CONS. - Another case of a big company hiding stuff from you

[st.cronin]

"Stealing a march on the EPA" (Editorials, July 12) falsely asserts that climate change is not a high priority for the Bush Administration. In fact, the U.S. currently spends more money ($2 billion annually) on studying the causes and effects of climate change than Japan and the European Union combined. The Bush Administration was the first to deliver a strategic plan as part of its Climate Change Science Program -- which brought together 13 federal agencies, more than 1,200 scientists and stakeholders, and 35 countries around the world -- even though Congress required such a plan in 1990.

Implementing policies designed to curb "global warming" has dramatic consequences for businesses large and small and on the economy in general, but to what effect? Quite simply, we don't know enough about climate change to understand what effect policies would have on the global environment. That is why President Bush's comprehensive plan to first fill in the gaps in climate-change knowledge, along with accelerating federal investments in advanced energy technologies such as the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, is the most prudent course to take.

Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr.
Vice-Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans & Atmosphere
Washington (Found in Business Week July 25)

[st.cronin]

I'm going to stay out of this thread for now: My point is that Bush is consistently criticized for the wrong things. I've got plenty to pick on him about, but the environment (and corporate fraud/greed) are NOT on my list.

Sincerely,
A Moderate Who Voted for Clinton Twice

[Flasch186]

Anwar, Kyoto, mercury, arsenic, superfunds that dont get funded anymore for their cleanup, etc.

c'mon.

[Dutch]

Watching Democrats bicker is fun.

"We hate Bush for everything!"
"No we don't, we need to hate him for everything but this, so as to not look like we are complaining about everything!"
"You *&#%#@ moron! We hate him for everything!"
"Screw you, what the fuck do you know?"
"I'm so banging my head on my desk right now because of you--twit!"
"Idiot!"
"Jerk!"
"Poopy-head."
"Republican luver!"
"Stupid Christian!"
"Oooooh, that's it, now I'm really pissed, I'm banging my head on my desk and sending this god-awful (I know, there's no god --yuk, yuk--) pain of a headache over the internet at your sorry fascist ass!"

[gstelmack]

To get back to the original post in this thread:

The problem I've got is that people are somehow surprised to discover that there are corporations out there doing wrong. Of course there are! Just like there are people stealing cars, mugging people, committing rapes, breaking into homes, etc. Why would you expect people in corporations to be any different?

The key is: what percentage? How many? Are they constantly doing wrong? Are they any different than anyone else in society?

There are lots of corporations that plod along just fine without breaking any laws, and many donate millions back to communities. The problem is that every time someone gets caught, it's held up as an example of how all corporations are bad and evil and must be stopped. You want me to go to, say, CNN.COM and take the top story to show how evil teenagers are because they keep shooting up schools? I'm wondering why you expect that there won't be some percentage of corporations (or people at those corporations) trying to dodge around the law. Instead, I'm gratified that someone is keeping an eye out and holding them accountable when the do.

As for Graco, do you have any idea how tightly child products are watched? Check the recalls out sometime in a magazine like Consumer Reports and see some of the piddling stuff they recall these things for. Scan the web for sites that do nothing but rate these products and track how well they work, and how active parents are doing research. They get a reputation for poor safety, and they'll get absolutely creamed in this market. As a result, I think you'll find this particular issue to be an aberration rather than part of a pattern. Graco makes a ton of kids' products, and as tightly as things are tracked I'm not surprised they got tripped up on something. You think that if you had a cop car following you around every single day (often unmarked so you don't know what car it is all the time), they won't catch you breaking some traffic law?

I've got several Graco products, and most of them have been fantastic. The current stroller we own is a fantastic piece of engineering; strong and well-built, yet light enough to lift in and out of the car and set up / take down with one hand (important with a child in the other one). I've also got products from other companies, it all depends on the specifics of the models (although my daughter has a particular fondness for Fisher Price toys for some reason...) Nothing mentioned in this story makes me feel worse about them, in fact it makes me feel better to know that someone was watching them close and made them fix the issues.

