Jobs: 'I make fifty cents for just showing up'

[AppleInsider]

After being put on guard at his company's shareholders meeting, Apple chief executive Steve Jobs fired back with a defense of his controversial stock options.

Jobs quickly became the primary focus of the Q&A session at the end of the annual event, which created the first challenge for the Apple boss after otherwise rolling smoothly through the meeting agenda, in which his Board of Directors saw reelection and all shareholder resolutions were voted down.

Brandon Reese, a shareholder working on behalf of the AFL-CIO union federation was the most eager to grill Jobs on the matter, firing off a string of questions about the many elements surrounding the now-ended stock options scandal at Apple.

"What did you know and when did you know it?," the union spokesman asked.

Rather than answer the question directly, however, Jobs instead pointed to the SEC exoneration issued late last month -- at one point deliberately re-reading the government body's statement to underscore his view that the firm's cooperation spoke for itself. The implication that there could be more to the story was rejected as irrelevant.

"Unless you think there's a conspiracy with the SEC too, I don't know what to say," Jobs replied.

The CEO also dismissed suggestions that he should compensate his company for the questionable profits he made from his late 2001 stock options. He took care to note that one grant he received in October of 2001 had in fact been approved in August, when shares were significantly lower and ultimately shortchanged him on potential gains. "I didn't ask the company to pay me back," he said.

Apple has already dealt with an $84 million options expense late in 2006 to make amends for questionable grants handed out between 1997 and 2002.

Jobs was further keen to correct notions of a bitter feud between himself and former CFO Fred Anderson in the wake of Apple's official statement. He rebuffed the departed executive for his criticisms regarding the financial controversy. "Fred Anderson is an awfully good guy," said Jobs. "I thought his comments were a little wrong."

While those investors posing the questions were seldom pleased with the response from Jobs, the Apple co-founder's charisma appeared to have the intended effect of pleasing most of the investors gathered at the company's Cupertino-based campus.

At points during the meeting, Jobs even triggered laughter uncharacteristic of the normally sober occasions. He drew a particularly warm response when deflecting a Teamsters Union agent's question about how Apple linked executive pay and performance, referring to his now legendary $1 annual salary.

"I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ Digg this story]

[BlackSummerNight]

"..instead of answering the queston directly...."

hehe

"I'm not here to talk about he past, I'm here to talk about the future." -Mark McGwire on steroids use in baseball.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Steve always gives 110%.
I thin they should raise his salary to $1.10.

[broadbean]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."

I hope Jobs is not misquoted, as it's gold!

[Slewis]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Steve always gives 110%.
I think they should raise his salary to $1.10.

Yes they should.

Originally Posted by broadbean

I hope Jobs is not misquoted, as it's gold!

No it's not misquoted (it's everywhere now) and yes it is gold.

Sebastian

[ibuzz]

I think if the union bosses don't like the situation, they should just sell their stock and shut the ____ up. I'll give em $95/share. All they got.

[pazimzadeh]

hey AI, your first link is kinda messed up, it has hhttp:// instead of http:// (not that I didn't think everyone else couldn't figure it out, but...)

[MacCentric]

These shareholder proposals piss me off in the fact that some of the proposers don't even own that much stock. For instance, the company with the environmental proposal Trillium Asset Management Corporation sounds big and impressive right? How many shares do they own? 200 which they purchased for less than $20,000. The amount of AAPL I have is very close to that, but I don't think that I should be able to name myself MacCentric Narcissistic Asset Management Corporation, pull any stupid idea out of my ass, require Apple to make a few million copies of it, mail it out and then waste Steve's time talking to me about it and preparing a rebuttal.

Educational Foundation of America, the company with the waste take back proposal - 1900 shares - purchased for less than $190,000.

Trillium especially made me mad when they were referring to it as 'our' company. If you don't like how Apple is being run, sell your relatively paltry stake and invest in a company that you do like. You will not be missed or even noticed.

It is too easy for some bunch of jerks to make a scene at important meetings of important companies just because they can scrape together a few bucks to buy a few shares.

[davebarnes]

Originally Posted by MacCentric

Trillium Asset Management Corporation sounds big and impressive right? How many shares do they own? 200 which they purchased for less than $20,000.
Educational Foundation of America, the company with the waste take back proposal - 1900 shares - purchased for less than $190,000.

