I think they are both right (or both wrong). Or maybe they are not talking about the same thing.
I think O'Neill believes Monsanto to be a far worse company than pg (or I, for that matter) do. It's an agrochemical company that does engage in strong-arm legal tactics, but at the same time, it's not on the level of IBM working with the Germans in the 1930's. O'Neill does have a point in that in a free society, consumers have a right to choose which products to purchase and which companies to support, and if they want to politicize that decision it is entirely their right to do so. pg would likely agree with statement. So the only real disagreement between the two would probably come down to how "bad" a company Monsanto is, in their view. pg obviously views it in a far more benign light than O'Neill does.
the "99%" talk is irrelevant. The 99'ers focus seems to be (or should be) on the parasitic nature of Wall Street and their close relationship to the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve, and not on corporate ethics in general.
I'm not sure it is irrelevant (in so far as one buys into the logic connecting Wall Street to Treasury).
If Goldman Sacs can be described as a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity", for the way they are intertwined and tangled up with the regulatory frameworks in the US financial system, surely the same holds true for the way that Monsanto and Cargill have such monumental sway over the Department of Agriculture and the way that farmers do business.
That said, i agree with PG that the original post was content-free. I'd actually go further and say that even within gigantic evil corporations, good can be done. That's not to say that it will offset the awful things that Monsanto does, but i don't know that the Cloudant guys are (necessarily) being assimilated into the Borg. On the other hand, there is clearly a gap between the author's ethical judgements and PGs. So if he doesn't trust PG or the Cloudant guys, i can see why he'd be pissed.
I think O'Neill believes Monsanto to be a far worse company than pg (or I, for that matter) do. It's an agrochemical company that does engage in strong-arm legal tactics, but at the same time, it's not on the level of IBM working with the Germans in the 1930's. O'Neill does have a point in that in a free society, consumers have a right to choose which products to purchase and which companies to support, and if they want to politicize that decision it is entirely their right to do so. pg would likely agree with statement. So the only real disagreement between the two would probably come down to how "bad" a company Monsanto is, in their view. pg obviously views it in a far more benign light than O'Neill does.
the "99%" talk is irrelevant. The 99'ers focus seems to be (or should be) on the parasitic nature of Wall Street and their close relationship to the Treasury Dept. and the Federal Reserve, and not on corporate ethics in general.