I think if a company is going to make child products, they're going to get hit with liability concerns. Kids are GOING to hurt themselves no matter what you do. These products are over-engineered to no end, and they still find things wrong. It's amazing we all managed to actually grow up if you compare what's allowed in products for children today vs. what we had back then. I'm scanning some old slides to hard drive and am in shock at my old toddler bed, some of my toys, etc.

In short, lighten up a bit and be glad that someone is out there watching out for your best interests. Try doing some research on how business was run back in the 19th century and you'll see how much better things are now. A simple search into the railroad industry alone will show that things are MUCH better.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Yes it would be much better if everyone adhered mindlessly to strict party-line dogma. Stupid people, having individual opinions. Bah.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

To get back to the original post in this thread:

The problem I've got is that people are somehow surprised to discover that there are corporations out there doing wrong. Of course there are! Just like there are people stealing cars, mugging people, committing rapes, breaking into homes, etc. Why would you expect people in corporations to be any different?

The key is: what percentage? How many? Are they constantly doing wrong? Are they any different than anyone else in society?

There are lots of corporations that plod along just fine without breaking any laws, and many donate millions back to communities. The problem is that every time someone gets caught, it's held up as an example of how all corporations are bad and evil and must be stopped. You want me to go to, say, CNN.COM and take the top story to show how evil teenagers are because they keep shooting up schools? I'm wondering why you expect that there won't be some percentage of corporations (or people at those corporations) trying to dodge around the law. Instead, I'm gratified that someone is keeping an eye out and holding them accountable when the do.

As for Graco, do you have any idea how tightly child products are watched? Check the recalls out sometime in a magazine like Consumer Reports and see some of the piddling stuff they recall these things for. Scan the web for sites that do nothing but rate these products and track how well they work, and how active parents are doing research. They get a reputation for poor safety, and they'll get absolutely creamed in this market. As a result, I think you'll find this particular issue to be an aberration rather than part of a pattern. Graco makes a ton of kids' products, and as tightly as things are tracked I'm not surprised they got tripped up on something. You think that if you had a cop car following you around every single day (often unmarked so you don't know what car it is all the time), they won't catch you breaking some traffic law?

I've got several Graco products, and most of them have been fantastic. The current stroller we own is a fantastic piece of engineering; strong and well-built, yet light enough to lift in and out of the car and set up / take down with one hand (important with a child in the other one). I've also got products from other companies, it all depends on the specifics of the models (although my daughter has a particular fondness for Fisher Price toys for some reason...) Nothing mentioned in this story makes me feel worse about them, in fact it makes me feel better to know that someone was watching them close and made them fix the issues.

I think if a company is going to make child products, they're going to get hit with liability concerns. Kids are GOING to hurt themselves no matter what you do. These products are over-engineered to no end, and they still find things wrong. It's amazing we all managed to actually grow up if you compare what's allowed in products for children today vs. what we had back then. I'm scanning some old slides to hard drive and am in shock at my old toddler bed, some of my toys, etc.

In short, lighten up a bit and be glad that someone is out there watching out for your best interests. Try doing some research on how business was run back in the 19th century and you'll see how much better things are now. A simple search into the railroad industry alone will show that things are MUCH better.

Excellent post. It's kinda like the auto market. The successful, safe companies are big winners, and the poor car makers seem to be getting creamed.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Excellent post. It's kinda like the auto market. The successful, safe companies are big winners, and the poor car makers seem to be getting creamed.

Im all for the safe companies being succesful BUT when a company knows people are being killed and HIDE it. THAT IS EVIL!!! and unacceptable...you shouldnt accept it either. The problem is that there are HUGE amounts (statistics) of corporations, large and small, that lie, cheat, steal, and in this case, kill, to stay full steam ahead.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Yes it would be much better if everyone adhered mindlessly to strict party-line dogma. Stupid people, having individual opinions. Bah.

