non-profit groups with ties to pharma and big-food money

[Tcomeau]

More interesting items on this site:

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html

Pretty damning stuff.

TC

[Muush]

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0307031247.cd0d69@posting.google.com...
> More interesting items on this site:
>
> http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html
>
> Pretty damning stuff.

If you say so.....

[M00sh]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:12:14 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> wrote:

>If you could read Moo-She. One of the organizations under
>discussion is strictly a industry mouthpiece and lobbying
>organization. It is fair bet Australian has an equivalent ot
>this lobbying group. Money talks. The other organizations
>clearly influenced in both they say or are even willing to
>think. It's a fair bet even praise of whole foods is quite
>muted. You didn't read his posting did you? Clearly not.

Yes we have all these bodies to some extent here. Because the
vast majority of Australian voters caste a vote, lobbying has
little effect here. Politicians pander to the requirements of
the electorate, or they get voted out or not voted in. All
political donations are to be declared. Yes, some try to hide
this, but when it comes out, they find it is not worth trying.
Most corporations here tend to give donations to both parties.
God knows why, but there you are. Maybe it's an American
habit. Our govts seem to do the best for the electorate. Yours
apparently don't. Perhaps if more than 30% voted, this would
change. Politicians tend to work for those who elect them,
when this is only 20% or less, you will get strange results,
which you are apparently experiencing.

[Tcomeau]

M00SH <noll@noll.noll> wrote in message
news:<5lscgvk6jpf6bhfci3scifqvo7flupbq8t@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:12:14 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
>
> >If you could read Moo-She. One of the organizations under
> >discussion is strictly a industry mouthpiece and lobbying
> >organization. It is fair bet Australian has an equivalent
> >ot this lobbying group. Money talks. The other
> >organizations clearly influenced in both they say or are
> >even willing to think. It's a fair bet even praise of whole
> >foods is quite muted. You didn't read his posting did you?
> >Clearly not.
>
>
> Yes we have all these bodies to some extent here. Because
> the vast majority of Australian voters caste a vote,
> lobbying has little effect here. Politicians pander to the
> requirements of the electorate, or they get voted out or not
> voted in. All political donations are to be declared. Yes,
> some try to hide this, but when it comes out, they find it
> is not worth trying. Most corporations here tend to give
> donations to both parties. God knows why, but there you are.
> Maybe it's an American habit. Our govts seem to do the best
> for the electorate. Yours apparently don't. Perhaps if more
> than 30% voted, this would change. Politicians tend to work
> for those who elect them, when this is only 20% or less, you
> will get strange results, which you are apparently
> experiencing.

I don't know what this has to do with my postings. Maybe you
should read what I am posting if you want to enter the debate.

TC

[Mo0$H]

On 5 Jul 2003 10:42:03 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>M00SH <noll@noll.noll> wrote in message
>news:<5lscgvk6jpf6bhfci3scifqvo7flupbq8t@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:12:14 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
>> <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If you could read Moo-She. One of the organizations under
>> >discussion is strictly a industry mouthpiece and lobbying
>> >organization. It is fair bet Australian has an equivalent
>> >ot this lobbying group. Money talks. The other
>> >organizations clearly influenced in both they say or are
>> >even willing to think. It's a fair bet even praise of
>> >whole foods is quite muted. You didn't read his posting
>> >did you? Clearly not.
>>
>>
>> Yes we have all these bodies to some extent here. Because
>> the vast majority of Australian voters caste a vote,
>> lobbying has little effect here. Politicians pander to the
>> requirements of the electorate, or they get voted out or
>> not voted in. All political donations are to be declared.
>> Yes, some try to hide this, but when it comes out, they
>> find it is not worth trying. Most corporations here tend to
>> give donations to both parties. God knows why, but there
>> you are. Maybe it's an American habit. Our govts seem to do
>> the best for the electorate. Yours apparently don't.
>> Perhaps if more than 30% voted, this would change.
>> Politicians tend to work for those who elect them, when
>> this is only 20% or less, you will get strange results,
>> which you are apparently experiencing.
>
>I don't know what this has to do with my postings. Maybe
>you should read what I am posting if you want to enter
>the debate.

William wrote:

"If you could read Moo-She."

[Gratuitous insult noted]

"One of the organizations under discussion is strictly a
industry mouthpiece and lobbying organization."

[I mentioned the reasons why I thought this wasapparently such
a problem for you in America.]

"It is fair bet Australian has an equivalent ot this
lobbying group."

[I agreed and described how they fitted in here]

"Money talks."

[I tried to explain why it talks in the political arena more
in your country than in Australia.]

"The other organizations clearly influenced in both they say
or are even willing to think."

[I didn't understand this sentence, so I didn't comment.]

