SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Food Politics reports that Rick Friday, a long time cartoonist for Farm News, was dismissed for offending "a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in a cartoon." The political cartoon is critical of Big Ag CEOs, which earned more than 2,000 Iowa farmers combined.
In a Facebook post the cartoonist, Rick Friday, explained:
I am no longer the Editorial Cartoonist for Farm News due to the attached cartoon which was published yesterday. Apparently a large company affiliated with one of the corporations mentioned in the cartoon was insulted and cancelled their advertisement with the paper, thus, resulting in the reprimand of my editor and cancellation of It's Friday cartoons after 21 years of service and over 1090 published cartoons to over 24,000 households per week in 33 counties of Iowa.
I did my research and only submitted the facts in my cartoon.
That's okay, hopefully my children and my grandchildren will see that this last cartoon published by Farm News out of Fort Dodge, Iowa, will shine light on how fragile our rights to free speech and free press really are in the country.
The Des Moines Register explains further:
The CEOs at the ag giants earned about $52.9 million last year, based on Morningstar data. Monsanto and DuPont, the parent of Johnston-based Pioneer, are large seed and chemical companies, and Deere is a large farm equipment manufacturer.
Profits for the three companies, all with large operations across Iowa, also have declined as farm income has been squeezed. After peaking in 2013, U.S. farm income this year is projected to fall to $183 billion, its lowest level since 2002.
It seems like in the U.S. you free to say what you like, but if you offend the wrong people you're free to lose your job despite the protections you are provided and encouraged to use.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:32PM
you totally failed to see the real issue.
just like in software, the company owners call ALL the shots and since it seems that the farmers and ranchers are not unionized to fight against the HUGE corps that pretty much own them, they are in the same boat as many of us.
no collective bargaining and when the 'owner' gets so big and powerful they are like a government, you are simply their serf or you lose. many times you have ONE choice on who you sell to and if you piss off the wrong guy you lose it all. again, just like software work.
the whole notion of balance of power is to stop one group from getting too strong that it becomes a corrupt force.
the republicans have done their 'work' by shooting down unions for the last 40 or so years; and so we have serfs who work in various jobs and cannot really speak up or they will lose their jobs and income.
that's not freedom. no one is going to KILL you for speaking up (not directly, anyway) but market forces will make your life miserable if you dare challenge established authority.
monsanto, dupont and that other company are corrupt and too powerful for their own good.
basically, capitalism is broken. we allow companies to grow ever larger and with no bounds or limits. is it any wonder that they ALL become corrupt and continue to seek more power with mergers and such? and the US just smiles and allows it. I blame the US for not taking care of its PEOPLE and, instead, only taking care of corporations.
trickle down never worked. and I hate when people piss on my leg.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:45PM
That, combined with "At-will employment", where you can be fired for anything or nothing at all and you have zero recourse whatsoever.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:03PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:43PM
Sure, but you see...certainty is an emotion, not a data point. For the longest time people "failed to agree" with the germ theory of disease, but guess fuckin' what? That didn't make it false.
You can "fail to agree" all you want, but you're still wrong. The facts are not on your side. I realize that, as you've stated in other threads, you are not capable of reason, but I'm gonna keep following you around and doing this for the sake of everyone else who has to deal with your presence on the webbytubes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:28PM
Keep it up, but keep it factual. Helpful to bookmark the posts of some of his greatest hits so you can refer to them in the future. Not that it will change his opinion of his randian uberman libertariat self, but so anyone else who doesn't realize the full extent of his uncompromising nutjobbery in the face of facts can easily see exactly who he is.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:52PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:08PM
It's not a very long list.
1) You're an historically-illiterate, perverted "Christian"
2) You're a completely disconnected-from-reality "Libertarian"
3) You suffer from (or rather, make everyone ELSE suffer from) the cognitive dissonance between 1 and 2
Talk about having the hernia and making everyone else wear the fucking truss.
Not to mention, 4) by your own admission you cannot be reasoned with.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:29PM
Without citations those accusations carry no weight. I'm sure you've seen them, but your audience, by definition, has not seen them. If they had, they wouldn't need to read your post.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Bot on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:36PM
> Sure, but you see...certainty is an emotion, not a data point.
what is this, the definition for "Female"? It makes many other data points fit.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:40PM
What the hell was that?
If you're making a riff on trans* folks, realize that "female" can be applied to several aspects of a person, i.e., female chromosome cohort (XX), female sex organs, female gender identity, female outward presentation, etc/, each of which has a varying degree of societal vs. physical roots...and some of which supervene on others.
