First, research the quarterly earnings of the main food manufacturers since the date of this article. Pretty impressive. Who pays? The consumers.
Free market for corn means corn goes where it brings the best return.
If fuel wasn't so expensive corn wouldn't go to make fuel.
This article doesn't mention that the co-contributer to the anti-ethanol campaign was the petroleum industry. Huh, what could that be for. If the petroleum industry eliminates a competitor for 10% of the U.S. fuel market it wins and consumers lose.
The campaign against ethanol tells you the ethanol industry receives big subsidies. Wrong, the industry doesn't receive subsidies, the petroleum industry blenders receive the subsidies for blending the ethanol with gasoline. Who benefits? The consumers.
Where do the taxpayers fit in? U.S. tax dollars are used to provide the subsidies but the subsidies received by ethanol end up in the pockets and quality of life of consumers through lower fuel costs and cleaner air. Do you think the petroleum industry or the grocery manufacturers would decrease prices out of the goodness of their heart? Don't forget about human lives being sacrificed to protect oil interests and the cost to fight wars in the Middle East. Don't those costs count against the cost of petroleum?
Hold on just a minute... Dr Ian Plimer is a leading geologist - I hardly think it's a deep dark gasp-worthy conspiracy that he'd therefore work with mining companies.
In fact if you actually research any of the companies listed above you'll see the are involved in the mining and exploration of zinc, copper, silver and gold (minerals used extensively in solar panels) and uranium (another zero emission energy source). If fact as far as I can see not one of these mining companies is involved in gas or coal mining???
If anything, his position within these companies would therefore bias Dr Plimmer toward advocating CO2 emission reductions. Clearly, it hasn't, which to me says his motivation is uncovering the truth behind the Global Warming debate rather than with financial incentives.
Also, the distinction between public- and private-sector unions is a false distinction. They're both groups comprised of citizens. Hurting teachers' quality of life and ability to do their jobs is no less offensive or unconstitutional than hurting a Wal-Mart employee. To say that this is 'needed' is to ignore historical context and reality altogether.
I doubt that the above commenter is a "shill" for the industry. While I agree with the gist of the article that these incremental packaging shrinkages are a sleazy tactic, many shoppers (myself included) take advantage of the little tag that most supermarkets (& health food stores) provide on the shelf, which allows you to comparison shop by looking at the price per ounce (or square foot, if you're looking at butt-wipe).
Judge Sumi correctly recognized that the next step in the legislation
becoming law was publication and that the first statutorily required step in Legal Publication was for the secretary of state to designate a date for publication. Without a date designated by the secretary of state any publication does not rise to the level required to make an act Law.
Judge Sumi stayed the Secretaries date designation and stayed
the Legal Publication process itself thus inherently staying any 10 day requirement.
Further more the Secretary of state notified LRB that the previously designated date of march 25 was rescinded. LRB has acknowledged awareness of the court ordered stay, thus LRB knew there was no 10 day limit to honor.
Fitzgeralds request for publication in no way changes the above facts.
Fitzgerald was knowingly and intentionally violating a court order
and acting in contempt when requesting LRB to publish. Fitzgerald is a named defendant in the legal action and specifically included in the stay.
The "non partisan" LRB knowingly and intentionally violated a court order which, although may not be contempt, is clearly unprofessional and a violation of law.
if the administration at all moves upon their already stated pretension that the act has become law they will further be in contempt.
First, research the quarterly earnings of the main food manufacturers since the date of this article. Pretty impressive. Who pays? The consumers.
Free market for corn means corn goes where it brings the best return.
If fuel wasn't so expensive corn wouldn't go to make fuel.
This article doesn't mention that the co-contributer to the anti-ethanol campaign was the petroleum industry. Huh, what could that be for. If the petroleum industry eliminates a competitor for 10% of the U.S. fuel market it wins and consumers lose.
The campaign against ethanol tells you the ethanol industry receives big subsidies. Wrong, the industry doesn't receive subsidies, the petroleum industry blenders receive the subsidies for blending the ethanol with gasoline. Who benefits? The consumers.
Where do the taxpayers fit in? U.S. tax dollars are used to provide the subsidies but the subsidies received by ethanol end up in the pockets and quality of life of consumers through lower fuel costs and cleaner air. Do you think the petroleum industry or the grocery manufacturers would decrease prices out of the goodness of their heart? Don't forget about human lives being sacrificed to protect oil interests and the cost to fight wars in the Middle East. Don't those costs count against the cost of petroleum?
Also, the distinction between public- and private-sector unions is a false distinction. They're both groups comprised of citizens. Hurting teachers' quality of life and ability to do their jobs is no less offensive or unconstitutional than hurting a Wal-Mart employee. To say that this is 'needed' is to ignore historical context and reality altogether.
I doubt that the above commenter is a "shill" for the industry. While I agree with the gist of the article that these incremental packaging shrinkages are a sleazy tactic, many shoppers (myself included) take advantage of the little tag that most supermarkets (& health food stores) provide on the shelf, which allows you to comparison shop by looking at the price per ounce (or square foot, if you're looking at butt-wipe).
Pages