|
The "Goracle" (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
Why does MJ love twenty eight year olds?
Jeez, there's twenty of them! |
I heard this one the other day....is it wrong to laugh? :p |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So you think he's sitting on that board getting nothing?
It's tantamount to The United Way top exec getting a 6 figure income; one of the reasons I don't support United Way.
You're right, there are many non-profits out there and if he was honest in his intentions, then he wouldn't need to choose a company he happens to represent.
I don't disagree that it isn't a dubious business move on his end, because it's a great tax write off for him in the end. |
yep, top execs can receive as much a $500,000/year salary.
but
Chairmen and top execs are not the same person. Execs are employees, chairmen serve the board of trustees. there's nothing dishonest supporting a company that you serve as a board member and every non-profit in the country has board members that do just that. no organization can survive on foundation grants alone.
tax write-off? i'd rather support a worthy cause than Halliburton and our Iraq debacle. everyone in the states that makes a notable amount of money makes charitable donations and receives tax write-offs. it's like a unwritten rule. the government always gets their share in the end.
you can't vilify one person just because he serves on the board of an organization he supports.
btw, United Way is the largest service foundation in the US. every company deserves good leadership and you can't get that from the private sector by promising 5 digits. the board of trustees decided that it is in the best interest of the company to hire someone with that price tag to manage the organization. i doubt you have a problem with corporate CEOs earning 9 digits, so why should 6 bother you now.
i guarantee that the red cross has the same pay scale. as do hospitals, universities and the 700 club.
i guess to answer your first question. yes, he sits on that board and receives nothing. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
You're right, there are many non-profits out there and if he was honest in his intentions, then he wouldn't need to choose a company he happens to represent. |
Are they all identical? Don't you think that if he picked one to help chair, he'd pick the same organization to give his credits to? Maybe because he has the most trust in something he has a hand in? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
in a non-profit there are stakeholders (people who have a moral investment), not shareholders. regardless how the company does, the board of directors do not receive any stock dividends because NON-PROFITS DO NOT HAVE STOCKS!!! you will not find this company on the DOW or NASDAQ. |
i suppose you're right. although if he had interest in the companies his firm invests in there would be some tangental argument for being sheltered, who knows. who cares. and when i say tax scam i didn't mean any impropriety, just dubiousness.
hopefully, when Cheney donates his Halliburton option's profits to charity when they are exercised maybe you'll sleep better at night? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Are they all identical? Don't you think that if he picked one to help chair, he'd pick the same organization to give his credits to? Maybe because he has the most trust in something he has a hand in? |
And therein lies the point; are there ethical/legal bounds crossed here in this instance.
I understand that sure, he'd want to prop a company he knows or represents, who wouldn't?
But people of political persuasion are not allowed that luxury, that's why they have laws against it.
Even if he did as a favor to friends, it's still cronyism. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
He claims it is a major crisis, not I. I wonder if he even knows what he's talking about, or if he simply invented a new kind of environmentalism. I don't know about you guys, but I think Web 2.0 is pretty sweet. I'm sending Alie a thank you note now.
Man, it's almost soothing. |
Hmmm so Gore claims global warming is a major crisis and proposes using alternative energies to reduce this threat, despite him engaging in carbon consumption, he's spreading "fear tactics". Meanwhile Bush has been expressing how US dependency on middle eastern oil is a major crisis, furthermore he has proposed numerous alternative energies to reduce this threat, yet he's NOT spreading fear tactics despite his policies allowing the US to embrace its dependancy on the consumption of middle eastern oil. Yes ... I see what you did there.
| quote: |
You and Opus have been pulling this strawman throughout this thread. Who on the other side of this argument has explicitly called for anyting like radical environmentalism. All I've said about the matter is that if Gore really wanted to make his point then taking more radical steps would greatly enhance his cause. However, I can't recall anyone saying he should take a pogo stick to work. However, Al has CERTAINLY suggested people change their lifestyles (as any well intentioned environmentalist should). That is near the heart of the entire issue.
|
Haha huh? No my friend, this strawman was fully instigated by you. My original post only called for responsible carbon neutrality. You said that you had a better carbon footprint than Gore without calculating (or understanding?) what your carbon footprint was prompting me to tell you that Gore's carbon footprint was zero (have you calculated yours?). Then you got off the argument of carbon footprints and started talking about absolute carbon consumption in order to criticize Gore's carbon consumption despite Gore's compensatory environmental offsets. Clearly the intent was to hold Gore to a standard beyond what Gore himself was advocating. Give me a break, your arguments merely pertained to the "effectiveness" of Gore's message based on his carbon consumption??? It would appear that you had "strawman" expectations, according to your own words, for Gore as an environemental spokesman that surpassed what Opus or I ever expected.
