EPA regulations are established by the agency, which is managed by cabinet appointees. For the last 6 years has been under governance of the current administration. Please show me where the Obama administration has been accepting money from the Koch brothers to modify EPA regulations.
I’m a pretty big foe of the Koch brothers and their meddling in higher education, but I’m not sure I see this level of steering as a problem. They appear to be wanting to fund black capitalists, more or less, and in terms of Randian goals I can think of worse.
Please show me where I specifically mentioned the EPA.
So funding black students who are interested in economics, entrepreneurship, and innovation? I really want to criticize the Kochs for something but I am not seeing it.
Try looking directly at the actual words and links posted in this thread.
This is nonresponsive–what specifically do you object to about his characterization of this scholarship fund?
I have thank you, I was just wondering what is there to criticize about the so called “steering.” I guess a blank cheque would be ideal, but scholarships rarely work this way, no?
That would be David Koch, who has in fact insinuated himself into PBS is more than just that capacity. As a board member of PBS affiliate WNET, he caused a good deal of unease about a relatively innocuous film called “Park Avenue: Money, Power and The American Dream” just because it mentions him, prompting a New Yorker article about public television’s attempts to placate David Koch. Later, PBS pulled the funding entirely on “Citizen Koch”, a film directly critical of the brothers.
This is the kind of malevolent influence that invariably comes with their funding, in one way or another. As far as Nova is concerned, aside from the influence it gives David Koch over the content, I’d consider that funding to be mainly a form of greenwashing – just like all the feel-good green ads from some of the world’s worst polluters or the research money ExxonMobil gives to Stanford. I mean, Nova is a respected science series, so when one of its principal funders tells us that climate science shouldn’t be taken seriously and is probably a hoax, we should listen to them, right? :rolleyes:
I used to be the local LP chair in Wichita. I can verify (for what it’s worth as anecdote) that what Rothbard says is true about Charles Koch personally handling the smallest donations. I recall being frustrated that we needed financial support and had to wait for an appointment, when almost certainly he was going to say yes. However, he never said the slightest thing to me to make me think he wanted to control the local LP.
And Miller, while the LP is certainly a group with an amalgam of issues, Koch donations to the LP are donations to a group that fights for gay rights.
Thanks for that. Best laugh I’ve had all week.
This strikes me as sort of a naive view of how big money affects regulations–aka the “bribery” view of regulatory capture.
The reality is more complicated. I don’t know anything about the Koch Bros. specifically, but in general big business interests shape regulations by:
[ul]
[li]Hiring a horde of lobbyists–many of whom are former politicians or regulators themselves–to shape regulations through formal and informal processes;[/li][li]Hiring mid-level government officials, encouraging those in office to favor the interests of those who can hire them when they want to make more money; [/li][li]Controlling much of the technical expertise required for successful regulation of complex industries, and presenting that expertise in biased ways; [/li][li]Paying thousands of lawyers to bring creative legal challenges to every aspect of the regulations; and [/li][li]Shaping the public debate over regulatory issues by financing media campaigns and research and think tanks.[/li][/ul]
None of that requires any complicity on the part of the Administration. Indeed, none of that is necessarily bad in and of itself–there are neutral or positive ways to spin all of those facts. But it is a fact that big money equals influence over regulations.
For starters, I think I would try to be more specific in my language. I think that even if you believe they are taking an anti-scientific viewpoint on one issue, it looks incredibly wrong to call them anti-science in general when their entire company’s success depends on a history of good science. If Lebron James looks uncoordinated and goofy throwing a baseball I think I am going to feel pretty dumb calling him unathletic.
They’re anti-science only in regard to the political views they try to spread, and more specifically to the limiting the short-term effect to their business interests that measures that would result from a scientific viewpoint would or could entail. That’s the topic here, not how well they know the engineering details of their own businesses.
OK. How’s this: the Koch brothers take a strongly anti-science position on climate change, poisoning the well of public discourse with a massively funded campaign of avariciously self-serving disinformation on one of the most important public policy issues of our time. They do this to maximize the profitability of their own industries, which are not only massive polluters but also historically egregious violators of such few and weak environmental laws that do exist despite their intensive lobbying against them.
I believe the fact that the global temperature has plateaued and the global warming zealots can’t seem to convince more members of the public that this is a result of global warming has done more to poison the IPCC well than anything anyone else has said about global warming.
Well if no less an authority than doorhinge is skeptical.
In words familiar to you, Hahahahaha.
Science operates on data, not public opinion. Unfortunately for things as serious as anthropogenic climate change the public is needed to implement policies to combat it, and people like the Koch brothers are the major force that is poisoning the well about climate change.
If the science is obviously wrong and the facts are obvious to the public why do energy companies and those with vested interests spend so much on astroturfing and denialist campaigns to influence public opinion? Why waste money if the science is so wrong the average Joe can figure it out?
Then don’t take the Koch brothers money.
I’m not sure that has anything to do with what I said nor did it answer anything I asked.
The thread is about whether the UNCF and Catholic University of America should take money from the Koch brothers. If you strongly object to the views of the Koch brothers or simply object to their position on the global warming/climate change non-sense, then you should reject any money that the Koch brothers offer you for posting on the internet. If they should ever offer you money for posting on the internet.