"It's a fair bet even praise of whole foods is quite muted."

[My point was that US govt may do this for the reasons I gave,
but the opposite is the case in Australia]

"You didn't read his posting did you? Clearly not."

[I told you I did, buy my discussing it.]

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

Now what have you misread or not understood?

BTW, none of what you complain about in your post has any
substantive impact on the merit or otherwise of scientific
study. This is all determined by the peer-review process.

[Philip J .]

In article <5lscgvk6jpf6bhfci3scifqvo7flupbq8t@4ax.com>,
noll@noll.noll (M00SH) writes...
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:12:14 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
> <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
>
> >If you could read Moo-She. One of the organizations under
> >discussion is strictly a industry mouthpiece and lobbying
> >organization. It is fair bet Australian has an equivalent
> >ot this lobbying group. Money talks. The other
> >organizations clearly influenced in both they say or are
> >even willing to think. It's a fair bet even praise of whole
> >foods is quite muted. You didn't read his posting did you?
> >Clearly not.
>
>
> Yes we have all these bodies to some extent here. Because
> the vast majority of Australian voters caste a vote,
> lobbying has little effect here. Politicians pander to the
> requirements of the electorate, or they get voted out or not
> voted in. All political donations are to be declared. Yes,
> some try to hide this, but when it comes out, they find it
> is not worth trying. Most corporations here tend to give
> donations to both parties. God knows why, but there you are.
> Maybe it's an American habit. Our govts seem to do the best
> for the electorate. Yours apparently don't. Perhaps if more
> than 30% voted, this would change. Politicians tend to work
> for those who elect them, when this is only 20% or less, you
> will get strange results, which you are apparently
> experiencing.

Then I'd love to hear your explanation for why Howard sent
troops to Iraq when 80% of the citizens (voters) opposed it.

--
* If you listen to cockpit voice recorders from fly-by-wire
aircraft that *
* are about to crash, then what you tend to hear is the same
sort of things *
* that people say to their PCs. "How do you stop it doing
that? What did *
* we do last time it did that?" *
* -- Ian Utting *
*
*
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @
ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of
looking at things. *

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:58:52 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:

>In article <5lscgvk6jpf6bhfci3scifqvo7flupbq8t@4ax.com>,
>noll@noll.noll (M00SH) writes...
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 23:12:14 -0700, "William A. Noyes"
>> <no.address@ctc.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If you could read Moo-She. One of the organizations under
>> >discussion is strictly a industry mouthpiece and lobbying
>> >organization. It is fair bet Australian has an equivalent
>> >ot this lobbying group. Money talks. The other
>> >organizations clearly influenced in both they say or are
>> >even willing to think. It's a fair bet even praise of
>> >whole foods is quite muted. You didn't read his posting
>> >did you? Clearly not.
>>
>>
>> Yes we have all these bodies to some extent here. Because
>> the vast majority of Australian voters caste a vote,
>> lobbying has little effect here. Politicians pander to the
>> requirements of the electorate, or they get voted out or
>> not voted in. All political donations are to be declared.
>> Yes, some try to hide this, but when it comes out, they
>> find it is not worth trying. Most corporations here tend to
>> give donations to both parties. God knows why, but there
>> you are. Maybe it's an American habit. Our govts seem to do
>> the best for the electorate. Yours apparently don't.
>> Perhaps if more than 30% voted, this would change.
>> Politicians tend to work for those who elect them, when
>> this is only 20% or less, you will get strange results,
>> which you are apparently experiencing.
>
>
>
>Then I'd love to hear your explanation for why Howard sent
>troops to Iraq when 80% of the citizens (voters) opposed it.

Well my theory is that a) the great unwashed will have
forgotten it come the next election, and b) if you side with
the schoolyard bully, (Bush) you will get to share some of the
the marbles when the dustup is over. Bush will likely control
ALL the marbles (oil) in ten years. (I still wonder why he is
pushing this silly hydrogen economy)

Although I say voter turnout is important, equally important
is voter education and awareness. Howard is aiming to follow
America in both fields. He will soon be legislating for the
20% of private school alumni who vote for him, and the rest
will be slaves or worker bees. Australia, be aware! Or as they
say so well in Indonesia, "Awas, Ya!"

[Philip J .]

In article <ha0vgvohlgfciv02kl19fgngtkt9qunoih@4ax.com>,
buggerall@nowt.zilch (Moosh:]) writes...
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:58:52 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <5lscgvk6jpf6bhfci3scifqvo7flupbq8t@4ax.com>,
> >noll@noll.noll (M00SH) writes...

