Posted on 04/08/2004 7:24:17 AM PDT by syriacus
Glad to hear you are open to the idea that good programs can be abused by the persons involved. We'll all breathe easier when Kofi gets a fire going under the investigators. Abuse of programs that were supposed to help children is especially disgusting.
Do you have any evidence that this Heinz supplement was somehow used for some corrupt purpose, or do you just like to smear companies for no good reason?
Did I say the supplement was used for corrupt purposes?
I'd assume the program is a real help to the children. I do hope the product helps the children.
And the Supplefer home page may not use the word Heinz anywhere, but a mere click on a link that says "click here for full story " will get a page with the Heinz information. So you could conclude they have nothing to hide about their relationship.
But, getting back to the real connection that I found -- that world leader, Kofi Annan-- I do wonder about Mr. Annan's involvement. Annan used Heinz's podium to attack Bush, and the content of Annan's speech was known ahead of time.
And I didn't smear Heinz, except for my objections to the high sodium content of their products. Thank heavens for those government mandated nutrition labels, which are such a big help to folks like me :-)
You're going out of your way to make suggestions of a conspiracy. Otherwise, why bring it up? Just say Annan spoke against the war at a Heinz event.
And I didn't smear Heinz
Sure you did. You said they were "anti-Bush" because they had the nerve to invite the UN chief to give a talk. Like I said, get a grip.
Are you investigating what other companies might have given a podium to Annan? Are you looking into the activities of minority owners of all kinds of companies? Or are you just picking on Heinz cause they used to be run by Kerry's wife's former in-laws?
SD
I only see the Heinz Foundation rewarding someone who distributes their new product (world-wide) and I see them giving the same man a podium to criticize Bush.
They weren't obligated to have Annan deliver the lecture.
Since Heinz does not profit from the supplement, under normal circumstances this would be considered a humanitarian gesture.
You may be correct in saying Heinz is not profitting now, but they can profit in the future. That's fairly typical for a new product.
If you haven't noticed the potential for Heinz to profit in the future, it's not your fault. The Heinz- Supplefer relationship is not apparent on Supplefer's home page. You need to dig around a bit. Once you know where to look, it's quite obvious.
It seems like Heinz has a fair enough arrangement. It looks like Heinz (eventually ) gets to profit from manufacturing Supplefer. Or am I wrong?
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think there's anything wrong with making a profit.
Profitmaking by Heinz is great, but it is not the same thing as you are saying, which is "Heinz does not profit".
The Intellectual Property Rights to Supplefer Sprinkles are owned by Ped Med Ltd., a private incorporated company owned by Stanley Zlotkin. [snip]I imagine Supplefer will be commercially available in about 5 years---just a guess of course.5. If an appropriate commercial opportunity becomes apparent, Heinz will be offered the "right of first refusal" to develop, manufacture and market a fully commercial product with appropriate pricing and margin, to ensure consumer acceptance and commercial viability. Under these circumstances, at our discretion, and subject to agreement with the manufacturer, Ped Med Ltd. may receive a royalty for license of the Sprinkles technology.
And I don't see any black helicopters.
No, they weren't. But they weren't making a secret Kerry-inspired political statement either.
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't think there's anything wrong with making a profit.
So you criticise Heinz for giving away nutrition to poor children and you make hay of the fact that they want to turn a profit at some time.
I repeat my questions, unanswered above. Are you just doing this cause Kerry's wife's ex-in laws used to run this company? Do you plan to similarly smear any company that ever shared a podium with a politician you dont' like, or is that has stockholders that you dislike?
SD
Thanks for the editting.... Will you do all my posting for me?
Are you investigating what other companies might have given a podium to Annan?
I hope you have free time to handle all the investigating you want me to do for you, too. :-)
Sorry to burst your argument that "Heinz does not profit."
And if you reread my post, you'll see I clearly state I have no problem with profitmaking.
Do you?
They did?
What years did Mrs. Heinz-Kerry's ex-in-laws run this company?
I guess you are telling me that Annan is not a dummy in the lap of the Heinz Foundation's ventriloquist.
We're in agreement on that.
