Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

55938Re: Green Jahaad

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Jun 9, 2011
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@...> wrote:
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Bill,
      > >
      > > If you are referring to "Green Jihad" in Forbes by Joel Kotkin, I found it to be preaching to the deregulation choir. I agree with Zizek and others who think a genuine environmental agenda won't succeed without dismantling global corporatism. As your example of the Cairo recyclers who are being squeezed out at the expense of real sanitation shows, "The man's too big, the man's too strong."
      > >
      > > Mary
      > > Mary, Yes that is the article and deregulation would make sense as a financial pages position. I think we are lucky to have the two sides mentioned working to dilute the effects of a tyrrany by either position. <

      So very many things are wrong with that article. Primary is what we call its sensible position--deregulation is always the business friendly position. When business places profit above the environment and worker rights, it isn't sensible at all; it is `green' and `terrorist'--to further spin language like the author. Green with its greed and naive attitude towards the environment, and terrorist in its power to threaten and suddenly move jobs, thereby traumatizing families and stressing social services. Pitting the profits of a few against the survival of the many has no philosophical foundation. But that financial magazine is meant to reinforce that particular business dogma and spread its good news to new and small businesses-- many who are women and/or minority--creating the recent phenomena of such who now spout conservative, tea bagging, and bootstrapping rhetoric. This is as oxymoronic as `green jihad'. This is postmodern.

      > The Cairo garbage matter leaves me with few positive thoughts. The multinationals are paying bribes to do the sanitation and recycle only 20% while the traditional garbage people claim 80% recycling. It is difficult to see either side as having great positive results. The garbage people are so absymal that I could not sanction that level of existance. The multi nationals just want a bottom line and could care less for the indegenous people. <

      I agree, because what makes actual sense is to hire Zabellen at living wages and continue recycling. I recently learned about the thwarted attempt of the WTO to implement MAI (the Multilateral Agreement on Investment). According to Zizek, and reinforced by other sources, this plan would have enabled foreign investors "to undermine national sovereignty by assigning to these corporations powers almost equal to the countries in which they are located." Activists revealed this, causing first France and then others, to refuse participation. But as we now see, the old tried and true method of bribery is more successful than international accords.

      > I know some think the Arab spring a great boon to the Arab peoples and the west. I think that most simplistic as the entire Islamic world has millenia of change to absorb but little time left on the cateclism clock. Now Zizek may be correct regarding the demise of the multinationals being necessary for enviromental goals to be met but how long can he hold his breath? The antithetical positions must compromise or one side must win. The environmentalists do not have the economic power to win and the multinationals seem a more probable winner. By then we may have burned ourselves off the planet. Who does the sanitation in Cairo is secondary to them breeding themselves into oblivion. Thay are now under marshal law with no viable government. The muslim brotherhood is the only viable party so it seems we are gaining little ground there. As we leave Iraque and Afganistan the nation building will dry up and those ancient peoples and systems slide back not forge ahead. The only solution seems to be the sand will come up to swallow them thats if we do not nuke them first. Bill<

      So much of what you say eerily resembles the rationale for decimating America's aboriginals once used to open borders and promote `free trade', just like NAFTA today. A cataclysm looms because proponents of capitalism/militarism are impatient for `victory'. And it isn't so much a matter of holding one's breath, but of speaking the truth until one's last breath. To compromise that, to adopt the enemy's rhetoric, to rationalize, delude and anesthetize ourselves rather than suffer, disgraces us. It is better to admit we fail and suffer for it, than to lie to ourselves. If I'm going to throw myself under a Juggernaut, it will be that of recognizing my complicity in the system, suffering for it, while remaining useful and even joyful--a most absurd tension--and not compromise by justifying the horror.

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic