141–150 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you go and speak to your representative for a few minutes to try and convince them to support your position Give it a try. Let me know how it goes. If you don’t have a campaign donation lined up, you’re not getting in the door.
I've talked to one of my senators, three of my congressman, and my mom's congresswoman. I'm not that rich and I certainly don't make political donations large enough for them to notice. Your cynicism might be warranted in certain states/districts, but my representatives have been reasonably responsive to this fairly average constituent.
Sometimes I sincerely wonder if it is due in part to a lack of autonomy from the national parties. I think there is limited wiggle room to oppose the party line, except in cases where a lot of money is brought in, or a particular issue strongly jeopardizes the party’s control over an area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A representative talking to a constituent is an okay form of 'lobbying.' Notably, the representative isn't getting a tangible benefit. Lobbying is broad spectrum and on one end is politicians doing the right thing, and on the other end is corporations making huge donations to political campaigns which is effectively bribery. Lobbying, as it's practiced in US politics, is overwhelmed by the cash that corporations can…
Even in this case representative is getting a tangible benefit that he is possible getting an opportunity to do something which they can in turn take credit for. A lobbyist getting an audience with someone in power therefore may lead to something that is mutually beneficial to the lobbyist and the person in power, without need for materialized bribes. Shutting nuance out of a discussion will mislead us.
There's tons of nuance here; I'm responding to a person who appears to be insisting that there's absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying when in fact there are lots of problems with the actual practice as observed in the US.
[1] https://search.carrot2.org/#/search/pubmed/Paraquat/folders
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…
We wrap food in PFAs. You know, that thing people are making a big deal about showing up in tiny concentrations in well water near military air bases. They're also on every waterproof jacket you can buy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The goal in this case was to improve soybean amino acid content (soybean is a major world crop, with Brazil being one of the top suppliers). Pioneer- one of the major seed companies- created a transgenic (moving a whole gene from one organism to another) soybean with a gene from Brazil nuts. That gene turned out to be the one that produces the protein in Brazil nuts which causes an allergic reaction and the soybeans actually seem to cause a reaction in people who consume them (I'm glossing over a bunch of technical details in the paper).
It's not hard to image, with an existence proof like this, that there are many ways that GM crops could increase the risk to consumers.
Any biologist I've trained with who understands transgenics and immune response would immediately note that this was a fairly obvious potential risk/outcome provided the source gene's properties had been identified first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is still bribery. We don't really see it, though, because it's politically popular enough to direct support to cancer research so that lobbying is hardly necessary.
Dinner is bribery? I can see how it would be bribery if the cancer researcher made a campaign donation after dinner, or left a suitcase of cash under the table, or even paid for dinner, but simply having dinner is not bribery. I agree that conflating these terms leads to less productive conversations.
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.
Lobbying is fine. The problem with the US is you can literally buy votes in the legislature. That's because the legislator's individual votes were made public via sunshine laws. As long as you keep those votes visible they can be bought no matter how much indirection has to be introduced. The alternative is a secret vote. Now only passed/unpassed legislation can be bought. This is a lot more expensive and requires a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've talked to one of my senators, three of my congressman, and my mom's congresswoman. I'm not that rich and I certainly don't make political donations large enough for them to notice. Your cynicism might be warranted in certain states/districts, but my representatives have been reasonably responsive to this fairly average constituent.
I’m honestly surprised. I have contacted my federal representatives asking for the opportunity to change their minds on issues many times in the last few years, and have never broken through the wall of automated responses. Although at the local level, it is not hard to find a willing ear. Sometimes I sincerely wonder if it is due in part to a lack of autonomy from the national parties. I think there is limited wiggl…
I've heard this before and I suspect it's true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If just telling them what you want is all that lobbying entailed, then it wouldn't be an issue. Of course there is more to it than that.