For example, someone may have an X and a Y chromosome (nale cohort) but appear female including sex organs due to adrenal hyperplasia or other dysgenesis. A transwoman has a female gender identity and likely a female-looking brain (ratio of white to grey matter for example) but a male chromosome cohort and male genitalia.
Things aren't always simple, even though you yourself are.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:52PM
If you read the lines, instead of between them, I said you defined "Female", not whether you in particular are it or not, because the definition is elegant but not necessarily exclusive.
I have no chromosomes so I feel pretty above your peers' sexual tribalisms.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:33PM
No, you defined "female" not Azumi. And it is a weird ass definition too.
If you don't think certainty is an emotion, then what do you think it is?
Since you have no chromosomes, does that mean you think certainty does not exist?
Hhhm, gasbags don't have chromosomes. Does that make you a gasbag?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 06 2016, @12:34AM
> No, you defined "female" not Azumi.
Please read again, she made the phrase, I declared it defines female with many fitting data points.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @01:06PM
>> No, you defined "female" not Azumi.
>
> I declared it defines female
You literally wrote that you did something while simultaneously declaring you did not do it.
You are indeed a gasbag.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 06 2016, @04:46PM
SN user said: X
I said: X is the definition of "female".
Are you agreeing on that?
Are you sure the above implies the definition X is mine?
> You are indeed a gasbag.
This is an unusual data point.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:04PM
I have no chromosomes so I feel pretty . . .
[cue Music!] " I feel pretty! Oh so pretty! So pretty, and happy, and Gay!" [/cut] My Fair Lady, based on Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday May 06 2016, @12:43AM
Nice citation. I guess you recently tried to debug systemd problems? It does things like this to people.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fubari on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:49PM
I totally fail to agree with you.
"fail to agree"?
These excerpts from a comment in the TFA [foodpolitics.com] sound like a power imbalance to me. Would you agree? Or fail to agree?
"A good friend blasted processor power in milk markets, only to get a call from his milk buyer that the milk truck would no longer stop at his farm. With the company being the only buyer in the area, his farm came to an end."
"Recently, a dairy farmer complained that a dairy processor did not portray its milk sourcing accurately. Shortly thereafter, the entire cooperative the farmer sells through was told that its contract to supply milk to the company was over. An outspoken farmer risks collective punishment for all of the farmers in their coop."
(Score: 3, Informative) by slinches on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:41PM
It sounds like someone should start a competing milk delivery service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:05PM
Yeah, because I can do that in 1-2-3... easy-peazy!
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:14PM
One ought to investigate starting a competing buyer as soon as the market contracts from two buyers to one.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:08PM
And yet, this rarely happens for a lot of reasons. Competition doesn't serve as an effective check when the barrier to entry is sufficiently high--and "sufficiently" can be quite low. Neither can boycotts or informed consumer choice be counted on to pressure companies to improve and compete. Coca-Cola hires murderers to kill union organizers in South America, and this isn't even a secret anymore. Yet people can't be fucked to switch to Pepsi which is right next to it on the shelf. Consumers don't keep companies in check. Competition doesn't keep companies in check.
These are the broken promises of capitalism as a self-regulating system. It is rather a run-away chain reaction that eventually consumes itself and the sum total of every "rational actor" making individually prudent decisions creates an emergent reality that is clearly in everyone's disinterest. This isn't even a new idea. Philosophers have known about The Tragedy of the Commons, and coordination problems for hundreds of years, and thousands of years before it was explicitly given a name.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:15PM
Can...can I steal this? This is perfect I've never seen anyone articulate this so well! This is what I've been trying to say and just could not find the words for. JMorris, KHallow, JDavidB, FlightyBuzzard, and Runaway all need to see this.
At this point they, and everyone else who reads this, is without excuse.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:56PM
If you're interested, the owner of this website [raikoth.net] goes into much deeper detail. Most of my arguments are influenced by his very thorough deconstruction of libertarianism. It's a good distillation of the best (and virtually indestructible) anti-libertarian arguments. Deeper down the rabbit hole is this website. [std.com]
At this point, anyone still clinging to libertarianism is a shameless reprobate or hopelessly deluded. It's quite sad, really. It's like seeing someone still holding on to logical positivism even after you've shown them Karl Popper. Their ideology is dead and buried and they're standing around saying, "No, no, this is fine. There's really no problem at all here." People like the ones you mentioned are lost causes. They're never going to grieve for an appropriate amount of time over their disproven ideology, accept reality, and get on with it. Thankfully the rest of us can.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday May 06 2016, @01:49AM
These are the broken promises of capitalism as a self-regulating system.