> >> knows why, but there you are. Maybe it's an American
> >> habit. Our govts seem to do the best for the electorate.
> >> Yours apparently don't. Perhaps if more than 30% voted,
> >> this would change. Politicians tend to work for those who
> >> elect them, when this is only 20% or less, you will get
> >> strange results, which you are apparently experiencing.
> >
> >
> >
> >Then I'd love to hear your explanation for why Howard
> >sent troops to Iraq when 80% of the citizens (voters)
> >opposed it.

> Well my theory is that a) the great unwashed will have
> forgotten it come the next election, and b) if you side with
> the schoolyard bully, (Bush) you will get to share some of
> the the marbles when the dustup is over. Bush will likely
> control ALL the marbles (oil) in ten years. (I still wonder
> why he is pushing this silly hydrogen economy)

Of course many nations (governments actually) want to side
with the bully for obvious reasons, but this hardly reconciles
with your claim that the AU government "does the best for the
electorate".

Perhaps you need to elaborate whether that means the
tried-and-true concept of elitist royalty doing "what's best"
because the plebes can't possibly understand what's good for
them, or whether it means the government simply in the
democratic sense executes the will of the voters. Because the
latter surely didn't seem to be in evidence wrt to Howard's
decision to send equipment and soldiers to Iraq.

> Although I say voter turnout is important, equally important
> is voter education and awareness. Howard is aiming to follow
> America in both fields. He will soon be legislating for the
> 20% of private school alumni who vote for him, and the rest
> will be slaves or worker bees. Australia, be aware! Or as
> they say so well in Indonesia, "Awas, Ya!"

We should be so lucky in the USA that Bush's constituency were
the elite intelligentsia. Unfortunately it appears that the
opposite is more likely to be true.

--
* Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity
opinions which *
* differ from the prejudices of their social environment.
Most people are *
* even incapable of forming such opinions. -- Albert
Einstein *
*
*
* To send email, remove numbers and spaces: pjkusenet64 @
ekahuna27 . com *
* Simple answers are for simple minds. Try a new way of
looking at things. *

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 08:49:17 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
<See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:

>In article <ha0vgvohlgfciv02kl19fgngtkt9qunoih@4ax.com>,
>buggerall@nowt.zilch (Moosh:]) writes...
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:58:52 -0700, Philip J. Koenig
>> <See_email_@ddress_below.This_one_is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5lscgvk6jpf6bhfci3scifqvo7flupbq8t@4ax.com>,
>> >noll@noll.noll (M00SH) writes...
>
>> >> knows why, but there you are. Maybe it's an American
>> >> habit. Our govts seem to do the best for the electorate.
>> >> Yours apparently don't. Perhaps if more than 30% voted,
>> >> this would change. Politicians tend to work for those
>> >> who elect them, when this is only 20% or less, you will
>> >> get strange results, which you are apparently
>> >> experiencing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Then I'd love to hear your explanation for why Howard
>> >sent troops to Iraq when 80% of the citizens (voters)
>> >opposed it.
>
>
>
>> Well my theory is that a) the great unwashed will have
>> forgotten it come the next election, and b) if you side
>> with the schoolyard bully, (Bush) you will get to share
>> some of the the marbles when the dustup is over. Bush will
>> likely control ALL the marbles (oil) in ten years. (I still
>> wonder why he is pushing this silly hydrogen economy)
>
>
>Of course many nations (governments actually) want to side
>with the bully for obvious reasons, but this hardly
>reconciles with your claim that the AU government "does the
>best for the electorate".

It's a matter of who the representatives represent. We all
have to attend the polling booth here, so we get a large
percentage of the population casting a valid vote. Not much
room for lobbying. Most people are fairly strong in their
political beliefs, but getting to the booth on the day is a
problem for many, and if they believe the publicity that such
and such is a shoe in, they might not bother.

>Perhaps you need to elaborate whether that means the
>tried-and-true concept of elitist royalty doing "what's best"
>because the plebes can't possibly understand what's good for
>them, or whether it means the government simply in the
>democratic sense executes the will of the voters. Because the
>latter surely didn't seem to be in evidence wrt to Howard's
>decision to send equipment and soldiers to Iraq.

Of course, Howard thinks he knows "what's best" but that is
not being influenced by lobbyists

>> Although I say voter turnout is important, equally
>> important is voter education and awareness. Howard is
>> aiming to follow America in both fields. He will soon be
>> legislating for the 20% of private school alumni who vote
>> for him, and the rest will be slaves or worker bees.
>> Australia, be aware! Or as they say so well in Indonesia,
>> "Awas, Ya!"
>
>
>We should be so lucky in the USA that Bush's constituency
>were the elite intelligentsia. Unfortunately it appears that
>the opposite is more likely to be true.

Well it is surely the conservatives. Whether their
intelligence is overwhelmed by their greed is a moot point.
BTW, the "intelligentsia" usually are left of centre, IME.