Are you sure you want to continue advocating my endoresement of a strawman argument? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
this is all making the spectacular assumption that compensatory environmental offsets do, indeed, work.
i mean, good faith in action is one thing but there's the whole of humanity at stake :rolleyes:
but back on The Goracle's "moral obligations" |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
And therein lies the point; are there ethical/legal bounds crossed here in this instance.
I understand that sure, he'd want to prop a company he knows or represents, who wouldn't?
But people of political persuasion are not allowed that luxury, that's why they have laws against it.
Even if he did as a favor to friends, it's still cronyism. |
:conf:
there's no legislative benefits happening here.
he's giving his own money, please explain how that is cronyism. i'd hate to think that there is some skewed definition of that word floating around in the stratosphere that only applies to the activities of Al Gore. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
:conf:
there's no legislative benefits happening here.
he's giving his own money, please explain how that is cronyism. i'd hate to think that there is some skewed definition of that word floating around in the stratosphere that only applies to the activities of Al Gore. |
It's called political ethics and it applys quite aptly here no?
You're are correct, it's HIS political money HE'S spending on a company where HE sits on their board.
Cronyism doesn't get much simpler than that even by definition regardless if it 'happens' to be Gore.
He's fitting the role perfectly. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Hmmm so Gore claims global warming is a major crisis and proposes using alternative energies to reduce this threat, despite him engaging in carbon consumption, he's spreading "fear tactics". |
Gore tells people they need to use less energy to stop hurting the environment. Meanwhile, Al uses a load of energy while enriching a hedge fund that he chairs. According to the fund's own website, they only donate 5% of their profits to the Generation Foundation (the 501(c)3) for global sustainability initiatives. WOW! 5% of profits! What do they do with the rest of their 20% annual performance bonus (assuming they actually made profitable investments)? What about the 2% management fee? They don't disclose their performance track record so I can't quantify how much they've actually contributed towards their causes of choice, but needless to say, 95% of their profits are explicity NOT earmarked for this purpose. Convincing. This fund most certainly is a for-profit company. If you look at their holdings, they're nothing more than a plain-vanilla, long-only hedge fund. A look at their holdings reveals that there's nothing special about what these guys do other than sell vouchers to people in order to take in their money to earn a profit. Environmental concerns are secondary, if not tertiary concerns. Make no mistake, Alie profits handsomely when his fund makes money.
| quote: | | Generation's founders have contributed a total of "double-digit" millions of dollars to the startup according to the Financial Times. In addition to Messrs. Gore and Blood, the founders include former Goldman Sachs executives Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris as well as Colin le Duc, former director of research for Sustainable Asset Management (SAM), a Zurich-based sustainability investment firm. |
Nothing special here. Hell, they barely even touch alternative energy stocks! Why aren't they investing in Evergreen Solar? Ballard Power? Calgon Carbon? ADE-ES? or any other companies that genuinely address the problem? The most eco-responsible company in their portfolio that I see is Whole Foods who recently said they were going to switch to wind-based power. But Whole Foods is also in the portfolios of god knows how many other funds? It's just a more eco-responsible growth company. Yay! I'm convinced more than ever that these guys are really making a difference!
| quote: |
AFLAC INC
AQUANTIVE INC
AUTODESK INC
BECTON DICKINSON & CO
BLACKBAUD INC
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO
GREENHILL & CO INC
JOHNSON CTLS INC
LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS
METABOLIX INC
NORTHERN TR CORP
NUVEEN INVTS INC
STAPLES INC
SYSCO CORP
TECHNE CORP
UBS AG
VCA ANTECH INC
WATERS CORP
WHOLE FOODS MKT INC |
Let's look at the Fund's mission statement:
| quote: | * Deliver superior investment performance by taking a long-term investment view and integrating sustainability research within a rigorous fundamental equity analysis framework
* Create long-term client partnerships by delivering unique investment insights and exceptional client service
* Attract, retain and develop the best professionals within a passionate investment culture through a commitment to Our Values
|
Nope, no mention of improving the environment as a mission of the fund. Leave that to the foundation that gets the crumbs while the partners make off like bandits.
| quote: | | Meanwhile Bush has been expressing how US dependency on middle eastern oil is a major crisis, furthermore he has proposed numerous alternative energies to reduce this threat, yet he's NOT spreading fear tactics despite his policies allowing the US to embrace its dependancy on the consumption of middle eastern oil. Yes ... I see what you did there. |
Bush is certainly using fear to spread his message, though it seems to be much more well-founded on facts(much of our energy supply comes from locales that are hostile to our intersts) and general supply/demand (peak oil) than the still controversial and contentiuos matter of global warming. And I don't see Bush enriching his own fund by selling meaningless pieces of paper as salvation for excessive power consumption. Ergo, you're comparing apples to oranges and sidestepping the issue of Al Gore once again.
| quote: | | It’s as if Gandhi had been photographed inside his ashram wearing spats and a waistcoat and sipping Boodles gin. From now on all the little gestures - riding in the hybrid limo, having the private jet pilot sign the carbon offset certificate, and for all we know, touring the North American continent in a solar-powered blimp - are going to look just the slightest bit hollow. |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730
| quote: | The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset "is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases." . . .