Thanks to your questioning, I did find out the name of another Heinz Distinguished Lecturer
Ready for this?
Robert Mugabe was a previous Heinz Dstinguished Lecturer
actually, the Heinz company has spent far more money on conservatives than liberals (see bottom of article): http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=224
Even [sarcasm]"Bush's Buddy,"[/sarcasm] Kenny Boy Lay, gave money to both parties.
See, also, Aboout Us - Factcheck.org
Seth Goldman Researcher, Annenberg Political Fact Check
Seth Goldman earned his B.A. in political communication at George Washington University. He joined the Annenberg Public Policy Center in June, 2004 with previous experience as journalist, press relations assistant, and media researcher. He has worked at the Committee for a Democratic Majority and at Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's campaign committee At GWU he founded and edited Sticks & Stones, an independent, student-run progressive newsmagazine.
I find personal and professional offense at the use of the phrase "alternative lifestyles" in the Feb. 17 article "Jews Discuss Alternative Lifestyles" (Web Extra).First, nowhere is a member of the participating organizations cited using that phrase. In fact, journalistic norms require using the identification of the speaker and not imposing the prejudicial title of the writer. If The Hatchet was unsure of which phrase to use, it should have asked a spokesperson.
Second, the phrase violates the tenets of the official Associated Press Stylebook, which The Hatchet abides by - at least it did when I was a staff writer there two years ago. The AP states, "Avoid references to gay, homosexual or alternative 'lifestyle.'" Moreover, the AP recommends using the terms "gay" and "lesbian" and not "homosexual," which was also used in the article.
Third, and finally, the notion that my sexual orientation is merely an "alternative lifestyle" degrades the struggle I and so many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth have and continue to fight. Our orientation is neither an "alternative," which incorrectly implies choosing some other option besides the heterosexual norm, nor is it a "lifestyle," as if we opt to be gay like some choose an urban or trendy lifestyle. Media coverage of LGBT issues is welcomed and appreciated. I only request that it be done with understanding and respect.
-Seth Goldman, senior
That's a tasty ad hominem, but your seem to have utterly missed the point. Sorry.
It's a pity someone didn't check into Kofi Annan's relatives when one of them was taking goodies from the UN Oil for Food program. It's a pity no one checked into the distribution of food through that program and discovered the ugly truth that much of the UN food and medicines were never getting past the warehouse in Basra, and of what did make it out of the distribution points ended up for sale in neighboring countries, all while the various 'charities' and lobbyists appealed for the lifting of sanctions or accused the US of starving Iraqi children. It's a pity that the misery of Iraq was considered essential for the elitists' political campaigns, and useful to promote their interests knowing that the US would have to clean up their mess eventually or let them continue to milk it for all it was worth while more Iraqis suffered under that regime. It's a pity someone didn't check into those peculiar oil voucher distributions to a French priest in Rome, or into al Khafaji in the US and all those documentaries and bribed politicians like Cynthia McKinney... but if they had I reckon some folks would have accused them of spreading conspiracy rumors about 'well-meaning' peace activists. And it's a pity no one dared to investigate the British politician Galloway - can you imagine anyone daring to look at the finances of the guy who started the 'charitable' Mariam Appeal for the little bitty Iraqi girl? Yet if they had they would have found the old boy was making quite a profit.
My point is FactCheck has proven to be unreliable. For starters, consider how FactCheck had to retract their "facts" about the Swifties. Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record Annenberg Political Fact Check ^ | August 6, 2004
Annan got a Heinz Fund Award for distributing Supplefer
Isnt that also known as a kickback?
I'm not really suprised about the Heinz Company. This now proves that Teresa is more closely connected to the company than previously stated.
Brooks Jackson Director, Annenberg Political Fact CheckBrooks Jackson is a journalist who covered Washington and national politics for 34 years, reporting in turn for The Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and CNN. At CNN he pioneered the "adwatch" and "factcheck" form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements starting with the Presidential election of 1992. His investigative reporting for The AP and the Journal won several national awards. He is the author of two books: Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process (Knopf, 1988) and Broken Promise: Why the Federal Election Commission Failed (Twentieth Century Fund: 1990).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.