21–30 of 44 posts
I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This describes the important of pollinators, but honey bees are not the only pollinators. I don't see enough evidence supporting the case that honey bees exclusively are responsible for pollinating 1/3 of all food, nor that the absence of honey bees would reduce food production by the same amount (which seem to be the positions you have put forth). Can you support those claims?
Can you support a contra position? That bees are not significant pollinators? Please do not forget other Apidae family members - they probably don't benefit from pesticides either. Oh... Another reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16812.full - you can check references [6,7] yourself. Edit: I apologize - since I did limit my rant to honeybees initially.
The 2nd reference is the best so far, it provides some quantitative information about how dominant the honey bee is as a pollinator of commercial crops.
Personally I think bees are hugely important and it's quite sad the way bee populations have been mistreated, but it doesn't help to overstate the case (the case for being kind to bees is already very strong).
I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.
>Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-med...
I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.
I couldn't deduce from the article that money changed hands, much less in a campaign-situation? I don't know exactly how the EPA is structured, but it seems unlikely that elected officials would have much clout at such a low level.
I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.
(I know this is naive, but) Corporations are made of people. All that money belongs to someone. So if those people decide to give that money to politicians, why does that make problems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
kb
Considering the EPA's past lies about the air quality at ground zero, the mercury levels in fresh water fish, etc., let's just say that if you believe anything they say then I've got a boat load of perfectly safe shrimp from the gulf to sell you.
I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.
Don't worry. We'll lock down campaign contributions so much that only the six major corporations that control the mainstream media in the U.S can cover their campaigns. >Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States. Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. http://theecono…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This describes the important of pollinators, but honey bees are not the only pollinators. I don't see enough evidence supporting the case that honey bees exclusively are responsible for pollinating 1/3 of all food, nor that the absence of honey bees would reduce food production by the same amount (which seem to be the positions you have put forth). Can you support those claims?
Can you support a contra position? That bees are not significant pollinators? Please do not forget other Apidae family members - they probably don't benefit from pesticides either. Oh... Another reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16812.full - you can check references [6,7] yourself. Edit: I apologize - since I did limit my rant to honeybees initially.
I don't understand how politicians are allowed to campaign with corporate money.
(I know this is naive, but) Corporations are made of people. All that money belongs to someone. So if those people decide to give that money to politicians, why does that make problems?
With this level of abstraction, the final shareholders usually are not (or don't want to be) aware of things done in their name. The situation makes it very easy to look the other way.
IMHO, Adam Smith would be disgusted about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you support a contra position? That bees are not significant pollinators? Please do not forget other Apidae family members - they probably don't benefit from pesticides either. Oh... Another reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/26/16812.full - you can check references [6,7] yourself. Edit: I apologize - since I did limit my rant to honeybees initially.
Honeybees are not native to the US. It would be odd to rely on a non-native species for our food supply.