I apologize, my remarks were mean and insensitive.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

On topic...

I don't think anyone really believes that corporations have the best interests of the public in mind. The theory of free markets, however, is that in pursuing their own selfish best interests, corporations (like people) will indirectly end up serving the public interest. It's a pretty good theory and mostly works. But there are times when the algorithm doesn't work so well, and that's where we have regulations.

I don't think you can blame Bush for the rash of corporate scandals. The corporate culture from the 80's up through the dot-com boom has been rife with underhanded dealings and neither party did a damned thing about it until huge companies started going belly-up due to their unethical conduct.

Still, there is a political dimension in that the parties have long-standing positions on corporate regulation: the Dems like more, the Republicans like less. Who you'll like will largely depend on how effective you think market feedback mechanisms are.

While I think they're usually effective there frequently cases where consumers operate on incomplete knowledge, due either to corporate concealment of pertinent data or simple information failure on the market (people don't actually have the time or resources to fully research all of their purchases). There also other issues that can cause a free market to operate less than optimally (externalization of costs, behavioral flaws in consumers, etc). In those cases market feedback doesn't operate as well as it should, and if abuses occur, regulation may be useful. Civil enforcement (shareholder actions, product liability suits, etc) can serve as an important regulatory devices as well.

[Flasch186]

since it kinda had to do with beds:

FDA orders killer hospital beds to be seized
Warns: Vail Products' beds have trapped, killed patients

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 Posted: 9:34 PM EST (0234 GMT)


LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, citing a public health risk, said Tuesday it ordered the seizure of enclosed hospital beds made by Vail Products Inc.

The FDA said it was aware of 30 people who became trapped in the beds, seven of whom died.

Officials at Toledo, Ohio-based Vail Products could not be immediately reached for comment. The company's Web site says the beds, used for clinical and home care, allow "the patient to move about freely within a safe, padded environment."

The site makes no mention of Tuesday's seizure.

The FDA said it directed U.S. marshals to seize all finished Vail 500, 1000, and 2000 enclosed beds as well as components, labeling and promotional materials for those models.

The agency said the beds are misbranded because they are dangerous when used as recommended in the labeling. They also lack adequate warnings and directions for use, it said.

The FDA said Vail Products failed or refused to furnish requested information, and inspections show that the company has continually failed to follow quality requirements.

The agency says it issued two warning letters to Vail Products outlining unacceptable practices, and the company "failed to take appropriate actions."

[clintl]

Originally Posted by KevinNU7

Hello McFly! This is a State Issue. Not everything needs to be rubbed down by the Federal Government. Write you DA if you want to see criminal action

I disagree with you completely. Product safety is a federal regulatory responsibility, and rightly so for any company that sells products across state lines. The Commerce Clause explicitly gives the federal government that authority.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im all for the safe companies being succesful BUT when a company knows people are being killed and HIDE it. THAT IS EVIL!!! and unacceptable...you shouldnt accept it either. The problem is that there are HUGE amounts (statistics) of corporations, large and small, that lie, cheat, steal, and in this case, kill, to stay full steam ahead.

I'm sorry, but until I see details on the reports, I'm not going to start calling Graco "killers". They're being cited for failing to report incidents involving their products, not for having unsafe products to begin with. There is a recall involving their beds, caused by them having the slats spaced too widely (silly Graco, there are clear guidelines on this). However, the fundamental issue remains having kids stick their limbs through those gaps; Graco is being cited here for not making something foolproof to 2-year-olds. I defy you to make ANYTHING that is foolproof for 2-year-olds.

Nothing in that article indicates that the other products were actually unsafe, just that Graco failed to report incidents when children were hurt while in one of their products. The article does not make clear if the product failed, or if something else happened; did someone knock over the high chair, fail to park the stroller properly, etc?