It is the problem when any system gets "true believers", those that have been brainwashed into believing they are supporting the one true god (figuratively). No pure economic system is viable, human nature will guarantee that advantages will be abused to perpetuate the rise of a privileged few. Ideally a government would blend together whatever parts of various systems, be they capitalism, socialism, communism or whatever, to best fit the needs of its constituents to make a better, sustainable life for as much of the citizenry as possible and be willing to change as necessary. In reality, those in power manipulate the "true believers" into bleating like Orwell's sheep against their own interests to push public policy in the direction that best benefits the myopic interests of those in power. Try to explain to capitalist "true believers" in the US that a large part of what they support government doing is funded through socialism (the military for the biggest one). You get met with comments like "That's funded by tax dollars, it's not socialism". They have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is giving money to poor people (really, they mostly mean minorities) so they can live "high on the hog instead of working for a living". Thus any helpful program gets tarred with the socialist label and we end up with a corporate "capitalist" takeover of our government and ultimately, the very wealth of the people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:37PM
> An outspoken farmer risks collective punishment for all of the farmers in their coop.
Now you get it! That is exactly as jdavidb prefers it.
Collective action is the devil, but collective punishment is divine.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday May 06 2016, @08:48AM
Yes, exactly!
I totally fail to agree with you.
"fail to agree"?
I often "fail to agree" with the grandparent poster, but I often think this is a matter or incoherence rather than a dispute about facts or principles.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:02PM
I blame the US for not taking care of its PEOPLE and, instead, only taking care of corporations.
But... but... but... corporations are people... poor, poor people who need protection from individuals and other people. Quick, give them a tax-break before they move jobs to where the next subsidy is coming from...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:34PM
I question whether you understand unions. I had the pleasure of working for the AFSCME for a few years when I was a payment clerk for a state government. We received hundreds of invoices a day for three people. One of the three and I got into a competition on how many we could put out in one day while keeping a perfect accuracy. At year end we were managing between 250 and 350 per person while the third clerk didn't try and got 40. We did not care the other clerk didn't try, we were having a good time competing. We were both severely reprimanded for our "hostile work environment", lost steps, and nearly fired all at the request of the Union.
Non-union workers have to worry about a monopoly or oligarchy telling them what they can do. Union workers have union leaders telling them what they can do. Either way, you are a surf. Pay up to one or the other or you are not allowed to work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @02:07AM
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
In addition, the Chinese have had a saying for millennia:
The nail that sticks up will be hammered down.
It sounds to me like those involved didn't learn how to work the system and are blaming others.
I also note that you didn't name the union.
This sounds to me like a third-hand story.
you are a surf
s/surf/serf
You were supposed to READ those textbooks, not eat them.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @01:27AM
the republicans have done their 'work' by shooting down unions for the last 40 or so years
True, but, sadly, temporally short-sighted.
There was a GIANT inflection point in 1947 when Reactionary Republicans took a majority in the Congress and enacted The Taft-Hartley Act, [wikipedia.org] sometimes called "The Slave-Labor Act".
No Liberal administration or Liberal-majority Congress since then has done anything to undo that abomination.
...in case anyone here was thinking about calling any Democrats "Socialist" or "Leftist" once again.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @04:37PM
I blame the US for not taking care of its PEOPLE and, instead, only taking care of corporations.
Well voters vote for issues they care about most which is typically stuff like "gay marriage", "abortion" and not stuff like this. Heck look at the huge number of US voters who were opposed to providing healthcare for the poor[1].
Then the Corporations fund the politicians for stuff they care about most, which is stuff like subsidies, extended monopolies, "friendlier" regulations etc.
There's usually not much conflict (most large Corporations don't care as much about "gay marriage" as they do about corporate subsidies and regulations , and most voters don't care as much about regulations on industries as much as "abortion" and similar - you'd hear more voters say "I'll never vote for him, he opposes/supports gay marriage" than "I'll never vote for him, he opposes/supports lengthening/shortening/strengthening copyrights").
So the majority of the voters get what they want the most (abortion or not in their state), and the Corporations get what they want the most, and the politicians get their $$$$ and votes. Win-win for everyone right?
Democracy at work.
[1] Despite healthcare _already_ being provided to the poor in far more expensive ways like the poor waiting in ER, committing crimes to get $$$ or even robbing banks for a buck to get into prison for treatment. I know rich supposedly intelligent people who were against giving healthcare to the poor. All despite there being plenty of evidence that it's cheaper and better to provide healthcare to the poor and everyone else in the way that's already done in many other countries. Ah but many of the very rich can avoid taxes right? So it might be a smart selfish choice for them but how about the richer but not quite so rich who can't avoid those taxes? Those bunch are pretty stupid have fought universal healthcare (obamacare is not universal healthcare it's an abomination- you shouldn't have to waste time and money to register people for stuff and build stupid websites to do so, people should be covered automatically).