1. " For twenty-five years, Trillium Asset Management Corporation has been the leader in socially responsible investing. We are guided by a belief that active investing can offer good returns to the investor, while also promoting social and economic justice." Source: http://www.trilliuminvest.com/

Visiting their website I can not determine how much money they manage.

2. "EFA focuses on four different types of socially responsible investing....

Shareholder Activism: Taking, or holding onto, small investments in the companies that have policies and practices which the investor opposes for the express purpose of changing those policies through proxy mechanisms." Source: http://www.efaw.org/Responsible%20Investments.htm

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by MacCentric

It is too easy for some bunch of jerks to make a scene at important meetings of important companies just because they can scrape together a few bucks to buy a few shares.

1 share = 1 vote. If you have shares, use them to vote the way you like. If you have an idea, propose it. For example, you could propose that shareholder proposals get one word for every 100 shares behind it. I would vote against it, but feel free to put your own agenda out there.

I'd rather there were people looking at the long view than flipping shares and wringing their hands over each quarter's numbers.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by MacCentric

These shareholder proposals piss me off in the fact that some of the proposers don't even own that much stock. For instance, the company with the environmental proposal Trillium Asset Management Corporation sounds big and impressive right? How many shares do they own? 200 which they purchased for less than $20,000. The amount of AAPL I have is very close to that, but I don't think that I should be able to name myself MacCentric Narcissistic Asset Management Corporation, pull any stupid idea out of my ass, require Apple to make a few million copies of it, mail it out and then waste Steve's time talking to me about it and preparing a rebuttal.

Educational Foundation of America, the company with the waste take back proposal - 1900 shares - purchased for less than $190,000.

Trillium especially made me mad when they were referring to it as 'our' company. If you don't like how Apple is being run, sell your relatively paltry stake and invest in a company that you do like. You will not be missed or even noticed.

It is too easy for some bunch of jerks to make a scene at important meetings of important companies just because they can scrape together a few bucks to buy a few shares.

This is only because you don't want to see Apple put in an embarrassing position. Why not?

If this were a company dumping radioactive waste you wouldn't be bothered by these shareholder actions, would you?

It's all relative.

[Splinemodel]

I think Jobs is a jerk.

But he knows his market better than anyone in the world, and is worth every penny of the $1, plus the money he makes from options or whatever.

[Swift]

I think the SEC deal is just about over. I think the Greenpeace objection is pretty much gone, and Steve therefore got a chance to lecture them a bit. And I think they all get the sense that the rest of the year for Apple has a good chance of getting even better.

This is all happening the way it should. People have questions and objections, and the management responds. Keep it going, Apple.

[nvidia2008]

Also overheard, Jobs: "Boom!"...

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by Swift

I think the SEC deal is just about over. I think the Greenpeace objection is pretty much gone, and Steve therefore got a chance to lecture them a bit. And I think they all get the sense that the rest of the year for Apple has a good chance of getting even better.

This is all happening the way it should. People have questions and objections, and the management responds. Keep it going, Apple.

I'd have to agree with this.

[JohnnyKrz]

This is all happening the way it should. People have questions and objections, and the management responds. Keep it going, Apple.

Agreed. It's part of being a publicly traded company. Some people are bound to waste time with their proposals, but it is a matter of opinion. If shareholders have questions, Apple has to answer them. Personally, I like Steve Jobs vision, but I think he can be a real ass to people that he should be thankful to. He would have more support if he was nice instead of arrogant, as funny (and sometimes correct) his statements may be.

[shamino]

Originally Posted by davebarnes

2. "EFA focuses on four different types of socially responsible investing....

Shareholder Activism: Taking, or holding onto, small investments in the companies that have policies and practices which the investor opposes for the express purpose of changing those policies through proxy mechanisms." Source: http://www.efaw.org/Responsible%20Investments.htm

There are many groups like this. Also individuals who make a career out of yanking the chains of big corporations through shareholder proxies.

Which is one of the reasons I rarely vote my shares in any way other than as per the director's recommendations. I buy stock for the purpose of making money on the deal, and I despise those people who are actively trying to reduce the value of my shares, no matter what their reason is.

Originally Posted by melgross

If this were a company dumping radioactive waste you wouldn't be bothered by these shareholder actions, would you?

