wrt university funding: research is supposed to be as dispassionate and objective as possible (but bias is everywhere). "Applied" research and corporate strings increase the pressure for bias. In addition, universities traditionally have focused on basic research which corporations generally *do not* fund for a variety of reasons.

As for the film...all films have a POV and bias. To think a documentary is "objective" is ridiculous. Wrt including it in the school curriculum, using films in class has been around since film has been around. The question lies in the usefullness of the content. Some content is appropriate for schools based on the quality of the materials, others for the POV that it presents (in order to stimulate discussion).

wrt the science, my take is that a majority of the scientific community thinks that global warming is real, and is increased by green-house gasses. Of course there is dissent...that's the nature of science. There are researchers that argue that HIV doesn't cause AIDS too...that doesn't make them right.

The evidence seems to indicate that greenhouse gases have an effect. Further study might disprove the cause/effect. But until that time, I would think we'd want to try and minimize the impact, especially if it can be done without catastrophic results to the economy.

Rick:

In your case, the answer to the question is a conditional "yes.' Obviously, you singled out Soros and failed to list any from the other end of the spectrum.

In the case of a few others, eliminate the "conditional". And not all of them are "conservatives".

Amazing how otherwise intelligent and educated people can be so single minded and so dispise anything different.


Come on, folks..... People are people; they have flaws and, yes, they do have agendas but not every agenda has power and influence as its base. As I noted previously, I fail to see how a man who established a photographic empire will "profit" from funding a School of Music.

My God....stop taking things so damn personally...not everyone is out to get you!!

I used Soros as an example. Are you suggesting that I should have listed a laundry list of people who represent all walks of life, political persuasion, race, religion and creed?

Perhaps you should stop jumping at shadows so much, it isn't like you are enlightening us by pointing out that the other side does the same thing...we all know that. Besides, I specifically said in the post that anyone who gives large sums of money usually has an agenda behind that money and that is ok with me. If you don't like the agenda, don't take the money. It's that simple.

I'm with you Nostatic. Yup, the world is getting warmer. Check - most everyone agrees. Yup, greenhouse gasses contribute to that warming. Check - most everyone agrees.

The place where I think the train comes off the tracks is: why? Gore and company are hammering hard on the idea that it's all mankind's doing and we need to adapt their agenda to save the world. There are a lot of other people who don't buy into the hubris of this notion. The world is a massive place, and there are many powerful and interrelated things that affect climate (as opposed to weather -- if you don't know the difference you most likely shouldn't be having this conversation). In the past, the world has been a lot warmer, and a lot colder. It has even changed temperature surprisingly quickly. To just presume that the recent changes are man-made is an awfully big presumption to make. Image the outcome if everyone buys in to Gore's thesis and he's wrong. So massive amounts of money are redistributed (including yours) - energy prices go up, economies are affected, peoples jobs are lost and created, and ...

... and Long Island and Florida still sink beneath the waves. Might the money and effort have been better spent relocating people in low lying areas instead? This is a gross simplification, but sometimes it seems that the urge to do something overwhelms the need to do the right thing(s).

Curious -- up to now no-one bothered to go to the NSTA web site to get their side of the story. A few paragraphs from their rebuttal:

The Method of Brain Washing the Masses
 

If you say it often enough, it must be true. This is the method that the Environmental Industry favors.

Rick, please read my entire post before responding with such a question.

"...typically corporations use money to buy influence whereas private donors use money to make improvements or to say thanks. I'm sure you can find exceptions to these, but generally that's the case."

I'll again give the case of Schulich at McGill. He came to the administration of the university and said I have this money, what would you like to do with it? They said well, we've been promising the music faculty a new building for years now, let's do that. And voila, within a few years Sherbrooke St. has a huge new presence. Apparently he's done this at several universities.

I read your entire post...believe it or not.

Here's where we differ. You think that a minority of private citizens have an agenda at work when they donate money, I think the opposite. I think a minority DON'T have an agenda.

I also think it's funny that you think that my using Soros as an example isn't proof of my position yet you offer up Schulich as proof of yours.

Let me make the point this way. Schulich apparently (at least according to Wikipedia) made his millions from running a pension fund management company. After he left he decided, quite honorably, to donate much of his fortune to various colleges and universities. Just do a google on Schulich and see how many schools and departments are named after him.

Ok, so let's say that McGill University was approached by a group that wanted to show a movie to the student body that said Schulich was a pedophile who made his money by bilking old people out of their retirements. Do you think McGill would allow that film to run on campus? Even though Schulich had no agenda when he gave the money, the fact that he gave it DOES have influence on the school.

The same thing is happening with Exxon in this case.

Apples and oranges. If Schulich were a pedophile who ripped off retirement funds, the organization accepting the money should know that beforehand (i.e. do their research). If they didn't know that, and it came to light, I would think they would very quickly rename the building, etc. If there was a contract in place to say the building name couldn't be changed, etc. etc. I would think there would be an escape clause if the donor were to somehow tarnish the image. Surely if I can think of that potential problem in a few seconds of typing, people accepting a donation for $10 million should be able to consider that. Furthermore, I would hope that a school like McGill would have the integrity to out a high-level donor if he/she were found out to be a pedophile, scam artist, etc. and then yes, show the film.