So it's a long stretch from "failed to report" to "killed", a leap you've made on the basis of one summarizing article that does not draw the same conclusions. Much more information is needed before deciding just how "evil" they were.

[Flasch186]

it said failed to report some instances, "some fatal".

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

it said failed to report some instances, "some fatal".

But it does not say whether the company products were at fault in those instances. They are supposed to report any accident where their products are involved, whether or not they are the cause ('cause they have to figure out the cause).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But it does not say whether the company products were at fault in those instances. They are supposed to report any accident where their products are involved, whether or not they are the cause ('cause they have to figure out the cause).

Because they weren't taken to court!!

Are you kidding? Youve got to be kidding? This is plain as day, it was a unspoken corporate policy that spanned different prooducts, to HIDE/not report (which is required) incidents in which children were hurt OR KILLED, obviously in use of their products.

Youre right, they dont have to report every accident or fatality in which their product was not involved!! like, say car accidents, or drownings. Cmon man THEY OBVIOUSLY ONLY FINING THEM FOR THINGS THAT RELATE TO THEM!! (I dont pay your taxes!!) This is obviously a company that did WRONG, please dont stand there and say that, "youre not sure." because there isnt all the evidnece. Shit I can go to fox news or CNN or NPR and get whatever we want to back up what you already believe. But at some point, when a gov't organization throws a 400MILLION dollar fine at some one, theyre not doing it on a whim!!

I have the utmost respect for you and your opinions but when you cant see that the sun is in the sky, it really makes me question whether or not your stances pervade ALL our debates.

[Buzzbee]

Flasch - You've mentioned the statistics several times in this thread and in your initial post you indicate you've presented them before. Since I missed it the first time around, could you link or re-post those statistics. I'm curious to see how pervasive this issue is.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Flasch - You've mentioned the statistics several times in this thread and in your initial post you indicate you've presented them before. Since I missed it the first time around, could you link or re-post those statistics. I'm curious to see how pervasive this issue is.

no no no,m I mean statistics in random samplings. If you take a sampling of X # of companies and find that 3 are caught cheating, you can expand upon said sample with a + or - error range, that there is more that do said "cheating".

Obviously those that are Pro-big business would like to tell you that ONLY those that have been caught, Those that we can talk about, THOSE THAT ARE IN OUR KNOWLEDGE NOW, are the ones doing the cheating but that is disingenuous.

For ALL crime (like someone stated already) not EVERYONE is caught, and thus is UNKNOWN. You have to use statistics to guesstimate a likely target. While not 100% accurate it is a better estimate to get at an answer than randomly saying ALL cheat or NONE cheat.

[Buzzbee]

Oh. I see. I thought you might have some statistics to show what percentage of companies we could 'expect' to be breaking the law.


Of course, how would you use statistics to show what that percentage would be? I guess you'd have to generate a list of X number of random companies, then investigate them all to see if any were breaking the law, then extraploate that out to all corporations. Also, would this be limited to a particular type of criminal activity, such as product liability, tax evasion, improper accounting practices, illegal hiring practices etc. or would we just lump them all together under the 'evil corporate activity' category? Naturally once this was done, there would be all sorts of ways to slice and dice the data to spin it in one particular way or another. "Sure, 20% of all large corporations were indicted on criminal activity, but a whopping 34% of small business executives were jailed for tax evasion" (as an example)

Also, you are pretty fervent to point out that for every one corporate scandal, there are many out there that aren't uncovered. So far, I haven't seen one single, solitary post that claims that the only criminal activity that is occurring is that which is caught. However you repeatedly claim that this is what the pro-big business camp would like people to believe. You make the claim, but so far it seems to be an outlandish and unsupported claim.

As I have pointed out to you before your fervent and often over the top claims submarine the rest of your argument. Is your argument valid that there is criminal activity occurring at the corporate level a valid one? Absolutely. Is your argument that this is something that we should be concerned with a valid one? Most likely yes. Is your concern over this something that should drive you to post about the topic in order to raise the awareness of others? That's up to you, but I think it is probably a noble purpose.