But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe . . .
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management--he buys stocks. . . .
Meanwhile, Gore runs around the country and the world trumpeting "climate crisis" and blaming man's use of carbon-based energy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel as he goes. His efforts have served to put climate change at the top of the national and even global agenda, driving up the value of the stocks and companies viewed as "green" or environmentally friendly. Companies like those his investment management firm invest his own and other peoples' [sic] money in. (You can see a list of Generation Investment Management's holdings here, courtesy of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.)
Another Volunteer State blogger, Bob Krumm, looks at Gore's demands for the suppression of dissent. Yesterday's Tennessean reported on a speech the erstwhile veep gave in Murfreesboro:
"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly--and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias.
"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.
"I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced."
Gore would not answer any questions from the media after the event.
Krumm notes that Gore was complaining as early as 1992 about excessive balance in the media. Yet in a speech at the October 2005 We Media Conference, Gore seemed to urge government-mandated balance, at least on other topics:
As early as the 1920s, when the predecessor of television, radio, first debuted in the United States, there was immediate apprehension about its potential impact on democracy. One early American student of the medium wrote that if control of radio were concentrated in the hands of a few, "no nation can be free."
As a result of these fears, safeguards were enacted in the U.S.--including the Public Interest Standard, the Equal Time Provision, and the Fairness Doctrine--though a half century later, in 1987, they were effectively repealed. And then immediately afterwards, Rush Limbaugh and other hate-mongers began to fill the airwaves.
Gore is mistaken on two out of three points: Although the Federal Communications Commission abolished the Fairness Doctrine (which regulated the presentation of "controversial issues of public importance") in 1987, the Public Interest Standard (which is part of the law that created the FCC) and the Equal Time Provision (which applies to political candidates) remain in force.
So, let's sum this up: Here we have a major American politician who is calling for policies that would impose huge costs on society but appears to be profiting handsomely himself; who is leading an extravagant lifestyle while demanding sacrifices from ordinary people; and who is calling on the media to suppress the views of those with whom he disagrees, while at the same time urging more government regulation in the name of "fairness" to his partisan and ideological allies.
Why is it left to think tanks and bloggers to investigate and expose all this? Why aren't the mainstream media all over the story? Could it be . . . bias? |
| quote: | | Haha huh? No my friend, this strawman was fully instigated by you. My original post only called for responsible carbon neutrality. You said that you had a better carbon footprint than Gore without calculating (or understanding?) what your carbon footprint was prompting me to tell you that Gore's carbon footprint was zero (have you calculated yours?). |
Wrong again. On page 2, you were the very first respondant to suggest this despite the fact that nobody had explicity claimed that was what he was suggesting:
| quote: | originally posted by Occrider
He's not advocating that people should be living naked in the forest engaging in tree huggery with no electricity, cars, or meat folks. |
In the very next post, Opus said this, despite the fact that neither I nor anyone else other than yourself had explicity suggested it:
| quote: | originally posted by Opus
Like Occ mentioned, what would you have him do? I'd love to have a fellow bretheren huggin' trees with me in my little forest, and of course Gore is more than welcome in my hippy librul wonderland, |
Sorry, I never suggested he do that. I merely suggested he not using an overabundance of energy while telling the rest of us that we need to cut back and use less ourselves. A couple of posts later you said this, despite my not explicity suggesting anything of the sort Your use of hyperbole to try and make a point is the crux of your strawman.
| quote: | | Gore isn't advocating that people live in trees and give up modern technology because it pollutes. |
Right. I never said he was.
