Don't forget about patents and trademarks. There are lots of Plada bags and Lorex watches out there (trademark violations). Sorry if anyone finds the street slang offensive, it's so very descriptive and concise. As for patents, the Chinese patent system is still in its formative years. Very hard to prosecute, but improving as Chinese R&D takes off.

There are also people who want to grant "human" rights to animals because they view animals as peers.

Kill a zygot, rescue a cat. Whatever.

"Tits out for the boys" is a pretty common chant at lots of events. The girls chant "Dicks out for the chicks".

Obviously, there is a time and place for this. Prudes not invited.

I guess the issue is that there isn't an expectation of bawdiness at that particular place in giants stadium.

As has been pointed out, the investment itself doesn't enrich the company although it might drive the stock price up and enrich the insiders. Good or bad? Dunno. I've seen visionary insiders get rich and cash out before (ex. Craig Venter). The smart ones cash out because it ensures their financial future. After cashing out they usually move off within a year or two.

As was also pointed out, shareholder leverage can help keep the company on a green path. It does require a touch of shareholder activism though. In this case, the investment isn't a vote of approval, it is more of a stewardship commitment.

To me, the greenest fund would be one that is dedicated green reform by acquiring a decent percentage of a non green company. A large enough fund has a chance of getting green directors elected and green ballot resolutions approved. If, as the story claims, being green increases profitability then it is more profitable to reform a polluter than to keep a green company on track.

Blunt and weak tools? I agree with the blunt part of that. The tools are weak only to the extent that the shareholders disenfranchise themselves. Kinda like a democracy. Also like a democracy, current management will try to stack the board with lackeys. There's always that sort of tension as management tries to accrue power and wealth at the expense of those that own the company.

Other than that, yes, green interests have to contend with the interests of the other shareholders. Such is the rough and tumble. It helps to be bigger.

So the issue is being big enough to be heard and to then present a credible case that it pays to be green. The hard part is "credible". Emotional or faith based arguments don't work when the other side is using t charts, spread sheets, and projections. Hmmm, projections. That's where people hide the stuff they pull out of their butts. Gotta sell the projections.

Parson Jim, try reading the link you post. It's almost as dumb as using the word "Irregardless". Here is the definition you linked to:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Ummm, Tom, I'm also "of the right". People on both sides of the aisle just make things up and yell. For example, your assertion that it is "an acceptable form of debate over there". By the "us" in "not for us" you do mean salonistas and not left wingers, don't you?

Do you remember Salon before the bush regime? It wasn't too gentle with Clinton. I doubt Salon will transform from journalism into cheer leading if the dems get control of the white house. It might even look right wing. After all, we'll still have corruption and civil rights abuses. Hopefully, empowered dems won't be as despicable as our current administration.

We'll see.

I'm glad to see that the argument regarding Hilary is moving away from gender and into qualifications. Feminists have told me that they would vote for a woman candidate just to back a sister up. Over the past months, I've seen that position thaw.

As for parson jim's args. We already have garbage women and women in combat. We don't have female infantry (yet). Women have been pushing themselves toward the front lines for over a generation. Ever meet a woman fighter pilot? I have.

Then there's zandru, sigh, spouting:

In short, the right wing noise machine is doing everything it can think of to dissuade its manly men base that nobody should vote for Senator Clinton, because she's a woman.

BS. As a conservative, I receive the mailings, voice mails, canvassing, and other crap from the right wing noise machine. Hillary has so much baggage that her gender isn't really an issue. Hint: the right wing manly man base thinks Hillary has more drive, determination, and strength than any liberal male. If she were further right on just a few issues, she'd be a fantastic republican candidate.

A gorgeous girl was thinking about getting a boob job and her gay friend said "That's so 1997!"

Funny. I also recall many "discussions" between my parents on that very subject. Dad told mom how to vote and admonished her against canceling out his vote. With a twinkle in her eye, she said "Yes, Dear". He then fumingly STFU.

I'd also love to vote for a qualified woman. Hell, if it's a choice between rudy and hillary, then hillary gets my right wing conservative male vote.

Best wishes for you and your mom.