If a company is doing something I actively oppose, then I wouldn't go buying their shares.

And if you think there is some moral equivalence between an accusation of stock fraud (which was already investigated and settled by the SEC) and dumping nuclear waste, then you need to rethink your priorities. No amount of financial shenanigans is going to produce a generation of genetically deformed animals.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by ibuzz

I think if the union bosses don't like the situation, they should just sell their stock and shut the ____ up. I'll give em $95/share. All they got.

Yeah, why aren't they investing in unionized companies?
Oh thats right, because they are all in the toilet thanks to the unions.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by shamino

There are many groups like this. Also individuals who make a career out of yanking the chains of big corporations through shareholder proxies.

Which is one of the reasons I rarely vote my shares in any way other than as per the director's recommendations. I buy stock for the purpose of making money on the deal, and I despise those people who are actively trying to reduce the value of my shares, no matter what their reason is.
If a company is doing something I actively oppose, then I wouldn't go buying their shares.

And if you think there is some moral equivalence between an accusation of stock fraud (which was already investigated and settled by the SEC) and dumping nuclear waste, then you need to rethink your priorities. No amount of financial shenanigans is going to produce a generation of genetically deformed animals.

We were talking about environmental issues.

This is a problem for not only this entire industry, but almost every other industry as well, including almost every individual who lives anywhere.

For that reason, it isn't a matter of not buying a companies stock.

You do have a responsibility to attempt to get the world back in shape.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Slewis

No it's not misquoted (it's everywhere now) and yes it is gold.

Originally Posted by broadbean

I hope Jobs is not misquoted, as it's gold!

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

I get 50 cents a year for showing up," he quipped. "And the other 50 cents is based on my performance."

That is brilliant!

[wilco]

Originally Posted by MacCentric

Trillium especially made me mad when they were referring to it as 'our' company. If you don't like how Apple is being run, sell your relatively paltry stake and invest in a company that you do like.

Or, they could keep their investment, and let the company know how they feel -- as they're entitled to do.

Did it really make you "mad"?

Let me guess...you're one of those "love it or leave it" people.

[wilco]

Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella

Oh thats right, because they are all in the toilet thanks to the unions.

No offense, but are you retarded?

[solipsism]

There are more Jobsian quotes from the shareholders meeting at

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...4C9887A5A.html

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by wilco

No offense, but are you retarded?

Does it ever occur to you not to troll?

[wilco]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Does it ever occur to you not to troll?

It seems that according to you, any post that doesn't include "Apple is infallible" is a troll.

Johnny made an stupid remark, without even attempting to back it up. Who's the troll? What about the post I made above the one you quoted. Was that a "troll" too?

Mind your own business.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by wilco

It seems that according to you, any post that doesn't include "Apple is infallible" is a troll.

Johnny made an stupid remark, without even attempting to back it up.

Mind your own business.

It's a public forum so "mind your own business" is not the best argument.

You mention that Johnny didn't back up his comment, but neither did you. If you would have given facts and opinions as to why you believe he is wrong then I would not have not considered your post trolling.

It's not about agreeing with everyone, it's about an attempt at intelligent discourse. There are many posters here I respect, though usually don't agree with. In fact, it is their well thought out opinions that lead me to new avenues of research I may have otherwise not thought of.

[tomkarl]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That is brilliant!

Brilliant yes, but the man reaps much, much more than the $1 in salary. A quote based upon a technicality doesn't do much for me. I actually find it annoying

Don't get me wrong, I think he deserves every single dollar he gets, however, stating that it's only $1 is not an entirely accurate representation of the facts.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by tomkarl

Brilliant yes, but the man reaps much, much more than the $1 in salary. A quote based upon a technicality doesn't do much for me. I actually find it annoying

Don't get me wrong, I think he deserves every single dollar he gets, however, stating that it's only $1 is not an entirely accurate representation of the facts.

Jobs is famous for his $1 salary so I don't think anyone is actually unaware of his stock options. However, what I found brilliant was the comment he made. It was funny.

[ITFinanceGuy]

The great thing about no standing salary is that means Jobs makes nothing (well OK $1.00) unless he helps the company perform better. In which case, if he can consistently help the stock raise from the $35 or so a year and a half ago to $107, and do that again for this next year and a half, then by all means, give the man a whole barrel of options.