| quote: | | Gore is advocating that people try to attain carbon neutrality by investing in green technology that absorbs the carbon proportionate to what you "spend" in carbon. |
Right. Achieve mythical "carbon neutrality". This is a buzzword that is meant to be used as a rationalization for overconsumption. It does NOT address the problem as the CRISIS Gore claims it to be, rather it allows people to sleep well at night knowing they have bought forgiveness for their sins in the eyes of some. Furthermore, I fail to see where Generation appears to be wholeheartedly "investing" in green technology when their portfolio speaks otherwise. Wow 5% of their profits goes to the foundation. That's good, but hardly anything earth shattering. Let's say they run a $5B fund (maybe it's a lot more maybe a lot less--I don't have the information handy). Just for back of the envelope kicks, let's say they have a good year and are up 15%. That means that the fund made $750M. Of that, a whopping $37.5M would go towards their global sustainability initiatives. No small sum to be sure and we should give them kudos for supporting a "good" cause, but don't forget that around $112.5M of those profits go right to the pockets of their general partner (represented by Messrs Blood and Gore). Yes, Gore stands to benefit quite nicely if his fund has a good year. Maybe he can buy Tipper new with all that cash. Forgive me if I'm a bit non-plused. It looks nice when you're talking about a big enough portfolio of assets, but at the end of the day, 5% is still 5%. They could certainly do a LOT more if they were geniunely so concerned about the environment, but at the end of the day they're just run-of-the mill investors running the equivalent of a high-end marketing scam.
| quote: | | Then you got off the argument of carbon footprints and started talking about absolute carbon consumption in order to criticize Gore's carbon consumption despite Gore's compensatory environmental offsets. |
Well, you posed the question of gross vs. net that prompted that tangent.
| quote: | | Clearly the intent was to hold Gore to a standard beyond what Gore himself was advocating. |
No. The intent is to hold Gore to the same standard that he is demanding from the rest of us. If we all consumed the same amount as Gore AND we all were "carbon neutral", what do you think the effect would be on the environment? Honestly? Aside from shutting down the grid and using up our energy reserves at an alarming rate while increasing the effects of global warming in the near-term. Can I get an answer as to how a "carbon credit" is actually calculated? Wikipedia says:
| quote: | Carbon credits are a tradable permit scheme. They provide an efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by giving them a monetary value. A credit gives the owner the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide...
Carbon credits create a market for reducing greenhouse emissions by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. This means that carbon becomes a cost of business and is seen like other inputs such as raw materials or labor. |
Great. Putting a monetary value on something is fine, but that doesn't do a lick to curb the emissions that come from him lighting up his own persona Taj Mahal. This is all good theory, but get real.
| quote: | | It would appear that you had "strawman" expectations, according to your own words, for Gore as an environemental spokesman that surpassed what Opus or I ever expected. |
Incorrect again. It was the two of you (maybe others) who claimed we/I were advocating he live in the trees and not consume anything. My side has advocated a much more moderate stance on overall use, while you have suggested that I am advocating extreme behavior. At the end of the day it is clear that there are those of us that see through his veil of bull and those that want to applaud him for being an environmental leader. The only positive thing that I can say about him in this context is that he has brought a lot of attention to a very contentious subject, though he is certainly not the first person to do so.
| quote: | | Are you sure you want to continue advocating my endoresement of a strawman argument? |
Are you sure you want to continue endorsing one? Bottom line: Al Gore consumes an overabundance of energy which creates a large "carbon footprint." However, he is able to make that disappear by buying stocks with the hope of making a profit so he can give a pittance of his profits to a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed foundation, likely enriching himself and his partners in the process.
Perhaps you can direct me to a website where I can calculate my own carbon footprint and then I'll know how much salvation I need to purchase. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
It's called political ethics and it applys quite aptly here no?
You're are correct, it's HIS political money HE'S spending on a company where HE sits on their board.
Cronyism doesn't get much simpler than that even by definition regardless if it 'happens' to be Gore.
He's fitting the role perfectly. |
except it's not political money... and he's not in any political office (think way back to Nov. 2000...i'll give you a hint, the supreme court was involved).
and i think you're still confused as to how board members happen to be board members.
i'm too broke to serve on a board of TRUSTEES of any incorporated non-profit if you catch my drift. It's not cronyism in any size, shape or form. check any of the headlines from the white house for a proper example of that word.
i don't think it's possible to clarify this point any narrower, so i'll move on with my merry day:D |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
except it's not political money... and he's not in any political office (think way back to Nov. 2000...i'll give you a hint, the supreme court was involved).
and i think you're still confused as to how board members happen to be board members.
i'm too broke to serve on a board of TRUSTEES of any incorporated non-profit if you catch my drift. It's not cronyism in any size, shape or form. check any of the headlines from the white house for a proper example of that word.
i don't think it's possible to clarify this point any narrower, so i'll move on with my merry day:D |
You're right.
He doesn't hold any office and if anything, it's a morality call more than a legal one.
I still think it stinks since he does have political 'influence' even if he's technically not holding any office...:mad: |
|
|
|
|