However, claims that "they" are EVIL and that "they" will result in a nation of the 'haves' governing a third world nation of the 'have-nots' are so ridiculous that it totally destroys any valid points you make. You lump ALL big businesses in with your statements and present an attitude that "all big business is bad". Rather than painting with the broad brush that all big businesses are evil and that they will destroy America, drop the Chicken Little approach and focus on the idea that corporate scandals are something to be concerned with, that they are more pervasive than people might realize, and that while corporate watchdogs and law enforcement agencies might catch a few bad guys, the general population should be more aware and should be sensitive to what businesses they support with their purchases.

Your repeated threads regarding corporate scandals COULD go a long way in spreading your message. However, because of your presentation, you do more harm to your cause than good. Back off the 'you people are too stupid or stubborn to see how things really are' approach and go with a 'my first inclination is that this is a bad thing, but wanted to find out other's opinions' or similar type approach and I bet you get a less devisive response.

Study QuikSand. I think in most 'discussion' type threads he starts or participates in, he doesn't claim to be an authority (although it's usually pretty evident that he knows a bit about the topic) and asks for others input and opinions. Then when he disagrees, it is done in an adult, reasoned, non-combative manner. That's one reason his posts tend to carry a fair amount of weight around here. If he does take a dig at someone, he usually follows it up with an explanation, based in fact or reason, as to why the previous poster is an idiot.

Sorry for the long post. It is just aggravating to continually see you ruining a valid point with blind fervor.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Are you kidding? Youve got to be kidding? This is plain as day, it was a unspoken corporate policy that spanned different prooducts, to HIDE/not report (which is required) incidents in which children were hurt OR KILLED, obviously in use of their products.

You're failing to see the difference between "child was hurt while in a Graco high chair that was knocked over by the family dog" and "child was hurt while in a Graco high chair when the leg collapsed". Or better yet "child was hurt while in a Graco high chair when the leg collapsed after the parent failed to lock the leg properly". I've seen plenty of recalls that were phrased like that last one: "Graco high chair leg will collapse when leg not locked correctly" (yes, I read the recall notices in the back of EVERY Consumer Reports now that I have a child, and there is a mix of "how could they release a product like that?" along with "what idiot user would try to do that with the product?")

The article does not tell us how many of these incidents fall into which of those 3 categories. And I'm not about to throw the label "killer" at them until I know which ones. The label may be deserved, but it also may not. And frankly, if a product failure killed a child, I'd expect a lawsuit somewhere over it, and I'd expect the press to be digging like mad to find them right about now. The fact that all we've got so far is this one tiny article makes me skeptical that this goes much beyond "failure to report".

You do realise that all those warning notices everyone loves to laugh at come out of these types of incidents, right? We all laugh at the warning notice without thinking that someone had to actually try to use the product in the way its being warned against, got hurt, sued, and WON! And a company can be cited for failing to report these outrageous claims.

So to summarize: plenty of information to be outraged that they weren't reporting incidents, not nearly enough to be outraged that they were "killers".

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Oh. I see. I thought you might have some statistics to show what percentage of companies we could 'expect' to be breaking the law.


Of course, how would you use statistics to show what that percentage would be? I guess you'd have to generate a list of X number of random companies, then investigate them all to see if any were breaking the law, then extraploate that out to all corporations. Also, would this be limited to a particular type of criminal activity, such as product liability, tax evasion, improper accounting practices, illegal hiring practices etc. or would we just lump them all together under the 'evil corporate activity' category? Naturally once this was done, there would be all sorts of ways to slice and dice the data to spin it in one particular way or another. "Sure, 20% of all large corporations were indicted on criminal activity, but a whopping 34% of small business executives were jailed for tax evasion" (as an example)

Also, you are pretty fervent to point out that for every one corporate scandal, there are many out there that aren't uncovered. So far, I haven't seen one single, solitary post that claims that the only criminal activity that is occurring is that which is caught. However you repeatedly claim that this is what the pro-big business camp would like people to believe. You make the claim, but so far it seems to be an outlandish and unsupported claim.