I also saw a quick comment on one of the mac forums that mentioned that while Forbes is listing Jobs as the highest paid w/ $640m or so, it was not all given this year, in fact most was given nearly 5 years ago when the company was worth nearly nothing. So for them to count 5 years past of options as this year's compensation is a bit misleading. What should be counted is options he has recieved this year, or a breakdown divided by the number of years in which he has been fully vested or something to that measure.

-------------------
www.ITFinanceGuy.com

[Slewis]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Jobs is famous for his $1 salary so I don't think anyone is actually unaware of his stock options. However, what I found brilliant was the comment he made. It was funny.

For his first couple of years back he actually only took $1 and no stock options, it wasn't until '99 I think that he actually accepted them.

Sebastian

[tomkarl]

Originally Posted by ITFinanceGuy

I also saw a quick comment on one of the mac forums that mentioned that while Forbes is listing Jobs as the highest paid w/ $640m or so, it was not all given this year, in fact most was given nearly 5 years ago when the company was worth nearly nothing. So for them to count 5 years past of options as this year's compensation is a bit misleading. What should be counted is options he has recieved this year, or a breakdown divided by the number of years in which he has been fully vested or something to that measure.

-------------------
www.ITFinanceGuy.com

Stand corrected, I agree with you that it is over a period of time.

How awful it would be to eek out a living on 640M over five years.

[EruIthildur]

Originally Posted by tomkarl

Stand corrected, I agree with you that it is over a period of time.

How awful it would be to eek out a living on 640M over five years.

I don't know if I could actually live on it or not... I mean, at one exotic car (take the Gallardo as an average with a price plus options and aftermarket at over $300k) a day that eats $110 million before taxes!!! For five years that is $550 million of purchases before tax... Assuming there are no taxes that leaves him with a measly $18 million a year for living expenses, house, servants, etc.
Geez. All those poor unpurchased cars...

[MacCentric]

Originally Posted by melgross

This is only because you don't want to see Apple put in an embarrassing position. Why not?

If this were a company dumping radioactive waste you wouldn't be bothered by these shareholder actions, would you?

It's all relative.

Ok, granted these proposals are not totally off the wall, what I take umbrage with is the fact that someone literally could make a proposal for almost anything, no matter how stupid and cost the company more money in distributing the idea than they even own in shares. Also, for instance, posters in another thread were saying things along the lines of "at least Trillium invested in Apple, and want to see the company do better." I hardly see a $20,000 stake as anything significant enough to even talk about.

If Apple were dumping radioactive waste, I would encourage any governmental criminal and civil actions against them, and would probably sell my stock. I doubt there would be shareholder actions via the annual meetings. As one of the most environmentally friendly major computer manufacturers, I don't see how this reasoning applies especially when the shareholder action really did nothing to change what they are DOING, only what they told us about what they were doing.

I wonder if Trillium will buy a few shares of Apple's competitors, and craft proposals requiring them to meet or exceed Apple's initiatives regarding the environment. If they are really serious about the environment, I don't see why they wouldn't.

[MacCentric]

Originally Posted by ITFinanceGuy

The great thing about no standing salary is that means Jobs makes nothing (well OK $1.00) unless he helps the company perform better. In which case, if he can consistently help the stock raise from the $35 or so a year and a half ago to $107, and do that again for this next year and a half, then by all means, give the man a whole barrel of options.

I also saw a quick comment on one of the mac forums that mentioned that while Forbes is listing Jobs as the highest paid w/ $640m or so, it was not all given this year, in fact most was given nearly 5 years ago when the company was worth nearly nothing. So for them to count 5 years past of options as this year's compensation is a bit misleading. What should be counted is options he has recieved this year, or a breakdown divided by the number of years in which he has been fully vested or something to that measure.

-------------------
www.ITFinanceGuy.com

This is exactly how the bulk of CEO pay should be structured. A small salary, then generous stock. This would eliminate instances like that of CEO Hank McKinnel of Pfizer who got a pay package of nearly 200 million while the stock declined 40% during his tenure, Carly Fiorina at HP, etc.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by MacCentric

As one of the most environmentally friendly major computer manufacturers, I don't see how this reasoning applies especially when the shareholder action really did nothing to change what they are DOING, only what they told us about what they were doing.

