Oh me, oh my – “North Vancouver mom exposes $US millions for oil sands activism” says CityCaucus!
Is there any point in mentioning Vivian Krause is oh so much more than a North Van mom? Yes? No?
Or that she has a history of employing rhetorical sleight of hand?
Is it worth the effort?
Vivian recently gained a lot of exposure for her piece in the National Post on how millions of dollars of U.S. endowment money is funding opposition to the Alberta oil sands. I’m sure her numbers are correct, but her error is one of omission. As I’m sure you can guess the billions of dollars that come from U.S. oil companies to the Tar Sands are not examined. Or that it’s oil companies that have a documented history of interfering in the political process around the world, including funding opposition to the opposition to the Tar Sands.
But what’s the point? CityCaucus doesn’t care.
I mean, I take this statement from Krause:
“In practice, Tides behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise, taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires,” writes the U.S. Center for Consumer Freedom. “Called ‘donor-advised’ giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors.”
Shocking. Except who, exactly, is the “U.S. Center for Consumer Protection”? Is it the same “U.S. Center for Consumer Protection” that was started with seed money from the good folks of the Philip Morris Tobacco Co.? Yes…I think it might just be! Is it the same “U.S. Center for Consumer Protection” that companies like PepsiCo and Kraft refuse to associate with because “they do not agree with some of its arguments or its approach.” Could be. Is it the same “U.S. Center for Consumer Protection” that has difficulty with basic math? All signs point to…yes!
This is the group Vivian Krause finds authoritative, reputable and objective. And that is exactly what CitycCaucus thinks of Vivian Krause.
I could talk about all of this. But it kind of seems futile.