloned brazil nut genes into soybeans. Unfortunately, the genes they cloned were the ones that code for protein allergens... making the resulting soybeans cause brazil nut like allergic response. I don't think this work was ever followed up, or repeated, but it's an entirely plausible mechanism by which genetic modification could cause allergies. (are you a biologist? this stuff…

I'm a total layman when it comes to biology. Chemical engineer by training, never got into the biotechnology side though.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#136

Post by coryrc »

bastawhiz wrote: post #27

Herbicides aside, I worry a lot about the chemicals that we consider "normal". I signed up for a pest service after purchasing my home because we were getting ants and water bugs in the house. They have a package they they sell that includes a "full property" treatment, which I don't think I need. They list off a couple down "pests" that they kill, and go through a long script about how safe the chemicals are. But li…

And how could I forget BpA? Known toxic chemical and in all receipts from thermal printers, which readily enters the bloodstream. Luckily they removed it from PC water bottles and can linings, except replaced with... BpS! Obviously a completely safe chemical, though no testing had been done.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#137

Post by chrisseaton »

kreeben wrote: post #134
boomskats wrote: post #3

SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. I, for one, was not surprised.

>> the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government Sure, it's legal, but how is it democratic?

Lobbying is an essential part of most democracies - how would you’re representatives know how to represent you if you weren’t allowed to tell them?

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#138

Post by diffxx »

everybodyknows wrote: post #16
sonofhans wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s bribery. Everyone involved knows it’s bribery. The money is given with expectation of reward. If the bribing entity didn’t expect a direct reward, they wouldn’t give the money. Now, everyone tries to hide behind levels of abstraction — “It’s just lobbying!” — but those are just fig leaves and reasonable people should see through them. E.g., “Exxon gave the money to my campaign committee, and I’m not in…

Transferring campaign donations to personal use is a felony, precisely because it does amount to bribery as enabled by money laundering. Recent case, ending in prison conviction: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/former-congressman-dunc...

According to the supreme court (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/politics/supreme-court-campai...), it is legal to make personal donations to your campaign and then have the campaign pay you back with post election fundraising. What is to stop a candidate from colluding with a bank? Let's say a banker offers the candidate a 1MM loan with 0.5% apr. The candidate receives that money and makes a 1MM loan to their campaign at 10% apr. Now the candidate potentially has a ~100K/year annual revenue stream coming from the repayment of their loan. All they need to do is rile up their supporters about whatever hot button issue is most salient with their constituents to keep the post election donations coming in. This is particularly scary when it comes to house elections since given the short terms, house members are pretty much always in election fundraising mode.

Now, perhaps the scheme I just outlined is a bit too obvious, but I certainly don't doubt that far more sophisticated money laundering schemes that leverage the recent supreme court decision are happening now and will happen in the future.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#139

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

kreeben wrote: post #134
boomskats wrote: post #3

SPOILER ALERT: the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government legislators and elected officials by profit-driven corporate bodies. I, for one, was not surprised.

>> the answer is 'lobbying'. That is, the free, democratic, and fully legal, bribery of government Sure, it's legal, but how is it democratic?

Because a democratically elected government created the lobbying rules. It's the same, somewhat paradoxical, reasoning that allow for governments to systematically put up barriers to voting or to dilute votes through gerrymandering. Since its a elected government, its all good.

Re: Why does the US allow a controversial weedkiller banned across the world?

#140

Post by ethanwillis »

adrr wrote: post #116
TimTheTinker wrote: post #9

I'm more worried about the GMO "roundup ready" seeds they sell, and the crops that result. Those contain alterations that (I hypothesize) are partially responsible for increased allergies in the US population.

Anything done by genetic modification can be accomplish through breeding given enough time. There’s nothing special about genetic modification and it’s manipulating the genetic code which happens randomly in nature.

Surely you can also understand that selective breeding can also result in bad outcomes?
Post reply on HN