I like Apple as much as the last guy who has bought only Apple computers for the last 20 years. And I believe that they are a relatively decent company. But if you think they would have these initiatives to announce if there were no Greenpeaces or Trilliums or any of the other muck rakers who have raked muck over the years then you are deluding yourselves.

In our society companies exist to make money, not to do good. The bigger they are, generally, the more diffuse their spread of shareholders thus the more spread out their responsibility to make money to return to those shareholders. It would be irresponsible (in our economic environment) for a company to "do the right thing" just because some management types tended green. THERE HAS TO BE A FINANCIAL UPSIDE. Otherwise they are being irresponsible if it costs the company to do good.

Some would say that this is cynical, but I see it as realistic. Fanbois will say "my company is perfect and I would suck the air from their truck's tailpipes and find it sweet. I would drink their wastewater and find it refreshing. I love the environment but Greenpeace should be ashamed/disbanded/outlawed/hunted like baby seals..."

The way I see it is there are 3 reasons a company might put green policies in place.

1--They actually save money. Energy conservation, smaller packaging and greener materials if there is some regulatory fees for using, producing or disposing of some harmful waste.

2--For advertising/public relations. If consumers are deciding with their pocketbooks to buy, say, Energy-Star products or not to buy products from companies that have a bad environmental name then there might be a financial upside. It might be even more subtle. Companies like Apple benefit from having an aura of cool or hip. They sell products with a higher ASP and even if you know that their products are worth it, if the company's name gets associated with negative things it can affect sales.

3--Shareholders demand it. Plain and simple.

It is obvious that environmental groups do not have the capital to buy enough stock to demand change so they work on the first two. 1) They support environmental laws and regulations that are intended to make environmentally harmful options more costly. 2) They do what ever they can to draw attention to company's environmental negatives. This is what I have seen posters go crazy over in this and other Apple forums. But the fact is it works. You might not like the fact that Apple was made to look like the worst offender when they were not--but it was Apple that presented the best target. They always get a lot of publicity and they have a halo they are benefiting from that they don't want tarnished.
Now that Apple is announcing industry leading initiatives, it will be much easier to put pressure on the other big computer corps out there to change to match Apple.

With the environmental stuff more or less settled for now, some groups will find this the best opportunity to try to make some headlines about executive compensation. Is Apple the worst offender here? Hardly. Others have posted more egregious examples of CEOs running the company into the ground and taking handsome pay for it. But it is all about publicity and public interest and opportunity. Is it fair? surely not. But it is how our system seems to work and the negatives, I believe, are far outweighed by the possible positives.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by EruIthildur

I don't know if I could actually live on it or not... I mean, at one exotic car (take the Gallardo as an average with a price plus options and aftermarket at over $300k) a day that eats $110 million before taxes!!! For five years that is $550 million of purchases before tax... Assuming there are no taxes that leaves him with a measly $18 million a year for living expenses, house, servants, etc.
Geez. All those poor unpurchased cars...

Heh. Given I have an attention span of a 3-year old, I wouldn't buy a Lamborghini. I'd rent one in Germany or something and cruise on the Autobahn for like $100k for a few days or whatever. Now that's money well spent...!!

[Slewis]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I like Apple as much as the last guy who has bought only Apple computers for the last 20 years. And I believe that they are a relatively decent company. But if you think they would have these initiatives to announce if there were no Greenpeaces or Trilliums or any of the other muck rakers who have raked muck over the years then you are deluding yourselves.

[...and Cut -Sebastian]

Last I checked, Apple has been cutting down on Toxic Junk years before Greenpeace mounted a smear campaign to get donations out of Mac users. According to Daniel, they even had the nerve to try and take credit for everything in Steve's open letter, directly to Steve Jobs.

Originally Posted by RoughlyDrafted

Jobs' Challenges Greenpeace Incompetence.
Those comments didn't stop Greenpeace representatives from using the meeting as an opportunity to advertise the groups anti-Apple campaign. Among the activists sent by Greenpeace was Iza Kruszewska, one of the key architects of the corporation's Apple-oriented fundraising program.

Kruszewska was wearing a Greenpeace t-shirt styled after the former iPod ads, presenting Apple's products as dangerously toxic and encouraging user donations to Greenpeace to somehow solve that issue.