As I have pointed out to you before your fervent and often over the top claims submarine the rest of your argument. Is your argument valid that there is criminal activity occurring at the corporate level a valid one? Absolutely. Is your argument that this is something that we should be concerned with a valid one? Most likely yes. Is your concern over this something that should drive you to post about the topic in order to raise the awareness of others? That's up to you, but I think it is probably a noble purpose.

However, claims that "they" are EVIL and that "they" will result in a nation of the 'haves' governing a third world nation of the 'have-nots' are so ridiculous that it totally destroys any valid points you make. You lump ALL big businesses in with your statements and present an attitude that "all big business is bad". Rather than painting with the broad brush that all big businesses are evil and that they will destroy America, drop the Chicken Little approach and focus on the idea that corporate scandals are something to be concerned with, that they are more pervasive than people might realize, and that while corporate watchdogs and law enforcement agencies might catch a few bad guys, the general population should be more aware and should be sensitive to what businesses they support with their purchases.

Your repeated threads regarding corporate scandals COULD go a long way in spreading your message. However, because of your presentation, you do more harm to your cause than good. Back off the 'you people are too stupid or stubborn to see how things really are' approach and go with a 'my first inclination is that this is a bad thing, but wanted to find out other's opinions' or similar type approach and I bet you get a less devisive response.

Study QuikSand. I think in most 'discussion' type threads he starts or participates in, he doesn't claim to be an authority (although it's usually pretty evident that he knows a bit about the topic) and asks for others input and opinions. Then when he disagrees, it is done in an adult, reasoned, non-combative manner. That's one reason his posts tend to carry a fair amount of weight around here. If he does take a dig at someone, he usually follows it up with an explanation, based in fact or reason, as to why the previous poster is an idiot.

Sorry for the long post. It is just aggravating to continually see you ruining a valid point with blind fervor.

great point(s), I am affected in life by my emotional diatribes as well, but it is equally upsetting when others claim that there isn't any more corporate scandal outside that which is found. Like, when someone says, "I cant believe another thread about bashing corporations when one gets caught." Well we only KNOW about those that get caught.

Obviously, I feel that the corporate atmosphere that started back in the 80's and carried through to now, have created a generation of upper management that does throw their morals to the wind at the greater public's expense.

When we boil down corporate misdeeds the most important ones that I have focused on are those that crush the public for the short term stake of the corporation, ie. Enron's financial claims and selling internally, the hiding of information by Firestone that could've saved lives, and now these here...not reporting incidents, some fatal, in which one's goods were deemed responsible enough to be fined for.

Yes, we should be concerned but I do get emotional when someone defends the greater corporate culture by insinuating that the one's caught are the only ones, or a very few that do "cheat" when statistics (theory) say otherwise.

[Buzzbee]

That's fair enough. However, I would suggest doing some research on corporate scandals. I anticipate that you will find that what seems to be a recent phenomenon isn't so recent. Without anything to back it up and without having done any research on the matter, I would venture to say that corporations have been 'dirty' long before the '80's, and that contrary to what you suggest the percentages haven't really changed all that much.

My thinking is that what HAS changed is the scope of the activity, the intensity of the media coverage, and most importantly the scope of the individual effects. What hasn't changed (IMO since I don't have any facts to back up my feeling) is the lack of morals, greed as the driving force, or the frequency of the criminal acts.

In other words, corporate scandal has always occurred, and probably with similar frequency. However because we are SOOOOOOO much more inundated by the media the problem seems magnified. Also, society has become sensitized to stock prices as evidenced by the huge drops in a company's stock price if they miss estimates by a penny. This increases the effect MUCH more than it used to.