In the case of Exxon, my point has nothing to do with whether or not they were known to be "evil" before the donation, it's the influence said donation wields. Even if it were an organization I fully believed in and supported, even donated money to myself, I would not want them being able to contribute to the education system.

you wrote:
Here's where we differ. You think that a minority of private citizens have an agenda at work when they donate money, I think the opposite. I think a minority DON'T have an agenda.

You're right, we differ on this. We could probably argue this till the cows come home, and never really know for sure, because we just don't know the individuals making the donations personally. Corporations ALL have an agenda - it could be benign, say advertising, or evil, say trying to buy influence in the white house to tilt legislation their way, despite it being bad for everyone except their shareholders. I don't believe ALL private donors, or even the majority of them, have an agenda other than perhaps personal gratification in the form of a legacy. I'm sure there are a few, but definitely only a few.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

Now then. Take the next step. If a person gives a bunch of money to a school to cement their "legacy" do you think the school would have preferential treatment towards news or revelations about that person to preserve that "legacy"??

Rick...

I sense some cynicism...

Am I right?

Is it even possible that someone can donate for simply altruistic reasons?

Do you mean would the school give preferential treatment to preserve a legacy? No. Let's say it was revealed tomorrow in the news that Mr. Schulich was indeed a pedophile and bilked seniors out of millions in a pension scam. I would think the various universities who have buildings or schools named from his donations would change those names very quickly.

It is possible, just not common. Again, I am talking large sum donations here. The most recent one I can think of that would qualify is Warren Buffett.

There are some people who will donate money for purely altruistic reasons. Most, though, do it for (at least partially) exactly what Christien said, to cement a legacy. To have their name on a building. To have a scholarship named after them. Whatever.

My point here, though, is that even if a person donates a large sum altruistically, that donation itself has an effect on the recepient. To say that the attitude of the recepient after the donation constitutes some sort of voluntary control over the institution by the donor is fallacious, in my opinion.

Christien is trying to say that corporations should not be allowed to donate because they have agendas whereas private citizens do not. I simply think that both groups have agendas and donations by both do have an effect on the recepient, whether they like it or not....and that's ok with me. It's human nature, it's how things work. If someone gives you $100,000 out of the blue, you likely will have a positive opinion of that person. If someone else then tries to demean or attack that person sometime later, you likely will defend that person. It's cause and effect and it isn't a bad thing.

Again, if Exxon had said their money was contingent on the school not showing any anti-oil films, then that would be a problem. Even the NTSA has said Exxon has no control and has never attempted to exert control. I suppose they are bad because they are an oil company, and oil companies are ALL bad these days...

Just to show MY cynicism....A donor could, (say Exxon) simply "say" they would "appreciate" certain actions. No written record, no paper trail, looks clean and neat to the rest of us.

Of course they could. So could a private citizen. That's the point.

You either cut all donations or you allow all donations. You can't pick and choose. The idea that attaching strings to money is solely the realm of corporate donation is not correct, IMO.

Actually, I'd say that's LESS of problem, because then it would be a clear decision to not accept the donation. At least they'd be being up-front about it, rather than try to exert pressure after the fact. I'm not saying they necessarily did that, but that door would never open.

That's been my whole point all along - maybe they (and you) didn't even realize it, but by saying that part of the reason for not showing the film was the risk of losing a targeted donor shows Exxon, perhaps not even consciously or purposely, exerting control over the curriculum. How many times do I need to say this?

Quote:

Just to show MY cynicism....A donor could, (say Exxon) simply "say" they would "appreciate" certain actions. No written record, no paper trail, looks clean and neat to the rest of us.

I'm 100% positive that this happens regularly, particularly in politics.

I posted that earlier in this thread talking about how XOM is trying ot encourage students to go into scientific engineering fields so XOM would have a larger potential hiring base. that concept was scoffed at by some of you.
I knew for a fact it was going on because i see it every day. I've traveled to college campus' to try and recruit.

Now this article comes along, worth reading:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061203/speed_interviewing.html?.v=2

Here's a small clip from it:

Oil and Gas Firms Try to 'Speed Up' Recruiting, Hiring to Fill Thousands of Engineering Jobs


HOUSTON (AP) -- On your mark! Get set! ... "Have you ever searched for oil under the ocean floor, or helped create products to improve fuels and lubricants? Hurry now, the clock's ticking."
Not your typical job interview, but several oil and gas companies are resorting to unusual hiring techniques they hope will succeed where traditional recruiting has failed to fill thousands of vacant engineering positions.

Industry officials and analysts say it's nearly impossible to quantify the shortage, but the Internet is full of openings at ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corp., Valero Energy Corp. and a host of other companies.