After attempting to take credit for Apple's announcements, Kruszewska questioned Jobs about Apple's potential do more to advance Greenpeace's political goals in announcing principles, but Jobs insisted that such “flowery” announcements were not really doing anything for the environment.

Jobs suggested that Greenpeace hire staff with engineering backgrounds who could understand the issues involved, and insisted that Apple does more to push innovative manufacturing techniques than other PC makers.

When Apple talks to its manufacturers, he said, they report that no other companies are pushing for similar, real changes. He questioned the real efforts HP and Dell were making to back up their announcements.

Jobs also blasted the criteria behind Greenpeace's highly publicized Greener Guide to Electronics, which ranks a random assortment of manufactures according to commitments listed on their websites.

Jobs said Greenpeace needed to develop rankings that reflected what companies actually do, not just what they promise to do at some point in the future.

Full Article

Sebastian

[melgross]

Originally Posted by MacCentric

Ok, granted these proposals are not totally off the wall, what I take umbrage with is the fact that someone literally could make a proposal for almost anything, no matter how stupid and cost the company more money in distributing the idea than they even own in shares. Also, for instance, posters in another thread were saying things along the lines of "at least Trillium invested in Apple, and want to see the company do better." I hardly see a $20,000 stake as anything significant enough to even talk about.

If Apple were dumping radioactive waste, I would encourage any governmental criminal and civil actions against them, and would probably sell my stock. I doubt there would be shareholder actions via the annual meetings. As one of the most environmentally friendly major computer manufacturers, I don't see how this reasoning applies especially when the shareholder action really did nothing to change what they are DOING, only what they told us about what they were doing.

I wonder if Trillium will buy a few shares of Apple's competitors, and craft proposals requiring them to meet or exceed Apple's initiatives regarding the environment. If they are really serious about the environment, I don't see why they wouldn't.

Investmrnt houses such as Trillium do this as their way of investing. You should go to their site yourself.

A partial list of their clients is below:

http://www.trilliuminvest.com/pages/...clientlist.asp

I'm not sure wher those numbers came from. When this issue first arose, I remember reading that Trillium had about a $5 million investment.

I really don't know why this bothers you. If it passes, it means that the majority of shares were voted that way. If it doesn't, then it's gone.

[shamino]

Originally Posted by melgross

We were talking about environmental issues.

This is a problem for not only this entire industry, but almost every other industry as well, including almost every individual who lives anywhere.

For that reason, it isn't a matter of not buying a companies stock.

You do have a responsibility to attempt to get the world back in shape.

Environmentalists are far more interested in grabbing political power by trying to scare the public with junk science, half-truths, and active censorship of anybody that disagrees with their agenda. And the agenda is the dismantling of corporations, not "saving the earth" or whatever the buzzword du-jour is.

There are very very few groups left that actually care about conserving our natural resources for future generations.

The proof of all this is that they never stop protesting corporations, even when those corporations do everything they're told to do. Look at Apple - they are doing more for the environment than any of their competitors, but the environmentalists are still targeting them. Why? Because you get more headlines by attacking Apple. The environment has nothing at all to do with it.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by shamino

Environmentalists are far more interested in grabbing political power by trying to scare the public with junk science, half-truths, and active censorship of anybody that disagrees with their agenda. And the agenda is the dismantling of corporations, not "saving the earth" or whatever the buzzword du-jour is.

There are very very few groups left that actually care about conserving our natural resources for future generations.

The proof of all this is that they never stop protesting corporations, even when those corporations do everything they're told to do. Look at Apple - they are doing more for the environment than any of their competitors, but the environmentalists are still targeting them. Why? Because you get more headlines by attacking Apple. The environment has nothing at all to do with it.

Everyone must contribute. corporations only do something that they see as not adding to their bottom line if they are forced to do it.

When government won't step in to force the issue, as with our current administration, then private groups must take over.

Politics! Oh lord.

There is only one area in which I agree with Karl Marx, everything is economics.

Political power comes from the ability to control the economic situation of others, thereby enhancing your own, or others who you prefer, economic situation. You've heard the expression "Money is power".

And power is politics.

Do you want to buy a new house, and find that it was built on the site of a hazardous waste dump? I certainly don't.

If companies aren't forced to dunp waste properly, that's what happens.

How do you think government is finally forced into action?