Yet, even though we may be more sensitive to one company's shortfall, the effects are MUCH more tolerable in today's economy than prior to 1980. For example, look at Black Tuesday, the stock market event that helped trigger the Great Depression. Since 1980 we have had (I believe) several times where the stock market declined more %-wise than back then. Yet the economy was able to absorb them relatively well. In contrast, scandals such as Enron might have less effect on the National scale compared to the past, they have a MUCH greater individual effect because of 401(k) programs, which I believe has increased the percentage of people who now invest in the stock market.

Nutshell: Corporate crime has always existed, and very possibly in similar proportions. What has changed is our awareness and sensitivity to it and it's potential to affect far greater numbers of individuals.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

great point(s), I am affected in life by my emotional diatribes as well, but it is equally upsetting when others claim that there isn't any more corporate scandal outside that which is found. Like, when someone says, "I cant believe another thread about bashing corporations when one gets caught." Well we only KNOW about those that get caught.

No, you're misinterpreting us again. Sure, there is more than those getting caught, but I'd say that the increase in frequency about companies getting caught and punished shows that more enforcement is being applied rather than an increase in corporate abuse.

Another key issue is that you take these stories and spin them in to "All Corporations are evil", while I'm not willing to go nearly that far. Change it to "Many Corporations have crooks working for them" and I'll stop arguing. Statistics do say there are more than are getting caught, but statistics don't say they're all doing bad things. Heck, all I've got to do is find a handful of stories about companies doing good and it'll kill your argument using your own logic: if X are doing good, statistics show that X times some large number are also doing good that we don't know about. And a quick search on "corporate donation" turns up dozens of links.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Obviously, I feel that the corporate atmosphere that started back in the 80's and carried through to now, have created a generation of upper management that does throw their morals to the wind at the greater public's expense.

Um, started in the '80s? Did you do any of the 19th-century research I recommended earlier? The big guys have been trying to screw over the little guys since man walked out of caves / Cain slew Abel (depending on your beliefs). If anything, things are getting BETTER in that the little guy has more resources to get the big guy punished when the big guy crosses a line. Again, you see these stories as a negative, while I see them as a positive (they're actually CATCHING and PROSECUTING these guys now).

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Yes, we should be concerned but I do get emotional when someone defends the greater corporate culture by insinuating that the one's caught are the only ones, or a very few that do "cheat" when statistics (theory) say otherwise.

And you're taking it way too far the other way.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I know, I wasnt being completely literal. Arles immediately threw me into the "pro-aclu" crowd for no reason, and since the ACLU is on the GOP talking point radar again since December, i made that comment.

How do you know about the GOP talking points!!!!!
OMG, an undercover agent for the DNC!!!
Quick, call out the vast right wing conspiracy hit squads!!!!

Im not calling people brainless morons, but what i am saying is half this country just doesnt think.

It has been my experience that liberals more often support emotional, knee-jerk, tow the party line policies than conservatives....sometimes without even trully understanding the implications of such policies. I guess the old saying is true, "if you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart; if you are mature and not a conservative, you have no common sense."

They choose not to be informed. They choose Fox News and actually think they are informed because theyre watching some sort of news program.

Again, you single out Fox for carving out and serving a niche that was being neglected by the other [ahem] news outlets. Last time I looked, it wasn't Fox that was having to apologize for airing a highly "politically charged" story supported by forged documents.

I believe its my duty to find out every single truth on a subject, being careful to understand who is actually giving my information and their motives and then making solid informed decisions off of that. I dont see 75% of this country doing anything remotely like that and thats a crime.

I seem to recall seeing my first "CBS News - Rather Biased" bumper sticker back in the mid 80s, long before there was a Fox News for the libs to demonize. And CNN wasn't called "The Clinton News Network" for no reason, again BF (Before Fox).

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

It has been my experience that liberals more often support emotional, knee-jerk, tow the party line policies than conservatives....sometimes without even trully understanding the implications of such policies.

Well, if that's true, then the conservatives have been catching up furiously in recent days...